Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

+46 13-28 10 00, www.liu.se

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering

Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration, 15 credits | Atlantis Program

Spring 2020 | ISRN-nummer: LIU-IEI-FIL-G--20/02247--SE

Motivations of Middle Managers for Implementing Change in IT

A Comparative Analysis of the United States and

Sweden

Elizabeth Korniat

Thomas Wehner

Supervisor: Aliaksei Kazlou

1

2

Preface

This thesis has been written by Elizabeth Korniat and Thomas Wehner as participants of

the Atlantis Program at Linkoping University, Sweden. It was conducted during the

Spring 2020 semester. The completion of this thesis along with a passing grade will

allow us to earn a bachelor’s in business administration and we would like to thank

those who have helped us.

Our greatest thanks go to Aliaksei Kazlou, our thesis supervisor. Without his knowledge

and help this thesis would never have come to its completion. Thank you for your

dedication and knowledge to guide us throughout the process.

Special thanks to Gunilla Andersson (Linkoping University), Courtney Recht

(INSEEC), Donna Wiencek (Western Illinois University), and Danny Mittleman

(DePaul University) for being so cooperative and allowing us to partake in such an

extraordinary program. Without the support and help of you four, none of this would

have come to fruition.

To our fellow Atlantis students, a huge thank you for the loyal support and productive

comments/critiques to further our thesis.

Thanks to our interviewees for taking time out of their day to aid in our research as well

as their participation to help us gather information from them.

And lastly, a special thanks to the few people who proofread our thesis to make it

understandable and grammatically correct.

3

4

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to examine the motivating factors of IT middle managers

who work on implementing change in their organizations. The study will be based on a

framework of knowledge to assess a comparative analysis of motivation.

Previous research mostly focuses on motivating employees through a manager’s choice

of theories; there is little research done from a middle management focus especially on

the motivation within the IT industry, motivation in relation to levels of management,

and how countries may compare to each other with motivation. While it may be evident

that motivations will differ, it will be difficult to prove that motivators are affected by

their institutional frameworks.

Conducted interviews will aid in understanding and analysing how these individuals

motivate themselves either intrinsically or extrinsically and come to discuss how several

factors led to such results. The study gap in this area may help in understanding IT

middle managers willingness to continue working on change projects as well as create

conclusions that top management may find useful in motivating those left to carry out

their goals.

Keywords: Motivation, Change Management, Institutional Framework, Middle

Manager

5

6

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Research Question & Purpose ......................................................................................... 5

1.4 Scope of Research .............................................................................................................. 6

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Middle Management & Motivation ................................................................................. 7

2.1.1 Herzberg Two Factor Theory ................................................................................. 11

2.1.2 McClelland’s Need Theory ...................................................................................... 14

2.2 Change Management ...................................................................................................... 15

2.3 Institutional Framework................................................................................................. 17

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 24

3.1 Research Philosophy ....................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Research Approach ......................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Research Strategy ............................................................................................................ 25

3.4 Research Method ............................................................................................................. 26

3.5 Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 26

3.6 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 27

3.7 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 28

3.8 Research Validity & Reliability ..................................................................................... 28

3.9 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................... 29

3.10 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 30

4 EMPIRICAL DATA .............................................................................................................. 31

4.1 Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.1 Sweden 1 .................................................................................................................... 32

4.1.2 Sweden 2 .................................................................................................................... 33

4.1.3 Sweden 3 .................................................................................................................... 34

4.1.4 Sweden 4 .................................................................................................................... 35

4.1.5 United States 1 .......................................................................................................... 36

4.1.6 United States 2 .......................................................................................................... 37

4.1.7 United States 3 .......................................................................................................... 38

4.1.8 United States 4 .......................................................................................................... 39

5 ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 41

6 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 52

7

7 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 57

7.1 FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 58

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX 1: Introduction & Interview Guide .................................................................... 67

APPENDIX 2: Interview Information ..................................................................................... 71

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Middle managers are frequently talked about and how important they are to companies

however there is little research on how middle managers create value (Duncan, 2019),

especially within the change process. Middle managers are the employees in charge of

implementing strategies and plans and also for meeting organizational objectives

(Duncan, 2019). These underappreciated employees are the vital in which they bridge

communication both top-down and bottom-up (Duncan, 2019). Since the middle

managers are often the scapegoat for organizations when change implementation goes

wrong it makes sense that these same employees have feelings of vulnerability and

insecurity, seeking to protect their role (Kempster, 2017). However, these middle

managers play an important role in helping with change success by lowering employee

resistance (Buick, 2018). The middle managers are often left translating what the

organizational strategies from top management are down to their lower level managers

(Buick, 2018). Additionally, the middle managers are responsible for change

implementation (Buick, 2018). They are also the employees who make sense of what

top management is striving to change and implement (Kempster, 2017). Furthermore,

the middle managers are key to strategic thinking to help implement change (Buick,

2019). Which means if a middle manager does not have the same end goal congruence

in mind as the top management then the end product is not what satisfies top

management (Kempster, 2017).

Middle management is commonly thought to stifle innovation while the truth is contrary

and the middle management alleviate managerial pressure and allow for a more

successful change implementation especially for innovative projects (Grimpe, 2019).

Middle managers are vital in allocating attention to change innovation to the lower level

managers (Grimpe, 2019). One role of middle managers is to provide information of

current operations to best show top managers how resources need to be allocated

(Grimpe, 2019). Another role is that Middle managers are challenged with the task to

figure out the way and the means of meeting the desired results within the limited

timeframe (Anand, 1996). Middle Managers play a role in strategy building and strategy

implementation (Hope, 2010). Furthermore, middle managers actively implement

change initiatives from top management (Hope, 2010).

2

Today a great many companies are facing unstable competitive environments that are

often changing profoundly (Phillips, 1983). Change is an omnipresent phenomenon that

is continuously happening (Kennett-Hensel, 2018; Chrusciel, 2008). Most companies

cannot avoid external changes like the economy, competition and advancements in

technology (Frota Vasconcellos Dias, 2019). Knowing that the world is constantly

changing, companies likewise need to adapt quickly and frequently. With the rate of

change companies are experiencing, it is difficult to imagine that roughly 70 percent of

change projects fail (Burnes B. and Jackson, 2011). However, other sources find it even

worse where only 10 percent of any change projects are successful (Oakland, 2007).

With either of these rates, it goes to show that there is a clear need for a better

understanding of how to manage change in an efficient manner. However, managing

change is known to be very hard (Colombo, 2002) but if an organization can manage

change effectively it can be a competitive edge for businesses by being ahead of the

game (Oakland, 2007).

Elton Mayo conducted research during the years 1924 and 1932 altering the way of

thinking about employees (Ololube, 2016). This research was known as Hawthorne

Studies and one of its conclusions was employees require much more than just money.

The study introduced the human relations approach to a company’s management

(Nickson, 1973). The importance of this study and the introduction of human resources

to management led to further research about employee motivation and successful work.

These concepts continue to apply in the present and have expanded slowly to the focus

about change management. Middle management is left with the task to the

organization’s future and the implementation of successful change management.

Change management has remained relevant and generated academic interest over the

past two decades (Kotter, 1996; Hiatt and Creasy, 2012). Change management should

be considered an essential asset to businesses and organizations.

For a company to keep up with the fast-paced competitive environment, they need to

manage change effectively (Ng, 2015). Organizations need to continuously manage

change as they face new challenges everyday (Grimolizzi-Jensen, 2018). As Human

Resources professionals know, managing change is important to the success of your

organization (Green, 2004). Leaders need to build a new change management team that

is highly participative from other employees that are called team-driven approaches

3

(Yonardy, 2014). In the competitive environment organizations have a strong need to

change (Singh, 2011). Paired with organizational change, studies began to provide

abundant analysis of successful change management and motivators for lower level

employees. The research focus has mainly proved motivating factors to aid in the

implementation of change within organizations at lower levels; factors such as monetary

incentives based on countless blends of performance measurements, career growth

potential, and employee empowerment/team building, are among the few examined for

their benefits and drawbacks. However, there lacks academic research for the

motivating factors at the middle managerial level.

Culture within every organization is different and diverse (Patnaik, 2019) and hard to

change, but it is also a huge factor for why many employees leave a company

(Tinypulse, 2019). With a study conducted by TINYpulse they found that 43% of

employees would leave their current company for a 10% raise at a different company

(TINYpulse, 2019). TINYpulse shows us that plenty of employees wouldn’t leave just

for the 10% raise because they want more money, but rather because the work culture is

poor. These interviewed employees were looking for a place that had better benefits and

incentives to work there, not just the salary. This is especially true for United States

employees who have seen a cultural shift to wanting a better work culture, looking for

benefits like: work from home, more flexible schedules and casual days (TINYpulse,

2019). Within organizations there are several types of cultures that could exist, and

some are the following: Individualistic/collectivistic, the work hard/play hard, power

culture, task culture, etc (Patnaik, 2011). Another cultural idea is institutional diversity,

which allows for institutions to address several purposes with a limited need for debate

or restrictions (Benefits of Institutional Diversity, 2013).

Motivation is critical when looking for success in any portion of an organization,

especially any planned projects. Many studies lead to the conclusion that motives are

the whys of behavior-the needs or wants that drive behavior and explain what we do

(Nevid, 2013).The need for motivation stems from the need for survival and motivated

employees help organizations survive (Smith GP, 1994). The importance of motivation

is that it focuses on increasing efficiency, building relationships, incorporating human

resources, and leading to stability. Several theories of motivation are suggested to study

what drives a person, but they all have a similar tone to them suggesting that certain

4

actions must be taken. Our motivation on the chosen subject is to dive into an

overlooked area of business and specifically middle management in IT. It is evident that

research focuses more on why an organization would be motivated for change and how

to implement it. However, there is a lack of focus on middle managers, the ones who are

left responsible for ensuring the transitions and changes set by top management.

Therefore, it has become an interest to find what motivates managers tasked with

successful change management in an organization, especially within IT which

implements the backbone of countless technological aspects of life.

1.2 Problem Statement

Middle Managers are crucial to the success and failure of technological changes within

organizations (Taylor, 2009). Middle managers are the backbone of companies (Yi,

2017). There are several factors for middle management that are necessary for

organizational change. An important factor is empowerment because it is shown that

middle manager disempowerment can lead to change failure (Raelin, 2011). Middle

Management's main responsibility is to oversee and coordinate the activities of the

employees below them (Yi, 2017). Middle managers have both downward and upward

influence essentially making them a bridge for communication about goals and

strategies (Ukil, 2017). Middle managers heavily influence the decision for change both

to their upper and lower level managers (Ukil, 2017). However, middle managers are

still under the discretion of top managers, so the middle managers are receivers of

information (Ukil, 2017).

Change management’s importance has been noticed over the past two decades and

increasingly more in the Information Technology (IT) industry. As the industry can be

considered the backbone through rapid implementation of new business solutions- new

elements, techniques and solutions (Olding, 2018), and providing the necessary

technological changes for organizations to have competitive advantage and necessities

to stay running, it is important to know how managers in such a fundamental industry

remain motivated to handle changes. A plethora of research provides insight into the

different steps to transforming organizations and types of change, challenges that may

be present, how to create meaningful change and managing it, among factors that

motivate employees. There is a greater focus on other levels in an organizational

hierarchy and even more focus on other managerial levels, most likely because of the

negative image created during the 1980s which continued into the view middle

5

managers were resistant to change (Wait-Kwong et al., 2001). This resulted in limited

information about the management side of organizational change management in the

industry. Middle managers are required to be flexible and adaptable to meet the

constantly changing environment (McKenna, 1999) yet adequate coverage has not been

given to the role middle managers play in organizational change (Huy, 2002; McKinley

and Scherer, 2000). Their roles often involve providing support to and facilitating

communication between senior management and employees (Peters, 1988). This lack of

understanding of middle management factors to implement change may lead to

problems for organizations since it is simpler to motivate employees, but the same may

not be completely applicable to the managers with larger responsibilities. Bringing

about such organizational change by devising different kinds of strategies and patterns

of operation creates a much greater managerial challenge than simply continuing to

perform well within established strategies and operations, and it is a challenge for which

few senior managers have much relevant experience (Phillips 1983). It is possible that

blame may be placed on middle management when projects fail or the expected success

is not present, but there is less known about what drives these managers to fulfil their

responsibility when it is at a greater level and contains many more factors to consider

than the average employee working on a project. In summary, there is a need for further

understanding on motivators for managerial level employees from the lowest level

managers to the middle level managers.

With all we find that this is what our research problem is:

The motivating factors for middle managers to enforce change are not well discussed.

This knowledge is important because change is inevitable for companies, even more so

for IT companies, and since middle managers play a vital role in the success or failure

of change implementation it is important to understand the motivation for them.

1.3 Research Question & Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to determine motivating factors for IT middle management

who are responsible for implementing changes in their organizations. The focus will be

on defining middle management, briefly summarizing change management to deepen an

understanding of the managers’ experiences and discussing motivation theories helpful

in looking at the topic from a micro level. This analysis of the micro level will then lead

into a macro level approach through a discussion of the institutional contexts and

6

culture dimensions present in both the United States and Sweden. Throughout there will

be acknowledgement of limitations as well as implications to clearly link the fields of

interest since they do cover a larger amount of knowledge.

The research will hopefully result in a list of motivating factors per each manager, as

well as a general statement for middle managers as well as a statement about each

country. These results should have the foundation for future research not only

applicable to the chosen industry but to further understanding of what makes a manager

successful in change management.

The study aims to answer the following research questions:

1. What motives does middle management have when handling organizational

change management in the IT industry?

2. How do the motivating factors of middle management differ across institutional

and cultural contexts of USA and Sweden?

1.4 Scope of Research

As the study’s aim is to examine middle management in the IT industry with regards to

change management, the study is carried out through observing descriptive data existing

within these subject areas as well as interviews with managers in organizations with

experience from working in change management projects. Given that the IT industry

constantly goes through technological changes we decided that our study would best be

suited for a field that encounters constant and consistent change. Since the IT industry is

indispensable, manages technological advancements, and nearly every work

environment is dependent on this industry to keep it running, the focus on the IT

industry was a crucial area to study middle managers who are most often met with

managing change. The organizations are based within the IT industry and are located

both in Sweden and the US where they will later be compared based on their

institutional context. These differences will allow the examination of motivators relative

to the context middle management is experiencing. This makes the case relevant, as

middle management within the IT industry in two different market economies may

likely produce different results from one another.

7

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The framework will revolve around three concepts: Motivation, Management, and

Institutional Framework. The framework will be split into a micro level that focuses on

the individual person then followed by a macro level of the institutional influences on

such individuals. The first section will look at middle managers and their motivation.

Secondly there will be a focus on change management, and finally, institutional

framework with the inclusion of cultural dimension.

2.1 Middle Management & Motivation

According to Schlesinger (2006), a leader must consider mission and strategy, the

organizational structure, and human resource management (Ehrenberg, 1994). Leaders

within organizations can be assigned the title of managers on different levels and

responsibilities. Managerial levels come from a hierarchical view and consist of three

main levels. The emphasis lies on middle management and its importance but will

follow short definitions for the other levels to distinguish how middle management was

considered in the study.

Middle management consists of individuals accountable to top management for their

function. These managers devote time to functions focused on organization and

direction. In small organizations, there is only one layer of this type of management but

in bigger corporations, there may be different sublayers.

Middle Manager (MM) researchers have emphasized the crucial role of MMs in both

strategy formulation and implementation (Wooldridge, 2008). Despite some emphasis

on their crucial role, MMs still struggle to gain importance because of the negative

connotation left from the 1980s and 1990s. Middle level managers often feel like their

efforts are neglected and that they are at the organization to take the blame for all the

failures, both from top managers and lower workers (Anand, 1996).

The lack of middle management support could be lethal to change within an

organization, but there are several understood factors that point to why the middle

management would lack support.

Lack of trust; Lack of communication, little to no transparency; Little employee

empowerment, voice and opinion is unheard; Lastly, a lack of motivation

(Anand, 1996).

8

Understanding how the middle managers feel and what factors cause a lack of support

can help in preventing failure. Therefore, middle managers play one of the most

important roles when faced with the task of change management. This is because middle

management teams (MMTs) are more likely to understand the causal ambiguities of

specific problems (King, 2001) and the firm’s internal competences (King, 2001), they

have a strong influence on how effectively the resources allocated to innovation are

used. These managers also have the responsibility of delegating direction and

interpreting the broad objectives laid out by higher management, which is a challenging

task.

Figure 1. Motivation and Job Satisfaction. (Lather, 2005)

The figure above is a visual representation of what middle level managers motivational

needs are. Lather shows us in the table above that middle level managers are looking for

three main things as motivation: need for self-control, need for monetary gains, and

need for nonfinancial gains. Two of those needs have the highest coefficients with need

for self-control and need for nonfinancial gains being the two highest factors standing at

9

.333 and .32 respectively, while also maintaining a very high level of significance

(<.01). These two are important because they are more intrinsically focused motivations

which already aligns with our thought that middle managers will be more intrinsically

motivated. Based on the table, in the figure middle managers also have a fourth

motivational need which is the need for social affiliation and conformity. This gives

insight to the areas in which middle managers look to for reasons of motivation and

desire to implement change, which is intrinsic given that three of the four mentioned

motivators are intrinsic motivators. Clearly there is a lot that middle managers are

looking for so motivating them should be easier than other levels of employees

especially since it seems that a major part of motivation comes from intrinsic

motivators.

Top Management

Typical positions of chief executives, presidents, and board of directors are among those

in the top level. Roles performed by these managers may include creating objectives and

policies for the company, responsibility of shareholders concerning performance, and

mobilizing outside resources.

Low Management

Positions include a focus on control and direction, appearing to be team leaders,

assistants, and section leaders. Their roles may include assigning tasks, guiding in

everyday tasks, and preparing reports of performance.

10

Figure 2. Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction for Supervisors (Lal, 1981)

This figure shows us what higher level employees are motivated - satisfied - by and

dissatisfied by. The figure also shows us that the supervisors (managers) are more

motivated by personal things like responsibility, achievement, independence and

recognition as well being motivated by the work itself out of pure joy for their position.

While the more dissatisfactory areas were salary, promotion, and status. To help

understand this graph it is important to look at the mean of both satisfied and

dissatisfied factors and compare whether the dissatisfied mean is closer to the satisfied

mean. When the satisfied mean is further away from the dissatisfied mean it portrays

that that specific factor is more satisfied, and when the dissatisfied mean is closer to the

satisfied mean then it is more dissatisfactory. A lot of the factors found in this figure are

used in our interviews with our middle manager participants.

The elusive nature of job satisfaction advanced the development of several different

theories. Different types of motivation theories have been developed over the decades,

deviating in what is the focus of motivation. However, it is important to note that there

are no specific theories of motivation for managers or leaders. Many theories were

discussed and considered to determine which may lead to quantifiable data in their

11

results and which will be the most beneficial to follow. For this thesis in the domain of

IT, the best motivation theory was chosen to be Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory with a

further deepening of the Learned Needs Theory (McClelland, 1985). The reason for this

is Herzberg factors can be ranked and compared to lead to conclusion on context effects

and findings from a neuroscientific study specifically on McClelland’s need theory

support and enhance key assumptions of the need theory (Bergner, Rybnicek,

Gutschelhofer, 2017). Let’s dig deeper into those two theories below.

2.1.1 Herzberg Two Factor Theory

The Two Factor Theory was proposed by Herzberg in 1959; it is also known as the

Motivator-Hygiene theory. The premise of the theory was that certain attributes

(motivators) would lead to job satisfaction and an absence of other factors (hygiene)

would lead to job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959). The

results of this study were from a sample of mostly engineers and accountants with some

other professionals. The findings suggest factors leading to job satisfaction are separate

and distinct from those factors leading to job dissatisfaction. These two sources provide

insight of goals and incentives which satisfy known needs. Herzberg notes that a

shortage of motivating factors will cause employees to focus on hygiene factors; there is

also attention to job design making managers aware of problems with motivation (Ball,

2003).

Hygiene Growth

Supervision: Fair and appropriate Recognition: Formal acknowledgement of

accomplishments

Interpersonal Relations: Relationship or

association without conflict between

individuals working in the same organization.

Common goals and respect of each other’s

views must be present for a healthy

relationship

Achievement: Successful accomplishment

through skill or effort

Pay/Salary: Appropriate and reasonable but

equal to others in the same positions in the

industry

Growth: Advancement opportunity of new

skills which can happen through formal

training or on the job

Company Policies: Guideline to foster fair

treatment, ensure regulations are being

Responsibility: Ownership of work

12

followed, there are clear focuses, and

employee wellness such as schedule/work

flexibility and vacation

Job Security: Should be provided by

organization; high confidence in future

employment and unlikeliness of dismissal

Advancement: Promotion opportunity

Status: Position within the organization Work Itself: Meaningful and challenging

tasks

Table 1. Herzberg Hygiene and Growth Factors (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman,

1959)

Hygiene

These job factors are essential for motivation to exist in the work environment. If these

are absent, they will lead to dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors are also considered extrinsic

to work and are required to avoid dissatisfaction.

As any level of employee, the supervision and interpersonal relations are important

because of the common phrase “People leave managers, not companies”. Middle

managers especially have a greater load of tasks to manage which makes their relations

to their supervisors also valued to continue with greater clarity and direction to motivate

them. Company policies may also add to the motivation of some individuals, especially

managers, since the control levels and company motivations need to align to the

manager.

Growth factors

Motivators here are more related to what happens at work rather than the extent of

work. Growth factors are considered intrinsic and revolve around the individual. The

motivator factors “advancement” and “growth” translate into the central dynamic of

new learning leading to unique expertise.

MM can work with teams on ‘higher levels’ meaning goal setting, clear direction and

desired outcomes, and allowing slight independence to complete work. While these

actions may seem more cantered around how to implement motivators, it can be

considered the motivators for MM as well. All the growth factors above, although

13

perceived entities, in some combination will motivate MM to continue working on

change projects.

Limitations

As with any of the motivation theories, it is important to note a few limitations.

First, the basis of the theory originates from a sample of certain professionals who may

strive for responsibility and challenging work; it ignored blue-collar workers. However,

it may be beneficial for IT which strives for exactly these objectives.

Secondly, Herzberg's theory states that although satisfied, hygiene factors tend to

eliminate dissatisfaction for the individuals. Instead, they do little to motivate

individuals to increase capacities.

Thirdly, the theory’s reliability is under question. Employees may consider their work

acceptable without satisfaction or enjoyment. It also may blame dissatisfaction on

external factors while also giving credit for internal satisfaction.

Implications

The implementation of Two-Factor theory has been found less practical for today’s

employees since most findings vary across countries and industries with the extrinsic

factors impacting satisfaction (Tan, 2013). Although it may be less practical as taken by

the book, a broader scope of usage through both types of factors will allow for

managers to consider motivations and allow for challenges to be overcome when

implementing new change. Herzberg’s theory can be helpful to managers in deciding

the development of a motivated workforce (Pardee, 1990) and how it applies to

motivate themselves. Improving performance, managers work on motivators and change

the nature of work to be more intrinsically rewarding (Tosi, 1986). Additionally, the

work should be both rewarding and stimulating so employees will feel more motivated

to provide their best work for their organization. The basics of the theory are easily

understood, having the ability to be applied to all organizations. Furthermore, it appears

to support the position and influence of management (Frederick Herzberg, 2003). The

main way that this theory supports the influence of management is by the employee/job-

enrichment as a method of employee motivation.

14

2.1.2 McClelland’s Need Theory

To further the ideas of Herzberg, McClelland’s content theory of motivation focuses on

a trichotomy of needs including achievement, power, and affiliation as the influences on

behaviour. The theory first became popular in the 60s most likely because of his

pioneering work with achievement levels in several cultures; he also found this

behaviour could be learned after receiving training (McClelland, 1969). It has been said

to be more useful for managerial contexts. And supported by studies such as Anderson’s

(1994) where 222 interviewed Swedish managers show managers usually have a

motivation profile.

Need for

Achievement

(nAch)

Individuals with strong needs here will like situations to take

personal responsibility for problem solving since it provides

potential for personal satisfaction if the problem proves

successfully solved. Tend to take some risks; the lack of challenges

may be boring while risky approaches reduce probability of goal

achievement and satisfaction. Additionally, there is also a want for

feedback about their work in order to self-evaluate thus increasing

their potential to perform better.

Need for Power

(nPow)

Individuals concentrate on obtaining and exercising authority. One

will be concerned about influence on others. If the use of power

reflects inspirational behaviour, it will have positive effects.

Factors determining performance are strength of one need relative

to others, possibility of success in tasks, and value of incentives.

Need for

Affiliation

(nAff)

Effective in teams but generally not great leaders. The focus is on

a supportive environment. Reflects a desire to interact socially with

others; concerned about quality of interpersonal relationships

Table 2. McClelland’s Three Needs (McClelland, 1962)

McClelland and Herzberg have some similarities in that people with high achievement

motivation take higher interest in motivators while low achievement motivation

concerns themselves with the environment (Hersey and Blanchard, 1982). Studies like

Harrell’s (1981) have shown the dominant motivation for those of higher formal

education or those with high skill jobs is nAch; nPow is dominant for management

executives. Some studies have dealt with the term motivation profile, motivation

pattern, or leadership motive pattern as employed by McClelland and Burnham (1976)

and Boyatzis (1982). These studies dealt with effects of such profiles on manager

behavior; an instrument designed to measure work motivation in managerial settings has

15

been discussed using the three McClelland factors. The results of such studies show

there are differences found in managers’ motivation profiles across organizations based

on: (a) organizational differences leading to leadership differences, (b) choice of

profession, and (c) differing criteria for promoting people (Anderson, 2010).

Limitations

Managers may have difficulty understanding the needs of their employees since some of

them may not know their own needs or what they align to the most.

No direct relationship between needs and behaviour means needs may result in different

individual behaviour and vice versa. Managers should be more objective and not simply

look at fairness since decisions are situational. Public sector makes little use of the

theory since employees in this sector are motivated more by job security, teamwork,

service to society, while eschewing monetary rewards, prestige and the desire for

challenge (Jurkiewicz, Massey & Brown, 1998).

Implications

Effective managers must know how to satisfy the needs of employees to motivate them

to perform (Ferguson, 1987). Managers with a high nAff do not make good managers

because their preference to be accepted may hamper objectivity. McClelland and his

associates’ work offer strong support that effective leaders possess a strong need for

Power. Therefore, the most efficient and successful managers are typically those in

possession of power needs and are typically more determined for organizational goals

and needs. This could lead to the assumption that middle managers would be motivated

by dominance which is more extrinsic considering status falls into this category.

However, when looking at the dominant nAch, MMs would be considered more

intrinsically motivated since the achievement motivation is intrinsic; other factors such

as growth and recognition could relate well to achievement which would also support

the assumption that intrinsic motivation leads.

2.2 Change Management

Many scholars and authors agree that organizational change is a central and important

topic for organizations. According to Kotter, change requires creating a new system,

which in turn always demands leadership (Kotter, 2007). Change can also be

categorized in two ways: radical/step change or incremental/continuous change. Radical

16

means potentially quick gains and disrupts performance during change; incremental

means slow and less disruptive change but may cause tunnel vision (Bourne, 2016).

From the late 1800s to the present, a dramatic turn has taken place in the approaches to

organization and work. Such dramatic turns may include the concept of incorporating

changes into daily or quarterly goals for further improvement of the company. To

increase change management capacity, it is important to rely on individual middle

managers to be engaged change agents (Buick, 2018). Change agents are employees

who actively and willingly try to implement effectives change. Belasco (1990) speaks of

the change agent as having not only the individual inertia to get things done, but also the

sense of urgency to become involved because of one’s personal interests to take on the

challenges suggested by change (Chrusciel, 2008). Change management, as a subset of

OD, has been defined as “the process of continually renewing an organization's

direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and

internal customers' ' (Moran, 2000).

Implications

Due to the importance of organizational change, its management is becoming a highly

required managerial skill (Senior, 2002). Therefore, understanding management within

organizational change also is something that is important for organizations. Having the

basic understanding of the figure above is just the foundation for successful

organizational change. This alone will not equivocate to successful change, but it is a

steppingstone for it. Thus, when looking at other theories for successful change

management it is beneficial to have this figure in the back of one's head. Since this is

simply a steppingstone it is important to know that this isn't how to implement it, but a

guideline for the basic strategy to implement change successfully.

17

2.3 Institutional Framework

Institutional framework determines necessary processes needed for relevant decisions

and approvals from the correct authorities. The framework typically shapes

socioeconomic activity and behaviour through regulations, laws, and procedures. The

efficiency and reliability of local institutions varies considerably and depends on a

variety of factors, including the maturity of the jurisdiction, the quality and resourcing

of relevant departments and so on. Poorly functioning, under-resourced or politically

driven institutional structures have been known to create significant problems for

projects. Furthermore, there may be a lack of clarity in terms of responsibility between

different government departments and coordination may be seriously lacking. It is often

found that countries with limited experience in certain sectors often lack suitable

institutional structures to manage the local development of the industry (Clews, 2016).

Market Economy: Type of Capitalism

Among the large OECD nations, six can be classified as liberal market economies (the

USA, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland) and another ten as coordinated

market economies (Germany, Japan, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden,

Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Austria) leaving six in more ambiguous positions

(France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Turkey) (Hall, 2001). To summarize

according to the study, the US is a liberal market economy (LME) and Sweden is a

coordinated market economy (CME). The fundamental dimension creating differences

between the two is coordination; LMEs are based on market mechanisms while CMEs

are achieved through non-market means.

Although liberal market economies (LMEs) may be characterized by short-term and

adversarial relations, they also possess a high capacity for innovation (Oxford). This

statement is also supported by Hall and Soskice (2001) where they state the institutional

framework of LMEs provides companies with better capacities to specialize in radical

innovation compared to a CME which provides superior capacities for incremental

innovation. Liberal market-based economies (e.g. US) specialize in activities where fast

adaptation and good industry-university links matter: science, technology, and

mathematics fields; they also have a higher production and diffusion of Information and

Communication Technologies (ICT). Meanwhile, social-democratic countries (e.g.

Sweden) have a comparative advantage in health-related activities as well as industries

18

linked to natural resources and are highly specific to patterns of diffusion (Amable,

2003). CMEs should be better at supporting the incremental innovation because of the

emphasis put on relational requirements to company endeavours. The two different

economies will cause firms to develop strategies to take advantage of institutional

support in their available economy. The prominence of the practice of licensing helps to

explain the presence of venture-capital firms in liberal market economies: one success at

standard-setting can pay for many failed investments (Borrus, 1997). Therefore, it can

be said that the IT industry is more accepted in the liberal capitalism model as it leads

more to quick adapting changes and innovation.

The differences in institutional framework of political economies is also important and

affects how markets and companies’ function. Firms in a typical LME respond

differently to shock than those in a typical CME; institutional arrangements tend to push

firms towards certain corporate strategies especially with their assets. CMEs provide

more support for interactions requiring realization of value of co-specific assets (assets

that cannot be turned to another purpose and dependent on active cooperation of others).

The more fluid LMEs tend to provide those involved economically with greater

opportunities to move resources and encourage the acquisition of switchable assets such

as multi-purpose technologies. Furthering these ideas, the US is also characterized by

lower product-markets regulation meaning greater sensitivity to competition. The

market economy relationships with their governments are important to consider; LMEs

are likely to pressure governments for deregulation and governments of CMEs to be less

sympathetic to the same idea in fear of threatening the nation’s comparative institutional

advantages (Hall, 2001).

Hierarchy of institutions is another important consideration; hierarchy defines how rules

are determined. This idea would place constitutions at the top and work its way down

through other laws and regulations. Following this idea, institutions at the top require

less change but challenge those below to adapt. Institutional hierarchy is mostly

determined by the governing political body. A similar idea is applied to the definition of

hierarchy within firms; typically known as corporate hierarchy, this term refers to the

organization of individuals through the levels of power, status, and job function.

Hierarchy in Sweden is almost non-existent in comparison to the US; the more

prominent one is a flat organization where input from all is welcome (Fritjofsson,

19

2015). In flatter cultures (e.g. Sweden), responsibility is spread more equally thus

meaning feedback does not play as important a role as in hierarchical top-down

managed cultures (Fey, 2005). A Swedish company will have more open conversations.

In the US, you will have a CEO who is expected to present a framework and be the sole

person responsible for forming it.

Developed economies have also brought along a consideration for analysis, specifically

for five possible domains or models of contemporary capitalism. These five domains

include: (a)Product Markets, (b)Wage-Labour Nexus, (c)Financial Systems, (d)Social

Protection, and (e)Education. In order to follow through with this comparison, the LME

United States will also be defined as market-based and the CME Sweden defined as

social-democratic. Data for this analysis is pulled from the OECD (Nicoletti, Scarpetta,

and Bouylaud 2000) and is summarized as follows according to figures found in

Amable’s (2003) work.

United States Sweden

Product-Market is the most

fundamental in separating

capitalism in the area

concerning competition

intensity at the aggregate level

The US is characterized by low

product-market regulations,

sensitive to competition, and

coordination is mostly achieved

through price channels.

Sweden is then

characterized by a middle

ground of values with

slightly more public

involvement in product-

market regulation

compared to the US.

The Wage-Labour Nexus gives context for diversity of labour markets, driven by flexibility,

and contains several dimensions but the chosen three are numbered below

I. Employment Protection

concerns labour-market

flexibility or rigidity; takes into

account fixed-term contracts

and ease of temporary

employment

The US is present in a cluster

showing lower values than

average where tenure seems

significantly low and reflects a

high flexibility.

Sweden presents more

employment protection in

general in a cluster

characterized by the rigid

presence of employment

relationships.

II. Industrial Relation is often

considered crucial in the

relation between LM and

macroeconomic performance.

Some concerns include wage-

Least ‘corporatist’; pluralism

where there are short-term

objectives and strong power

Union membership is

high; neo-corporatism-

type 2 which has long-

20

bargaining coordination,

centralization, and relations

between managers and

employees

term objectives and

strong power

III. Employment Policy looks

at the extent countries commit

to the intervention of LM and

what programmes are favoured

Limited employment policies in

every dimension

Active Employment

policies, includes

handicapped-persons’

programmes

Financial Systems portray

features in comparative

analysis. The aspects of

finance-industry relationship go

beyond opposition of FMB and

BBF.

Financial sectors are

characterized by the importance

of institutional investors, stock

market with high capitalization

relative to GNP, venture-capital

system, and low concentration

of ownership; reliant on

particular type of corporate

governance

Bank-based but banks

have passive role where

bonds and securities

represent majority of

bank assets; GNP ratio is

significantly low; control

of firms is concentrated

Social Protection (Welfare

systems) is characterized by

risk coverage and extent of

which they are covered; results

of long-term conflict and

country-specific

Limited Public-welfare system;

private system; taxes on

property give large share of tax

revenues but taxes on goods and

consumption are low

Well developed-welfare

system; high public social

expenditure relative to

GDP; tax revenue has

equivalent percentage of

GDP

Education is country-specific

because of historical

development; only some

dimensions can differentiate the

system

Lack of standardization caused

by variations i.e. instructional

effectiveness and school

resources leads to the belief

employment decisions are

weakly related to secondary-

level qualification; public

financing share is low

No apprenticeship and

employers responsible for

company- or industry-

specific training; high

level of public

expenditure, delivering

high quality of education

*LM= labour market; FMB=financial-markets-based; BBF=bank-based finance

Table 3. Institutional Comparison. Amable (2003)

Implications

From the analysis of domains and the type of economy, the motivation will differ for

middle managers in each country. The United States MMs experience greater possibility

for radical innovation and specialize more in fields which include the IT industry. This

may lead to increased motivation in the intrinsic aspect since the work, possibility for

21

recognition, achievements, and advancements may be valued more by both the MMs

and their superiors. Hierarchy is more present which may also contrast the intrinsic

motivation and focus on extrinsic supervision or status in a way of competing for a

position in the hierarchy. The previous analysis of domains experienced concludes the

greater sensitivity to competition and achievement through monetary ways; however, it

also shows that the welfare system is subpar, presents limited employment policies and

protection, and has greater education variations. All this may lead to a mix of

motivations the managers experience in their institutions making it increasingly difficult

to pinpoint the motivators prior to individual conversations.

Swedish MMs might experience more incremental innovation and also have a greater

focus on different industries. This may lead to a more extrinsic motivation since the

mindset is on long term objectives through the incremental innovations; managers in

this regard may value their status, relationships, or even company policies because of

their longer-term positions in the company. Swedes do not encounter hierarchy as

much, especially in their organizations, which may also lead them to contract the

extrinsic motivation to focus on responsibility. The domain analysis concluded a greater

employment protection and policies, well developed welfare system, and focus on

employers providing training while also delivering high quality education. These

conclusions may lead to assumptions that MMs in Sweden to be extrinsically motivated

since security and company policy may matter more than the actual work or

advancement opportunities.

Cultural Dimension: National vs. Organizational

National culture generates a unique and personal identity through a collective planning

of values, beliefs and attitudes. Many contributions were made presenting dimensions of

national culture by Trompenaars, GLOBE, Schwartz, Inglehart, and most notably

Hofstede. In most cases, Hofstede’s work can be seen as the author of a practical

cultural model, at least until recent criticisms of an increasing change to multinational

cultures. Hofstede (1980) argued Maslow’s needs theory was not universally applicable

due to the differences in national cultures. This research was then further agreed upon

by other studies such as Blunt and Jones (1992) and Kanungo and Mendonca (1994),

rejecting that Maslow’s hierarchy can be applied universally. Collecting evidence from

the mentioned authors, there can be a focus on power distances/hierarchies in society,

22

indulgence, uncertainty avoidance, egalitarianism, and autonomy. Significant

differences can be observed with national cultures and may lead to MM in those

countries to be more motivated in certain areas because of it.

The Swedish people are honest in their abilities when being interviewed for positions;

the most common phrase may be “I have never done that, but I am eager to learn”. In

the US, however, there is a constant competition and people claiming to have abilities

that they later prove to not possess. The US social system also leads to a fear of being

fired from a lack of job security.

There is another difference in how to treat the business and the timeline of it. Americans

will most likely strike conversation and look for value in their meetings unlike Swedes;

US companies will likely not take business personal to a personal level like they do in

Sweden. The second half of this difference comes in with the power needed for US

companies where competition is fierce, requires a lot of planning, and may be both

exhilarating and scary.

Obtaining a more thorough understanding of the degree to which different factors

motivate people in different countries is especially critical now as it becomes more

common that companies operate in multiple countries (Fey, 2005).

Another perspective of the culture dimension may come from within the company itself

and may be identified as a concept of organizational culture: pattern of values, norms,

beliefs, attitudes and assumptions followed by organizational form (Scott, 2014). Unlike

national cultures, people are conscious of organizational cultures and they learn about

this later in their workplace (Hofstede, 2005). The concept both increased focus and

gained acceptance as a way of understanding human systems. Business leaders typically

believe it leads to success, yet the term seems like a mystery that only a few know how

to control. The question of “does culture drive performance” can be answered with yes;

a study in 2013 told one focus group their work on analysing medical images would be

discarded while the other focus group was told the objects were of high interest. The

latter group spent more time and produced a higher quality of work meaning if worker

motives are reshaped then the result is better performance. Such motives for work

included: work, purpose/identity, potential, emotional pressure, salary, and inertia/work

done just to be done (McGregor and Doshi, 2015). This relates to MM because the

organizational culture may either unite or alienate individuals, and as the role of MM,

23

they can either be motivated simply by the culture at their work or may try to embody it

as a way of creating further purpose and intrinsically motivate. As believed by Sempane

et al. (2002), people are key factors for competitiveness and organizations can

demonstrate highly complex social structures because of cultural strength. Therefore, it

can be said organizational culture will most likely impact the motivation of MM and it

can also be assumed MM will play an important role in any change projects to occur.

Implications

Swedish middle managers are likely to be less extrinsically motivated by monetary

means, especially given Swede focus on adequate rest to better life/ work quality. This

leads to the observation that Swedes are likely to be motivated by higher needs; for

example, Swedes may be more satisfied with a guaranteed salary and easier work

experience rather than monetary incentives (Fey, 2005). Meanwhile, US middle

managers are likely to be motivated by incentives, especially cash/bonuses. The United

States looks towards money and is extrinsically motivated to do good for their

company.

24

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter will refer to the many layers of the research ‘onion’ which consists of

principle philosophy, approaches, strategies and choices of collection techniques, and

analysis procedures.

3.1 Research Philosophy

The research is based on an understanding of middle management’s role in change

management and previous motivating factors either specific to the industry or general

motivation for employees. The aim is therefore to understand what motivates IT middle

managers relative to their location since not all contexts are built equally.

Three epistemologies are present and constitute of: positivism, realism, and

interpretivism. Positivism focuses on a philosophical stance of natural scientists. It is

frequently advocated that the positivist researcher will be likely to use a highly

structured methodology to facilitate replication (Gill and Johnson, 2002) and a focus on

quantifiable observations will lead to use of statistical analysis. On the other hand,

realism comes in two types and can be summarized as a similarity to positivism in that

it assumes scientific approach to developing knowledge (Saunders, 2009).

Interpretivism is a softer and more subjective way to interpret data, relating most to the

constructivist epistemology (Ntgrty blog, 2016). Interpretivism philosophy usually

consists of small samples and qualitative data as data collection techniques most often

used (Saunders, 2009).

The most applicable philosophy, therefore, will be interpretivism for the research. The

primary focus of research undertaken within this paradigm is the way we as humans

attempt to make sense of the world around us (Saunders, 2018). For the purpose of this

research, interpretivism was chosen because it allows for qualitative research areas to be

studied at a greater level of depth and primary data generated might have higher levels

of validity because the data tends to be honest and trustworthy. Furthermore, this

epistemology was chosen since it has a focus on managers in organizations (Bryman

and Bell, 2019).

3.2 Research Approach

Typically, the methodological approaches are deductive or inductive. To summarize

these approaches, a deductive study which looks for theory and then identifies

hypotheses which research confirms or disproves while an inductive study is where the

25

beginning is a study of a situation and then seeks to generate theory (Greener, 2008).

For many researchers, there will be a combination of the two since that is simply how

we as humans reach conclusions. In this research, there was a gap of understanding

found in linking concepts and, therefore, there was opportunity to contribute with

knowledge. The study, however, is not large enough to create a new theory which is a

characteristic of inductive studies.

First, a theoretical framework was constructed through a literature review in order to

investigate known knowledge in the separate fields of motivation and change

management to understand the role of middle management. A literature review being a

description and critical analysis of what other authors have written [(Jankowicz, 2005)

from Sanders, 2009]. From this, we switched back and forth from the known knowledge

in the literature review to the collected empirical data. Therefore, the methodological

approach here will be inductive since this approach emphasizes flexibility to permit

changes, understanding research context, and understanding meanings that humans

attach to events (Saunders, 2009).

3.3 Research Strategy

To first define the purpose, we will explore the three types of studies possible:

exploratory, descriptive and explanatory research. Descriptive research will seek to

portray accurate profiles and may provide clear pictures through data. Explanatory

research will establish causal relationships between variables (Saunders, 2009).

Exploratory will value finding ‘what is happening; to seek new insights; to ask

questions and to assess phenomena in a new light’(Robson, 2002). Therefore, the

exploratory design will be used as the overall connection of conceptual research

problems to the empirical research. The reason to use exploratory here is because it

applies to a project that has levels of uncertainty and ignorance, which is what was

found through literature review. There will be both a mix of generating primary data

through several interviews that we conduct and also comparing what we gather to the

current analysed data (van Wyk, 2018).

The type of logic will by hypothetico-deductive which will: Identify broad problem area

( middle management level in organizational change management of the IT industry);

Define problem statement and develop hypothesis which is testable; Measure theoretical

framework; Collection of data based on and qualitative; Analysis to check if hypotheses

26

were supported; Interpret data for finding out the meaning of our results (Tariq, 2015).

The validity, advantages, and disadvantages used to conduct the research will be

discussed in the following section.

3.4 Research Method

Descriptive data can be defined as describing or summarizing basic features of data in a

study. It is used to present quantitative data in a simpler way. This use allows us to

present some key points from previously done studies and keep this in mind when

comparing our own results later. While there is a look at descriptive data, the analysis of

the method used and variables affecting motivation for middle management will be

possible through a qualitative study.

Qualitative research focuses on understanding research in a humanistic approach and is

best for interpreting, describing, contextualizing, and furthering insight into concepts.

The approach allows for the researcher to deepen understanding of interviewee answers.

The focus will later be on relating data to theories. A benefit to its use is gaining

increased attention and ability to add new dimensions not attainable through measurable

variables alone (Gibson, 2004). The qualitative findings provide flexible but rich data.

However, this method is often criticized because of disadvantages that lessen

comprehension on how conclusions were reached. To avoid such limitations, there is a

clear explanation of how the study is conducted in the methodology and keeping

limitations in mind.

3.5 Sampling

The aim of the study was to collect qualitative data while looking at descriptive data

from previous studies. To further the understanding of individuals in middle

management positions with experience in the IT industry with change management, we

conducted interviews to later compare results to existing descriptive data. The sampling

approach used was purposive sampling, which is defined as a non-probability sampling

technique relying on researcher judgment. Due to limited scope and time, we find this to

be the most suitable method for collecting data. The criteria for interviewees were

established as follows:

• Minimum of three years’ experience with organizational change

• Professional experience within the industry

• Managed at least 3 change related projects.

27

First contacts for Swedish companies were established face-to-face through a business

fair in the university. The organizations were then contacted through email and

interviews scheduled. The US contacts were only established through email as it was

not possible for face-to-face contact. The choice to conduct 8 in-depth interviews, 4

from each country, was based on the limitation of time but the collected data from these

organizations seemed to be satisfactory for a starting point for others to build off.

3.6 Data Collection

Due to a qualitative method choice, this led to conducted interviews as a source of

primary data. Here, the primary data collected consisted of 8 interviews, 4 from

Swedish individuals and 4 from US individuals.

Interviews are one of the easiest methods to collect honest answers, and since we did

not want to affect the thoughts of the managers, this method of qualitative collection

was chosen. The interviewees were selected based on previously established criteria:

• Minimum of three years’ experience with organizational change

• Professional experience within the industry

• Managed at least 3 change related projects.

However, as with any study, there are limitations with interviews. Our main limitation

for the interviews was the lack of time to reach wide and gain a large sample size to

gather our data from the interviewees. Since we had a time limitation on the study, there

was only an allowance of 8 interviews but, Bryman and Bell (2019) note that quality is

ranked above quantity in interviews. Since we are unable to meet face-to-face with our

interviewees, we avoid unwanted non-verbal and visual communication that could sway

our participants' answers or limit their responses based on our reactions.

One other interview was conducted with a previous manager prior to the others to gain

their insight and later compare to published information and current collected data.

Three types of interviews are present for qualitative research: unstructured, semi-

structured, and structured. Flexibility and detailed answers are part of the qualitative

interviewing process (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This thesis will use the semi-structured

approach to conduct the interviews. For the process to begin, we reached out with an

email and questions to consider (Appendix 1) and further questions outside those listed

in the interview guide may have been asked depending on the conversation.

28

3.7 Data Analysis

There are multiple ways to analyse data and vary based on the type of data collection

methods chosen. Braun and Clarke (2006) argue thematic analysis provides core skills

for conducting forms of qualitative analysis and should be a foundational method. The

analysis of qualitative research will take place via thematic analysis, meaning there is

identification and organization of themes within data sets. Advantages of using this

method of analysis may include flexibility and useful for examining perspectives and

summarizing key features in collected data. However, it is important to note some

disadvantages or limitations. Such limitations include flexibility which leads to

inconsistency and lack of coherence (Holloway & Todres, 2003)

3.8 Research Validity & Reliability

Reducing the possibility of getting the answer wrong means attention must be paid to

two emphases on research design: reliability and validity (Saunders, 2009). Therefore,

these two concepts must lay high on the list of considerations. Research and results

must be trustworthy and honest to be able to contribute findings to the chosen subject.

Validity

Validity is concerned with whether findings are really about what they appear to be

about (Saunders, 2009). Validity, is therefore, also about researchers studying what is

stated to be studied (Bryman and Bell, 2019) and the integrity of conclusions based on

research and data collection techniques (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Main types of

research validity include content validity, criterion-related validity, construct validity,

internal validity, external validity, concurrent validity and face validity (Cohen et al,

2007).

One measure to ensure validity, appropriate time scale and appropriate methodology

must be chosen. Due to time limitations, however, research was limited to a small

number of individuals interviewed which resulted in limited validity. The appropriate

methodology was not much of an issue since it took consideration when being

constructed to fit the type of research that we decided to use.

Reliability

As a requirement of research studies, reliability focuses on consistency in findings

through chosen techniques and procedures. Robson (2002) asserts there may be four

29

threats to reliability: subject or participant error, subject or participant bias, observer

error, and observer bias.

The first consists of participants wanting to present the best versions of themselves or

distorting responses because of a negative experience. To minimize this, anonymity

may be used so participants reveal truthful information.

The second threat should cause awareness of the possibility that interviewees may say

what superiors want them to say, almost like a prepared speech. Minimizing this should

be simple in the sense that anonymity is present and under consideration that all the

interviewees answers are honest.

Third, observer error may consist of different individuals interviewing and have the

possibility to ask questions in different ways. Structure to interviews, therefore,

minimizes the threat and will be considered when building an interview guide.

Finally, observer bias consists of data interpretations. Here there is a little more

consideration to be had because it is a partner effort in looking at data. Hopefully the

types of questions and plan of what to look for will mitigate bias here.

3.9 Ethical Considerations

When writing our thesis we have four underlying ethical principles that we are aiming

to uphold, and they are the following: whether there is deception, whether there is harm

to participants, whether there is a lack of informed consent and whether there is any

invasion of privacy (Bell, 2011). Without maintaining these ethical considerations, we

will discredit our research and potentially sever our relationship with our interview

participants. Below we will discuss each of these ethical considerations and how we

will set out to prevent breaking any of these considerations. Our ambition is that we will

be able to provide the most ethical experience for our interviewees and to best protect

our participants by sustaining the previously stated ethical principles.

Deception is where the researchers represent the study as something different than it

truly is, lying about the purpose or the exact nature of what the study contains. We will

strive to, from the start, give a clear description to our interviewees what our research is

about and why we are researching it. This is to ensure that we inform our participants

and in no way deceive them. Our second ethical consideration is whether we cause harm

to participants. We will ensure that there is no harm to our interviewees by leaving their

30

name, company, location, and other personal identifiers out of our research. We will

keep their anonymity by only providing their responses to our interview questions. By

doing so we will prevent any harm coming from their employers and thus preventing

any future problems from arising from their participation in our research. The third

ethical consideration we attempt to vindicate is whether there is a lack of informed

consent, or that the interviewees don’t understand who we (the researchers) are. Our

solution to that is shown in Appendix 1 which is what our initial email is to the

participants. Clearly, we show who we are, why we are doing the research, and what

their answers will be used for in our research. By doing so we are giving our

participants the information they need to understand all our motivation. Additionally,

they will be allowed to ask us any questions regarding our research, and we will also

ask afterwards that they understand what their answers will be used for and ask for their

consent to use it for the second time. The last ethical consideration is whether there is an

invasion of privacy. We can only try our best at asking questions that will not require

our participants to say no due to an invasion of privacy. Regardless, we will strive to

protect every participant and uphold a strong and trustworthy relationship with our

interviewees, so that we can get as much information regarding our research as possible.

3.10 Limitations

Several limitations occurred in this study with time and resources. Interviews were

unable to be conducted face-to-face and limited the number of interviews possible. The

study conducted 8 interviews from 2 different countries in a span of seven weeks,

meaning some generalization took place. As the interviewees are in different countries,

the time differences also limited the consistency of collecting data in batches and

analysing. Despite this, the collected data was more than satisfactory for us. It would

have been interesting to continue the research in a longer time frame, collecting more

information from different individuals in the same company for comparison.

31

4 EMPIRICAL DATA

4.1 Interviews

This section will include the primary data collected from interviews; interviews are

summarized and focus on relevant information to the study. Everyone will follow the

same interview guide found in Appendix 1. Based on purposive sampling, individuals

have been selected within both Swedish and US companies to conduct further research.

Participants were involved in middle management positions within their organization

and had experience with change management on some type of project. Depending on

the company size, some handled larger teams while others handled specialized projects

involving a few individuals. Everyone met all of the following three criteria to ensure

relevant and current information was used for our research.

• Minimum of three years’ experience with organizational change to ensure that

our participants have had to work with and lead organizational change. We

believe that with at least three years experience our participants would have

experienced firsthand multiple successful and failed change initiatives.

• Professional experience within the IT industry: to guarantee that our participants

have been able to go through the rigorous process of adapting to technology at

increasingly faster rates so again we can have relevant knowledge.

• Managed at least three change related projects to give evidence that our

interviewees have personally dealt with change initiative and been in the

managerial position for the change.

For our study, eight individuals have been contacted, four from Sweden and four from

the United States to further look at their experience. For the moment, the interviews are

not all conducted and therefore will be numbered. An email was sent out with an

introduction for the interviewee to read and decide if they would like to participate (See

Appendix 1). We will start with the Swedish respondents first and then the United

States participants.

32

4.1.1 Sweden 1

Interviewee S1 (Swedish 1) works at company S1. Our first interviewee was located

at a smaller firm where they personally oversaw roughly 15 employees beneath them

self. Company S1 is a smaller organization with less than 100 employees (Interviewee

S1, 2020). The organization focuses on helping entrepreneurs build products and the

team consists of individuals of developers and designers in web application services.

They have been in business for just under six years and focus heavily on infrastructure

and building a proper functional system for the organizations they help. Since they

focus heavily on the infrastructure, they are more of front-end development and less

focused on the maintenance but still several clients have a set employee to oversee the

maintenance. Company S1 understand and have experience building start-ups, having

built their own along with helping several other companies. The company's range of

services starts from the basics of performance to designing the online portions and

structures to building prototypes and products (Interviewee S1, 2020). Companies who

have worked with company S1 have mentioned the efficient work and maintaining

technicalities so the leaders can focus on business goals. Company S1 has done a lot of

work with smaller companies, especially the unique mom and pop shops that are

extraordinarily small and need to have new/updated systems to deal with the current

technological advancements (Interviewee S1, 2020).

Company S1 is small and wants to remain small so they can keep helping all the

smaller shops and businesses and have considered adding an additional branch that runs

the same but is in a different location so they can reach more businesses. At just under 6

years old, company S1 has helped over 100 small businesses and of those they continue

to serve and maintain/monitor 14 of those businesses. According to the interviewee S1,

the reason that company S1 wants to stay small is because they believe that the larger,

they get the less they can give the best family friendly and local service (Interviewee S1,

2020). The focus is customer service and helping the small players in the battlefield of

business.

When discussing change at Company S1, Interviewee S1 said how “Change is

unnatural for us” (Interviewee S1, 2020). But they also mentioned how important it is to

have self motivated individuals to try to easier implement change. Since Company S1 is

so small, they have less people that are impacted by change implementation which aids

in their ability to adapt. Additionally, Interviewee S1 says that due to the size of the

33

company they have a sort of “democratic approach” (Interviewee S1, 2020) to the

decision-making process on change and there is a great work culture that allows for

innovation. Interviewee S1 says they think they are “personally more motivated by

extrinsic means than intrinsic means” and the reason why is because they “do [their

work] because it pays well and I get to have more power in what we do” and also

mentioned that they were very satisfied with their ease of promotion with the company

(Interviewee S1, 2020).

4.1.2 Sweden 2

Interviewee S2 (Swedish 2) works at company S2. Company S2 is at a larger firm

with over 700 employees at three different locations where interviewee S2 oversees 11

people (Interviewee S2, 2020). These 11 employees that interviewee S2 are a blend of

project managers as well as departmental managers. Although company S2 has only

been around for nine years it has had a large amount of growth, especially in foreign

areas such as Germany and France. The location interviewee S2 is located is in Sweden

although most of the operations are done in foreign locations and interviewee S2 is at

the specific Swedish branch. Further, Interviewee S2 discusses how company S2 is very

accustomed to change since they frequently must adapt to the differences in culture to

fit the desired client base (Interviewee S2, 2020). There are sometimes issues with

communication of goals and plans given the amount of translating that occurs in daily

tasks. The change projects that are implemented must be approved by top management

before anything can be pursued, however it seems that that style could be removed due

to the growing size of the company (Interviewee S2, 2020). Interviewee S2 plays a role

of governance for company S2 which means they create the rules for how each of the

managers can use the company’s technology and what exactly it can be used for.

Company S2 both creates new technologies and works with individual businesses to

implement their specific systems. The most popular systems that company S2 offers to

its customers are payroll, accounting, and billing. According to Interviewee S2, as

company S2 has grown they have begun expanding their systems they offer but say that,

“we want to offer the most perfect systems… so our customers have the easiest and

most accessible service available…” (Interviewee S2, 2020). Company S2 holds an

exceedingly good record of offering some of the most compatible and user-friendly

systems for such a cheap price. Company S2 is continuously working with over 50

companies and has helped over 300 in total with their services.

34

Interviewee S2 has over 19 years of previous IT experience and additionally has

been at company S2 for six years. They have an excellent resume of “change projects

that [they] managed including: new website design, new human resource systems, and

new accounting systems” (Interviewee S2, 2020). But even with all the experience,

there still are some weaknesses with company S2. Interviewee S2 says that the “lower

level employees are not willing to change, and they frequently don’t meet deadlines on

time which continues to add up with other projects and leads to several projects being

scrapped every year” (Interviewee S2, 2020).

4.1.3 Sweden 3

Interviewee S3 (Swedish 3) works for company S3 which has a little over 300

employees and the interviewee personally oversees six employees who work with the

upkeep and building of infrastructure (Interviewee S3, 2020). Thus, interviewee S3 has

more of a governance role and establishes all the things that can and can’t be done with

the systems. As company S3 has grown, they have always had the same vision of

helping make people's lives easier. According to Interviewee S3, the company has

always been about making things easy to use and affordable for their clients

(Interviewee S3, 2020). Company S3 is relatively small and for the time being they

want to continue to remain its size because they want to create lifelong partners to build

up a great reputation. The company serves small to medium sized businesses and offers

a wide variety of services while the most used is cloud storage but is closely followed

by their accounting system. Company S3 has a base model for each individual system

that then is moderately easily customizable to each individual client for an extra cost. If

the client wants, they can purchase the base model and then work on it themselves or

they can have it custom built to easily implement the new system. As for the cloud

service, company S3 essentially gives access to each client for a monthly subscription

based on the size of the subscription. But company S3 isn’t just focused on giving their

clients the best experience, the company excels at giving the employees all the tools

necessary to succeed as employees (Interviewee S3, 2020). As said by Interviewee S3,

“there is a strong sense of community for company S3 where everyone is treated equally

and most people's opinion gets heard” (Interviewee S3, 2020). Similarly, to Interviewee

S2, there is a “pretty demographic approach from the middle/upper level employees for

what projects will or will not be taken” given the degree of difficulty among other

factors that are considered (Interviewee S3, 2020).

35

Interviewee S3 has worked at this company for 12 years and additionally has six more

years of experience in another IT role. They have managed countless small change

projects and just a couple larger scale projects. Most all the projects have to do with

small/medium business cloud use (Interviewee S3, 2020). Interviewee says that “I am

motivated by internal things, I truly enjoy the work that I do so I don’t need any special

incentives to motivate me to work” (Interviewee S3, 2020). However, interviewee S3

motivated each individual employee based on their own verbalized desires and wants

(Interviewee S3, 2020). They do this to best motivate each employee since there is no

one solution fits all and it depends on each individual employee rather than a collective

whole.

4.1.4 Sweden 4

Interviewee S4 (Swedish 4) works for company S4 which has 106 employees and

interviewee S4 personally oversees five lower managers. Although a small company,

the Interviewee mentions “there is an exceptionally large amount of work for each

employee which is frequently the reason for employee turnover” (Interviewee S4,

2020). The company is good at giving employees freedom to go about the multiple

projects in their own unique way that best suits their own work style. There are very few

strict rules on how to do a project as long as it meets the criteria of what the project

needs to be/do then it is good. Furthermore, it was reasoned by the Interviewee there is

a collective belief “that this creates a sense of ownership to projects which makes

people want to do them even more” (Interviewee S4, 2020). Additionally, the company

offers “a lot of work from home days that also increase employee satisfaction and

efficiency” (Interviewee S4, 2020). All the benefits be ways to try and cover for the

long workdays and time spent at home working on projects. As interviewee S4 said,

“My company needs to hire more employees, but they refuse to do so; they are pushing

employees to their limits which pushes them away… There is no real good reason for

lower level employees to stay since they are the ones who are working too much”

(Interviewee S4, 2020). However, the employees who stick around for long enough will

see their hard work payoff and receive promotions and bonuses frequently. Company S4

offers several different systems including cloud, payroll, and human resource as well as

website development, technical support, and application development. They offer a lot

of different services but are pricey and their customer service is poor. Discussing

company S4 with the interviewee, there was a sense that there is “a lot of potential to

36

grow but they are unwilling to increase costs to pay their employees the high wages

they already do” (Interviewee S4, 2020). The company focuses on building extremely

knowledgeable IT employees in all aspects of IT so each employee can best help serve

every customer's request or need.

Interviewee S4 has several years of experience at company S4 as well as another eight

years at another IT company. Also, the interviewee has changed roles quite frequently

because the “biggest thing that [they] want is job growth and advancement within their

company” (Interviewee S4, 2020). Interviewee S4 says, “I truly want to gain as much

experience as I can by taking on different positions. The more diverse I am the more I

am satisfied with my own accomplishments. I like to know that if I wanted, I could start

up my own business and have all the knowledge I need to run it myself” (Interviewee

S4, 2020). Interviewee S4 fits very well into company S4 based off the same mindset of

having an all-around knowledge of IT.

4.1.5 United States 1

Interviewee US1 (United States 1) works at company US1. Our first United States

interviewee works at a larger company with over 1600 employees worldwide and our

interviewee oversaw nine of the regional managers. Additionally, the interviewee

mentioned how “the company does an amazing job with creating an open and accepting

work culture that boosts employee morale and motivation through acts of kindness to

both employees and strangers” (Interviewee US1, 2020). Company US1 goes through

different size changes quite frequently and have never once had a project that was never

seen to completion. Interviewee US1 talked about the importance of long-term growth

when implementing new changes; interviewee said, “We really focus on implementing

new systems for the long term growth and not the short term benefits” (Interviewee

US1, 2020). Although none of US1 companies’ projects have failed, they are never

fully done according to the plan. This is surprising considering the Interviewee also

stated that the company is “the most entrenched organization that I ever faced. We resist

change because it is ‘the best way to do it’” (Interviewee US1, 2020). Company US1

offers several different services to its clients and they are focused on medium to larger

sized companies. Some of the services that they provide are building and implementing

infrastructure for companies, restructuring existing systems to work with the new

infrastructure, and technical support for website design/development. Overall the

37

company focuses on the building and implementing of infrastructure and also the

website design/development aspect as well.

Interviewee US1 gave a lot of insight about motivating people and how there is no one

solution that fits all. “Each worker is entirely different from one another… and to

motivate any given person to the best of my ability is by getting to know them.” which

the interviewee promptly followed up with, “which is what happens with me since I

struggle to articulate what I always want for incentives…” (Interviewee US1, 2020).

Currently, this interviewee oversees nine employees and has been in this position for

almost three years, although in total has almost 20 years experience in IT. Interviewee

US1 personally believes that the things that motivates them self will “vary day by day,

but the most rewarding thing” for interviewee US1 “is finding a young person and

giving that young person a path to grow is one of the most rewarding things”

(Interviewee US1, 2020).

4.1.6 United States 2

Interviewee US2 (United States 2) works at company US2 which has over 500

employees. This interviewee oversees seven lower level managers. The medium to large

sized company seems to motivate its employees well as an organization. According to

Interviewee US2, “There is an excellent work culture that promotes hard work leads to

high rewards. The more we put into our work the more our company gives back to us”

(Interviewee US2, 2020). As with most IT companies, company US2 faces change

frequently and it adds to the workload of interviewee US2 who often experiences “80

hour plus weeks” (Interviewee US2, 2020). Since interviewee US2 works so much, it

shows both their dedication to company US2 as well as either their need for incentives

or a love for the company. Company US2 focuses its work on website development and

design as well as some focus on infrastructure development and design. Company US2

is split into two main divisions of work, website for one and then the infrastructure for

the other. The website side works solely with the development and design for websites

and the technical support that comes with it. Meanwhile, the infrastructure side works

closely with the clients to build their infrastructure and design it in an efficient way that

allows for adaptability (Interviewee US2, 2020). As the company has grown, they have

shifted their focus from small sized businesses which required a long hard battle to

change how decisions were made, the speed of service, and the number of employees.

The company started off slow with only about 12 employees for the first 5 years but

38

then quickly started to grow and their whole vision and culture shifted. According to the

interviewee, one of the challenges that company US2 had was “hiring employees that

best suited the company’s vision” (Interviewee US2, 2020).

Given that interviewee US2 has “A little over 15 years in the IT industry,” and has been

with this company for “eight years” (Interviewee US2, 2020) means that they have a lot

of insight and experience into their organization and the motivation that they use.

Interviewee US2 does see that there is a lack of communication and the management

can be unclear in what they want (Interviewee US2, 2020). But with the lack of

communication the company still thrives with its highly motivated employees that care

for the impact they have on their clients (Interviewee US2, 2020).

4.1.7 United States 3

Interviewee US3 (United States 3) works at company US3 which has around 1400

employees and personally interviewee US3 oversees nine managers (Interviewee US3,

2020). The large sized company always has change implementations going on and since

it happens so much it is something that has become normal for the company

(Interviewee US3, 2020). Company US3 motivates their employees through lots of

monetary means and rarely gives recognition to the hard work of its employees

(Interviewee US3, 2020). There is little community involvement and it is a survival of

the fittest mindset. According to Interviewee US3, this was the case for most of the

employees at the company, more motivated by external factors than internal

(Interviewee US3, 2020). Company US3 drives into its employees the importance of

competition within an organization to allow everyone to push themselves to be better

(Interviewee US3, 2020). Company US3 offers several different services but the most

popular of them are website development/design and personalized application

development (Interviewee US3, 2020). Through the competition between employees the

clients for website design can see a comparison for what their website could look like

and choose whichever one they want. Company US3 sees that as valuable since the

clients get several options to choose from in an incredibly quick fashion (Interviewee

US3, 2020). As the company has grown, they have maintained the same vision since the

start of helping their clients so that they can best serve their customers.

Interviewee US3 is a reliable resource since they have 12 years in top management and

on top of that have been in this position for 10 years (Interviewee US3, 2020).

39

According to Interviewee US3, “I have been a major component in rebuilding the whole

organizational structure at my previous employment. We started small but realized that

if we kept growing, we needed a lot of restructuring with everything, our systems, our

policies, our everything.” (Interviewee US3, 2020). Even though interviewee US3 has a

lot of experience but that doesn’t stop the company from having issues. According to

Interviewee US3, the lower level managers do not do a good enough job of holding

employees responsible so frequently the interviewee has to play the role of bad cop to

enforce the rules. So clearly interviewee US3 has more than enough experience within

IT and especially change.

4.1.8 United States 4

Interviewee US4 (United States 4) works at company US4 which has around 350

employees and personally interviewee US4 oversees a mixture of 12 project managers

and department managers. Interviewee US4 is a self-motivated person, they “enjoy

everything about the job” and enjoys seeing the smile that they put on peoples faces

when they help solve technical problems for their clients (Interviewee US4, 2020).

Truly company US4 cares for its stakeholders and not the profit they make, they want to

make the world a better place (Interviewee US4, 2020). Company US4 has had a vision

of making the world a better place through the advancements and usage of technology

and the advancements that come with it (Interviewee US4, 2020). Company US4

focuses on website development as well as building and implementing systems such as

payroll, accounting, and human resources. They offer bundle sales so that their clients

can have one coding language used so it is completely in sync with all the systems

implemented (Interviewee US4, 2020). The most popular bundle is with the three

previously mentioned systems, so everything works hand in hand with the other systems

making any changes much easier to handle. The company strives to offer the best prices

to its clients because it wants to allow all clients the chance to use their products. As

company US4 has grown they have learned the importance of treating its employees as

good as they treat their clients, they try to do best for everyone they meet (Interviewee

US4, 2020). This has been a continuous goal for company US4, and it reflects in how

they treat all their stakeholders, truly wishing the best to everyone they come across.

Interviewee US4 talks about how company US4 has the usual benefits so there is not

any unique or great motivation from an organizational level. However, on an individual

level interviewee US4 takes it into their hands to motivate employees. Interviewee US4

40

says, “I have a lot of small things I do to motivate my employees, things like buying

lunch for performance, getting small gifts sometimes for them, even inviting some to

my house to have a nice home-cooked meal.” They believe in taking care of employees

like family and they claim that “it boosts performance when my employees feel

welcome and like family” (Interviewee US4, 2020). There is a lot of value in treating

employees in such a manner which is “exactly how I want to be treated” (Interviewee

US4, 2020).

41

5 ANALYSIS In the analysis chapter, the empirical section is brought together with a lens of the

theoretical framework. This section provides a discussion of results to lead to

comparisons and contrasts with other known knowledge.

Analysis Preparation

Once the focus was determined, we set out criteria for what our middle managers

needed to fit to be suitable for our research and then we embarked on the journey of

emailing as many Swedish and American IT companies that we could. Emails were kept

reasonable and sent to a variety of business sizes, the majority of which were small

businesses. After sending out well over 100 emails trying to get in contact with middle

managers, we were able to get in touch with eight middle managers, four from both

countries. The sample email is located below in Appendix 1. Fortunately for us, all eight

of the middle managers fit our criteria. Then the next step was scheduling our

interviews and making sure each participant knew all the required information such as

the ethics and their anonymity. We scheduled one on one meetings with all the

interviewees and went through the Interview Guide (Appendix 2) with them. Those who

agreed to being recorded ensured the use of proper quotes by being able to reference the

conversations’ audio. Shortly after gathering the responses from our interviewees, the

information was separated into documents by interviewee so we could compile and

analyse their responses in the most accurate way possible. It is important to mention that

all talks of motivating factors have been asked in direct reference to implementing

change and for the sake of length and repetitiveness will be referenced to as just

motivating factors. Below is what we found from our interviewees to help with our

contribution to the subject.

42

Additionally, we created this table to show the compiled credibility and background

experience of the interviewees.

Work Title Years IT

Experience

Background

S1 Operations

Manager

13 years Previous CEO of IT company

S2 IT Manager 19 years Project Manager - Website Design

S3 Development

Manager

18 years IT Junior Developer

S4 IT Specialist 11 years Network and Website Developer

US1 District

Manager

20 years Founded and Sold IT Consultant Startup

US2 Network

Manager

15 years Application Designer

US3 Operations

Manager

22 years Computer Network Architect

US4 Application

Manager

8 years IT Analyst

Table 4. Interviewee Credibility and Experience. Wehner, T and Korniat, E.

As we can see, the interviewees have a wide variety of experience in IT ranging from

entry level jobs to the highest level within an organization. Additionally, the

interviewees have spent extensive amounts of time in the IT field and for most of them

only working in the IT field. Looking into what our interviewees have given us from

above, we are able to compile data from their answers. From the information that we

have gathered from our interviewees, we can see with the tables below that there are

some deviations among the managers as well as some similarities between the Swedish

and the US managers. First, we will direct focus on the US middle managers and then

switch to Swedish middle managers. For both, we will be analysing the data that we

gathered from the ranking question (number 24 on the Interview Guide found in

43

Appendix 1). The following tables are what we found to be true in our sample size

which is what we are able to contribute to the field of study. What follows is our

addition to the research of middle managers in the IT industry and their motivation for

organizational change.

Individual Motivating Factors to Implement Change

Once the interviews were conducted, we put them into an excel sheet to layout the main

data that we were able to pull from this. Below we have tables that show the ranks that

our interviewees gave as their most and least important motivating factor (Table 5 and

6). From our eight respondents (four Swedish and four United States), we gathered a

small enough sample size to measure the similarities and differences between the

Swedish and the US middle managers. We also were able to gather information from

this in regard to the institutional effect on motivating factors. There are some variances

in the sizes of the companies ranging from less than 100 employees to a little over 1600

employees. Each company is not in the exact same subpart of the IT industry; however,

they all are focused on small to medium sized businesses. Additional questions asked

will be used, not yet put into the paper yet. Each individual interviewee was asked to

rank 12 motivating factors when implementing change in order of most important to

least important, 1 being the highest and 12 being the lowest. Their answers are the

following.

44

S1 S2 S3 S4 US1 US2 US3 US4

Achievement 4 1 8 10 11 10 10 1

Personal Life 6 7 4 5 1 3 2 4

Work Itself 12 6 2 12 9 2 7 2

Advancement 2 8 5 2 4 4 5 8

Growth 1 4 7 1 2 1 4 6

Responsibility 7 5 1 7 3 8 8 5

Job Security 11 10 10 4 7 6 3 7

Company Policy 3 11 12 9 12 9 11 10

Working Conditions 5 9 3 6 6 7 9 11

Status 10 2 9 3 10 5 1 3

Interpersonal Relation 8 12 11 11 5 11 12 9

Recognition/Feedback 9 3 6 8 8 12 6 12

Table 5. Results from the 8 Interviewees responses (Wehner, T and

Korniat, E.)

45

Motivators

US

Average

US Overall

Rank

Swedish

Average

Swedish Overall

Rank

Achievement 8.00 8 5.75 5/6*

Personal Life 2.50 1 5.50 4

Work Itself 5.00 4 8.00 9

Job Security 5.75 6 8.75 10/11*

Advancement 5.25 5 4.25 2

Company Policies 10.50 12 8.75 10/11*

Growth 3.25 2 3.25 1

Working Conditions 8.25 9 5.75 5/6*

Status 4.75 3 6.00 7

Job Responsibility 6.00 7 5.00 3

Interpersonal

Relationships 9.25 10 10.50 12

Recognition/ Feedback 9.50 11 6.50 8

* = tie for rank

Table 6. Motivating Factors for US Middle Managers. (Wehner, T and Korniat, E.)

United States Findings

For the US middle managers, their top four respectively are Personal Life, Growth,

Status, and Work Itself. According to Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory only one of the

top four factors (Status) was a hygiene factor and the other three were all growth

factors. The US middle managers seem to follow the basics of what Herzberg says with

his theory however, status is the only factor from our sample ground that does not

clearly align with what Herzberg's Theory says about growth and hygiene factors.

However, looking solely at Status could mean that middle managers are more worried

about self image than lower level employees may be. This speaks more about how in

46

the United States a person holds dearly to what their status is based on other

perceptions.

There is a clear distinction from the most desired to the least desired with an overall gap

from rank 1 to 12 of an eight-point differential. This is a large difference, but it shows

that there is a larger agreement on the motivating factors relative to the study as well as

an overall agreement with Herzberg’s Theory for the growth and hygiene factors.

Several of the US interviewees mentioned the importance of personal benefits in saying

things such as “If I don’t have a good work life balance I will move on to the next

position or company” (Interviewee US1, 2020), and “If I am not taken care of by my

employer I will return the action, what they give me is what I give back to them…”

(Interviewee US4, 2020). These responses reflect what our study shows since Personal

Life was the highest overall rank. Additionally, Personal Life’s least important rank

given by the US middle managers was fourth which shows that for the sample size of

US middle managers it is the most important factor for motivation.

Some of the ranks and their average are within one point which shows there is relative

agreement on the placement of these motivators based on importance. Achievement

lines up with an average of 8 and the ranking position of 8, however, when looking

closer at the specific answers there is a slight mishap. The ranks for achievement were

11, 10, 10, and 1 (Interviewee US1, US2, US3, and US4, 2020) so although the average

and the rank were the same there was more variation than it seems.

Work Itself has the same situation where the average and the rank are within 1 point

from each other, yet the answers show there is no set agreement since the answers were

9, 2, 7, and 2 (Interviewee US1, US2, US3, and US4, 2020) respectively. So Work Itself

is something that is highly rated for half the US managers and is lowly rated for the

other half. But this does not dismiss what Herzberg’s Theory says, rather just shows that

the employee is more interested in the pay they receive rather than the work that they

do.

For a motivating factor such as Job Responsibility, there is more of an agreement on

where the true value should stand. Given that the average for Job Responsibility and the

rank was 6 and 7 respectively and the answers from the interviewee were 3, 8, 8, and 5

47

(Interviewee US1, US2, US3, and US4, 2020). Seeing this means that there are some

motivating factors that have more of an agreement on the rank than others and the

converse is true where some have less value for where they are ranked.

The US employees are a blended mix of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation factors.

Understanding that the US culture has been shifting more and more to employees

demanding better benefits it makes sense that 3 of 4 motivators are extrinsic given that

is what is becoming more socially acceptable. Further, the United States culture has

heavily marketed the importance of doing what you love so it makes sense that Work

Itself is the fourth most important motivator for the middle managers. Our interviewees

agree that culture plays a large role in the things we want. American employees,

including ourselves, follow what the national culture wants us to follow (Interviewee

US3, 2020), “as we continue to change as a culture our needs follow suit,” (Interviewee

US1, 2002) and “I firmly believe that whatever our society wants becomes the most

important aspect of our lives, we are like sheep, just following the herd” (Interviewee

US4, 2020). Additionally, the typical American worker is looking for more and more

benefits and less worried about the pay (Interviewee US2, 2020). So as the culture shifts

so it seems that most of the employees follow suit. The younger generations have been

willing to take less pay as long as they get the better benefits that our culture is shifting

towards, like work from home, casual days, more vacation days, insurance, all the deals

(Interviewee US3, 2020).

“I am more motivated by my own satisfaction,” (Interviewee US2, 2020), “It depends

on the time of my life, 10 years ago I was all about the money, now I am looking for

things that give me balance with work and life,” (Interviewee US1, 2020), “I work here

because I love it, there is nothing I love more than being in a power position and

making important decisions for my company,” (Interviewee US3, 2020), and “I want to

prove to myself why I deserve to be where I am today” (Interviewee US4, 2020). Each

individual interviewee has a certain reason for why they choose to work where they are.

The important thing to recognize is that every person is different and will work for

different reasons. Thus, it is valuable of companies to know their employees to best

recognize how to motivate them. As two of the interviewees reflected on, no person will

be motivated the same every year, or month even, it takes a great manager to understand

48

what motivates their employees and the best/easiest way to learn what they need is by

talking and getting to know them (Interviewee US1 and US3, 2020). Furthermore, as

people are always changing, it is important to keep in mind McClelland’s Need Theory

which points that every manager, or person, has their own motivation profile. With this

motivation profile comes the importance of understanding who employees are and what

their desires are. Middle managers fall into a similar boat where they need to be

understood for who they are as a person and “not looked at like an asset” (Interviewee

US3, 2020). As previously stated, middle managers usually are underappreciated and

undervalued for their work within an organization and it is because of this that middle

managers are hard to motivate since they are unheard (Interviewee US1, US3, and S2,

2020).

Swedish Findings

For the Swedish middle managers, the top four are Growth, Advancement, Job

Responsibility, and Personal Life respectively. Seeing that Growth has an average of

3.25 it is clear that it is the most important factor in our sample size for the motivating

factor. However, the Swedish middle managers have a smaller deviation between the

rank with a 7.25 difference between the first and last ranked motivating factor. This

leads to the thought that relative to the United States sample size there is slightly more

deviation between agreed upon motivations since the spread is less. The more spread

there is, the more agreed upon the motivators would be. However, there still are some

motivating factors that have a clear view on the position it is ranked. Interpersonal

Relationships has the highest rank over and among the Swedish is agreed upon that it is

the least important factor with the highest rank given being an eight and the remaining

three Swedish have 11, 11, and 12 as the ranks (Interviewee S1, S3, S4, and S2, 2020)

respectively. This aligns well with what McClelland’s Need Theory shows that the need

for affiliation - or interpersonal relationships - has lesser value for leaders given the

highest rank given was an eight. From what our Swedish interviewees said, we see that

some of them have an increased desire to maintain their benefits and are less focused on

the intrinsic motivators (Interviewee S2 and S4, 2020) based off their answers while an

additional one mentioned they are less motivated intrinsically (Interviewee S3, 2020).

While three of the US employees said they were more intrinsically motivated

49

(Interviewee US2, US3, and US4, 2020) and the other US interviewee said they “fall in

the middle of intrinsic and extrinsic (Interviewee US1, 2020).

Looking a little deeper into some of the answers from the interviewees one could see

that Personal Life is the most closely agreed upon for the Swedish middle managers

with their answers being 6, 7, 4, and 5 (Interviewee S1, S2, S3, and S4, 2020)

respectively. However, Job Security is a close second with only having a minor blimp in

the answers with 11, 10, 10, and 4 (Interviewee S1, S2, S3, and S4, 2020) respectively.

So even though Personal Life has a tighter spread of answers, Job Security has the most

closely agreed upon answer with just one exception. From our findings we can see that

Personal Life is placed in about the right spot since all the responses were close to the

same location however, Job Security has three answers that are almost identical which

shows that there is more of a mutual agreement that it is less important. Overall just

looking at the other motivating factors by the rank there is slightly more variation

between individual answers than the US middle managers. However, there still are

several notable patterns and distinctions that can be made from the responses. Some of

those distinctions are the following motivating factors: Interpersonal Relationships,

Growth, and Job Responsibility.

Interpersonal Relationships was ranked as a very unimportant motivator with the ranks

being 8, 12, 11, and 11 (Interviewee S1, S2, S3, and S4, 2020). Clearly, except for one

of the interviewees, Interpersonal Relationships was the least desirable factor for

motivation for the Swedish managers. Furthermore, this also was true for the United

States managers with it being ranked 10th. So, both the Swedish and the US managers

are essentially unmotivated by the prospect of Interpersonal Relationships. We would

need to look at the institutional context to understand why that is.

The next important motivating factor that we found from our Swedish interviewees was

Growth. Within our sample size 2 of the 4 interviewees picked this as their number 1

motivating factor for change, while the other two interviewees ranked it at 4 and 7

(Interviewee S1, S4, S2, and S4, 2020) respectively. So, as a whole it seems, with the

exception of one, that it is one of the more important motivating factors for middle

managers in Sweden.

The next notable motivating factor for the Swedish middle managers was Job

Responsibility. Again, except for one of the interviewees there was a clear close spread

50

of responses for where Job Responsibility ranked among the motivating factors. The

responses were 7, 5, 1, and 7 (Interviewee S1, S2 S3, and S4, 2020) respectively. Two

of the Swedish respondents shared that they felt that they had too much responsibility

but still enjoyed the feeling of responsibility (Interviewee S1 and S2, 2020).

Comparative Analysis

Comparing the top six picks for both the US and Swedish participants we found that

four of the top six for the US were growth factors and for Sweden five were growth.

The lowest rank that was a growth factor was rank nine for the Swedish respondent’s

average but closely followed by rank eighth for the US interviewees. So, with that in

mind it is safe to say that within our sample, Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory holds true

that the growth factors are more leading to satisfaction whereas the absence of hygiene

factors leads to dissatisfaction. To apply that to our study we can say that the middle

managers for Sweden held truer to the Theory than the US however, the difference is so

slight between the ranks of growth factors that nothing substantial can be said. But it is

noteworthy to say that Herzberg’s theory still holds true and a reliant tool for the

distinguished differences between what the company can do and what motivation relies

more on the individual.

Our interviewees were in a unanimous agreement that the hardest part about change was

the not letting up and making the change stick steps. Although no questions were

directly asked, our interviewees added a lot of insight in alignment with Kotter’s eight

steps to change from a middle managers perspective. “The hardest part four our

company is getting the changes to stick in a positive manner...” (Interviewee US3,

2020). “Where we struggled the most was people giving up on the change for whatever

personal dissatisfaction” (Interviewee S1, 2020). One thing that I see a lot of is people

getting tired of all the different changes that take a toll on their bodies and minds

(Interviewee US1 and US4, 2020). “The easy part for us is starting the change initiative,

making it last is the hardest” (Interviewee S3, 2020).

From an institutional/cultural standpoint there are only a few motivating factors that are

notably different for the US and the Swedish. The first being the rank of

Recognition/Feedback. Given the average of the US is 9.5 and for the Swedish is 6.5 we

can see that there could be some cultural difference between the two countries. The

most reasonable thought for this is that the Swedish culture looks at feedback as more

51

important to personal growth. Additionally, three of the US interviewees mention how

there is a lack of effective feedback, so it is harder to vocalize the changes that top

management desire (Interviewee US1, US2, and US4, 2020). Moreover, all four of the

US interviewees said they have a lack of recognition for their work (Interviewee US1,

US2, US3, and US4, 2020) but only one said they felt they needed some recognition to

want to help implement change (Interviewee US3, 2020).

The other noteworthy factors for the institutional context is Company Policies. It seems

that both the Swedish and the United States managers are on the same page that

Company Policies are irrelevant for motivation. With the single outlier who ranked it at

3rd (Interviewee S1, 2020) the rest of the managers answered with the following ranks

11, 12, 9, 12, 9, 11, and 10 (Interviewee S2, S3, S4, US1, US2, US3, and US4, 2020)

respectively. As we can see Company Policies has the US ranking of 12th and the tied

for 10th for the Swedish ranking. The combined average of the US and Sweden put it in

11th place with an average score of 9.63, just barely ousting Interpersonal Relationships

with an average of 9.88. As shown Company Policies and Interpersonal Relationships

are the least motivating factors for middle managers across the board in Sweden and the

United States. Three of the interviewees discussed that the Company Policies play no

role in motivating them to help in any way (Interviewee S3, US1, and US3, 2020).

52

6 DISCUSSION This section relates the data gathered in the analysis and the theories presented in the

theoretical framework in order to answer the research questions from the introduction.

The approach to answering the questions is through their perspective levels; the first

question will be from a micro level to discuss how middle managers from the IT

industry are motivated for the implementation and management of change. Secondly,

there will be a macro level approach looking at the institutional framework with the

addition of cultural dimensions.

To revisit the research questions to answer, they will be answered under their respective

sections. The study of motivation of middle managers in the IT industry has proven

quite interesting with the results which we could not analyse in all aspects considering

the focus. To reiterate the purpose, many employees struggle to articulate what

motivates them and this remains true for all levels of management as well. Therefore, it

is important that managers are considered in studies such as this one since they are the

leaders in their organizations.

What motives does middle management have when handling organizational change

management in the IT industry?

The use of Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory is quite helpful when doing studies similar to

this one because it allows a base of known and established motives to be used when

asking questions related to their work and figuring out what motivates them; because

the theory lays out motivators and hygiene factors, it allows for a simple list for

interviewees to rank. Therefore, distinguished factors are easily quantifiable for data

analysis in a numerical representation. It gives greater perspective and deeper

understanding that they may not have been able to determine in the beginning what their

true motivation was prior to opening about their work. McClelland’s Need Theory is

then useful to determine the motivation profile of the individual and to support the

claim that power dominance is best when studying managers.

Four of the interviewees claimed that they were more motivated by intrinsic factors

(Interviewee S3, US2, US3, and US4), otherwise known as growth factors in the

Herzberg Two Factor Theory. From our study, we determined a general statement based

on four factors that occur most frequently in the top three ranks among middle

managers based: status and work itself (which are repeated four times) and personal life

53

and growth (seen three times) among all eight managers. To elaborate on this statement,

we could see that our interviewees aligned with Herzberg's Two Factor Theory growth

factors more than the hygiene factors. With three of the four factors being growth, it is

determined that IT middle managers are likely to be more motivated by intrinsic

values.

The secondary theory, McClelland’s Need Theory, is more specific to managerial roles

because of the focus on organizations which also fits well with our research because of

the specific focus of middle managers. A quick reminder that the three needs that

McClelland provided are the Need for Achievement, Need for Power, and Need for

Affiliation (McClelland, 1962). As discussed in previous studies or works, there is a

managerial profile which means some combination of all needs, but one dominates.

From our study, a general statement could be produced by looking at the Herzberg

Theory factors and determining which most closely align to the three specific needs

outlined in the McClelland Theory. Thus, from our data that we gathered, it can be

determined that the need for power dominates with our interviewees, followed by the

need of achievement, and lastly little to no motivation regarding the affiliation need.

This leads us to believe that the need of affiliation is not considered by these middle

managers based on the empirical findings; it also supports the claim in McClelland’s

theory that affiliation is least seen in leaders or managers because affiliation makes

them less effective and may come with greater resistance from employees. The two

lowest ranking factors Interpersonal Relations at 12 for Sweden and 10 for the US

further support the claim.

How do the motivating factors of middle management differ across institutional and

cultural contexts of USA and Sweden?

There were noticeable differences in the top motivating factors between the middle

management in the two countries’ studies. Although it is difficult to determine or even

prove the extent the institutional or cultural contexts influence individual motivations,

especially from a small sample as in our study, it can be noted that there are noticeable

differences. The type of motivation, intrinsic or extrinsic, has differed as discussed in

the previous analysis chapter. The reason for this could be that on a micro level the

motivation for employees is based on the industry, the position held, and the projects

54

the manager implemented and there could be similarities while the macro level shapes

the individual differently through their environment.

The institutional framework from the second chapter will be most useful in answering

this question more precisely rather than the motivation theories. The classification of the

United States as a liberal market economy and Sweden as a coordinated market

economy proves foundations for differences in institutions. As discussed earlier, the

United States is more sensitive to competition, leans towards short term objectives, has

limited employment policies and limited public welfare, but the market economy is

focused more on providing opportunities to grow when change occurs. Meanwhile, the

Swedish market economy has slightly more public involvement in the product market

regulations, presents employment policies and a developed welfare system, and is likely

to provide support to employees.

This information about institutions helps in analysing why the top three overall factors

for the US are personal life, growth, and status. As personal life is the highest ranking

factors, it is highly reflected based on observations of institutions; the US average

employee receives approximately 10.7 vacation days, 6.5 sick days, 4 personal days, 6.5

holidays, and 2 volunteering days which comes to a total of 29.7 paid days off (TSheets,

2019). Meanwhile, Sweden has a minimum that an employee can receive is 25 paid

vacation days and on average, they get 16 paid holidays for a total of 41 days (Kamann,

2019). Two of the US interviewees said that they would prefer to work hard now so

they would have less work later to have a chance to have a day off once the project is

over with (Interviewee US1 and US3, 2020). Therefore, it can be concluded this large

difference of approach to work benefits is highly probable to influence the personal and

work life balances. The second factor of growth and third factor of status may be seen

more in the culture dimensions; the national culture contains this idea of the American

dream and achieving success. This notion more reflects the idea of status and working

your way up but can also be mentioned about growth since you need to develop skills

and yourself to become successful. Organizational culture will also play a large part in

determining some of these motivators; the US culture has been shifting to be more

flexible and maybe include more opportunities within the workplace, so it reflects on all

motivators. Using the theories, we can further elaborate that US middle managers are

55

closer to a split intrinsic and extrinsic motivation based on Herzberg’s theory and have a

stronger power need followed by achievement based on McClelland’s theory.

The top-ranking factors for Sweden were growth, advancement, and job responsibility

which are most likely noticed through the national culture dimension; a common notion

with happiness and determination is that happiness is a habit and that the individual

makes choices towards their goals. This can lead to an observation of wanting to make

progress and holding oneself accountable; it is the inner attitude to persist and develop

oneself to continue this path of growth in order to obtain the desired successes. The

national culture may allow for this notion to dominate in individuals because the

institutional context is set out in the best interest of its people. This means that with all

the benefits and security provided by the institution, the individuals living in this

environment have less worries on basic needs such as monetary means or even the need

to compete which allows for a greater personal focus. To further this with theories,

Swedes are more intrinsically motivated in their overall top-ranking factors based on

Herzberg’s theory and have a greater achievement need based on McClelland’s theory.

Generalizations

Due to limitation in time and resources, the study is limited to eight organizations split

between the two geographic locations. This affects generalizability since it may not be

possible to draw accurate conclusions from looking at this limited number of

organizations. Therefore, results are more specific to the organizations and the

contribution of their middle managers with experience in implementing organizational

change through projects. This can be a limitation to the study, since the conclusion is

based on the sample. Although we will make some generalizations, they are based on

our sample and the theories that we use with our study.

The first note to make is that the theories are based on previous studies and have

generalized conclusions themselves. The theories are also suggestions of motivations

and the approaches are different since each person falls into a basic level, however each

individual person is different. For example, the Herzberg Two Factor Theory works as a

great way of showing different types of motivators unlike other theories that work on

different levels of needs or focus most on one aspect of an individual. The McClelland

56

Need Theory also focuses more on a general note of three needs an individual encounter

but says there is usually some combination to create a profile rather than a single

motive. So, it is important to realize that the theories are more suggestions to people and

not strict facts to define people. Some of our interviewees discuss these exact points

(Interviewee S3 and US1, 2020).

Further Discussions

The chosen theories to focus on were the Herzberg Two Factor Theory and

McClelland’s Need Theory. However, we could have changed the focus to a variety of

different theories, one of which was McGregor’s Theories X and Y with the assumption

that people who fall into the X category are people who dislike their work and the

people who fall into the Y category are the ones who like their work. It is a valuable

theory and consideration which can be used jointly with Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory

and McClelland’s Need Theory showing common areas of need. This is another way to

categorize individuals. When looking at our sample size and taking into consideration

these three theories we see that the US middle managers are centralized between half

being more growth (Y type) and hygiene (X Type). However, the Swedish middle

managers lean slightly more towards growth (Y type).

Other important notes include the types of theories considered in such studies. There is

a plethora of motivation theories, some focusing on individuals as a whole from a

psychological perspective while others focus more on the organizational aspect and

increasing productivity. Meanwhile there is also the consideration to include more

management theory aspects which are specific to management but do not consider

motivation as much. The management theories could be used as a foundation to

understand efficiency of work, functions and principles of a workplace, human relations

to viewing businesses as systems or organisms. One management theory that could have

been considered more was the Human Relations Theory by Elton Mayo which

emphasizes praise and teamwork as motivational factors. These two aspects, among

other theories, could be compiled into a larger list than just the ones in the Herzberg

Two Factor Theory and then analyze the responses to those as well. A major

consideration to this study would include changing the focus in the interviews

conducted and expanding the list of motivational factors to rank or discuss. The sample

size would also be increased had the time of the study been longer. This would allow for

57

slightly more analysis and a greater chance to understand if culture and institutional

context affected motivation more or if it truly just depends on the industry and work the

middle managers conducted.

7 CONCLUSIONS While the smaller sample size and sole focus on the Herzberg hygiene factors and

motivators limits the generalizability of the results, the results have provided more

insight into the motivation of IT middle managers who implement changes in their

organizations. The purpose of the study was to fill in a slight gap in literature and

knowledge about middle management motivation in the IT industry which focuses on

change management and implementation. It also serves to lay a starting foundation for

the gaps in literature to set forth the potential to future study into this given subject

matter. The research is based on interviews from a sample size of eight individuals from

two geographic locations to see what the general motives are for this position and then

to compare motives to see if the location changes these motivations. Our ranking system

and interview guide helped to analyse some of the experiences middle management had

when implementing change and then categorizing their motivation. Although there are

some previous studies similar to ours which focus on the motivation of IT employees,

private versus public sector employees, and the level of management motivation, our

study bridges the gap while also taking a deeper look into the different geographical

locations to distinguish if that makes a difference while keeping other variables

constant. In line with another study, there is a structure in the methodology to keep a list

of factors to be able to conclude with quantifiable data and lead to a readable

comparison.

Our research leads us to believe that the societal difference between Sweden and the US

does change the motivation slightly between the different countries' middle managers.

From our data that we gathered and comparing it with the literature that we have

covered in this thesis we could see that there are some small deviations of motivation

for middle managers in Sweden and the US. The biggest differences between the two

countries were Recognition/Feedback, Personal Life, and Company Policy. Those three

motivating factors were where we could see the largest difference or the most

interesting difference. As previously stated, there is cultural difference between the two

58

countries which lead to these differences in motivating factors. As we see it our findings

should be suitable to fit a larger study. Our results lead us to suggest that for the most

part Swedish middle managers and US middle managers are in somewhat of agreement

at what their motivating factors are, however, there are some cultural differences that

we had noticed. As a whole we see that our findings align with the theories that we

discussed in section 2.

7.1 FUTURE RESEARCH

Given the limited time that we had to conduct our research and analyse our data we

were incredibly focused on our topic and had little room to have any deviations to our

plan. However, there were several interesting findings within our data gathered that

others could further investigate to help boost middle manager motivation. The first

interesting path that someone could investigate is something along the lines of how to

motivate employees when they don’t want to continue with the new change. Another

path that future researchers could pursue is furthering our research we have done

through the means of gathering a larger sample size and being able to come upon a more

accurate generalization of the middle managers for Swedish and US companies. A third

area for research could be categorizing middle managers more deeply by using

McClelland’s Need Theory, Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory, and McGregor’s Theories

X and Y. Using those theories future researchers could be able to create a new way to

categorize employees and especially middle managers. The next potential for future

research could be looking specifically at the IT industry and seeing how the motivations

differ amongst the different levels of employees. The last path that we saw that future

researchers could do is looking at more cultures/countries and seeing what the

motivating factors are for those middle managers in different regions of the world.

59

REFERENCES Alqatawenh, A.S., 2018. Transformational leadership style and its relationship with

change management. Verslas: teorija ir praktika, 19(1), pp.17-24.

Amable, B., 2003. The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford University Press on

Demand.

Anand, K.N., 1996. Quality strategy for the 1990s-the key is middle management. Total

Quality Management, 7(4), pp.411-420.

Andersen, J.A., 2018. Managers’ Motivation Profiles: Measurement and

Application. SAGE Open, 8(2), p.2158244018771732.

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research. 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Cengage, 2010; Muijs, Daniel. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with

SPSS. 2nd edition. London: SAGE Publications, 2010.

Ball, J., 2003. Understanding Herzberg’s motivation theory.

Barton, L.C. and Ambrosini, V., 2013. The moderating effect of organizational change

cynicism on middle manager strategy commitment. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 24(4), pp.721-746.

Belasco, J., 1990. Enlist champion change agents. Executive Excellence, 7(8), pp.9-10.

Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B., 2018. Business research methods. Oxford

university press.

Bhatt, R., 2017. Theoretical perspective of change management. CLEAR International

Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, 8(2).

Blanchard, K.H. and Hersey, P., 1982. Management of organizational behavior.

Prentice Hall.

Borrus, M.G. and Zysman, J., 1997. Wintelism and the changing terms of global

competition: prototype of the future?. Berkeley Roundtable on the International

Economy, University of California at Berkeley.

Bourne, M. and Bourne, P., 2016. Change management in a week: Managing change in

seven simple steps.

60

Braun, V., Clark V. 2006,«. Using thematic analysis in psychology» Edward Arnold.

Bryant, M. and Stensaker, I., 2011. The competing roles of middle management:

Negotiated order in the context of change. Journal of Change Management, 11(3),

pp.353-373.

Buick, F., Blackman, D. and Johnson, S., 2018. Enabling middle managers as change

agents: Why organisational support needs to change. Australian Journal of Public

Administration, 77(2), pp.222-235.

Burk, J. E. (2019) ‘The Only Constant is Change: Developing a Compelling Story

to Enable Organizational Transformation’, International Journal of Knowledge,

Culture & Change in Organizations: Annual Review, 19(1), pp. 1–6.

Burnes, B. and Jackson, P., 2011. Success and failure in organizational change: An

exploration of the role of values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), pp.133-

162.

Burnes, B., 2011. Introduction: Why does change fail, and what can we do about

it?. Journal of change management, 11(4), pp.445-450.

Chrusciel, D., 2008. What motivates the significant/strategic change champion

(s)?. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

Clews, R., 2016. Project finance for the international petroleum industry. Academic

Press.

Colombo, M.G. and Delmastro, M., 2002. The determinants of organizational change

and structural inertia: Technological and organizational factors. Journal of

Economics & Management Strategy, 11(4), pp.595-635.

Conway, E. and Monks, K., 2011. Change from below: the role of middle managers in

mediating paradoxical change. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2),

pp.190-203.

Dicke, Colin. “Employee Engagement & Change Management.” Library, no. 1997,

2005, pp. 49–61.

Firdaus, V. and Handriyono, H., The Effect Of Change Management And Managerial

Skill To Employee Motivation.

61

Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B., 2008. The Middle Management Perspective on

Strategy Process: Contributions, Synthesises, and Future Research. Journal of

Management, 34(6), pp.1109-1121.

Frederick Herzberg The hygiene Motivation theory, 2003.

Fritjofsson, L. (2015). ‘6 Differences When Doing Business in the US vs Sweden’,

Medium.

Frota Vasconcellos Dias, T.R. and Martens, C.D.P., 2019. BUSINESS FAILURE AND

THE DIMENSION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING: STUDY WITH

ENTREPRENEURS OF MICRO AND SMALL-SIZED ENTERPRISES. Brazilian

Journal of Management/Revista de Administração da UFSM, 12(1).

Galpin, T.J., 1996. The human side of change: A practical guide to organization

redesign. Jossey-Bass.

Gibson, G., Timlin, A., Curran, S. and Wattis, J., 2004. The scope for qualitative

methods in research and clinical trials in dementia. Age and Ageing, 33(4), pp.422-

426.

Green, R., 2004. Currents: Articles in brief. Journal of Organizational

Excellence, 23(3), pp.99-102.

Greener, S., 2008. Business research methods. BookBoon.

Grimolizzi-Jensen, C.J., 2018. Organizational change: Effect of motivational

interviewing on readiness to change. Journal of Change Management, 18(1), pp.54-

69.

Grimpe, C., Murmann, M. and Sofka, W., 2019. Organizational design choices of high‐

tech startups: How middle management drives innovation performance. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(3), pp.359-378.

Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D., 2001. Varieties of Capitalism The Institutional Foundations

of Comparative Advantage New York: Oxford University Press, 147.

Harris, M., 2013. Understanding Institutional Diversity in American Higher Education:

ASHE Higher Education Report, 39: 3. John Wiley & Sons.

62

Herzig, S.E. and Jimmieson, N.L., 2006. Middle managers' uncertainty management

during organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Hiatt, J. and Creasey, T.J., 2003. Change management: The people side of change.

Prosci.

Hofstede, G. (2005). Culture’s Consequences 2nd ed. London: Sage Publication

Limited.

Holloway, I., Todres, L. (2003) The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and

coherence. Qualitative Research, 3, 345–357.

Hope, O.L.E., 2010. The politics of middle management sensemaking and

sensegiving. Journal of Change Management, 10(2), pp.195-215.

Hornstein, H. A. (2014) The integration of project management and organizational

change management is now a necessity, Int. J. Proj. Manag.

Huy, Q., 2002. Emotional balancing: The role of middle managers in radical

change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), pp.31-69.

Interviewee S1. (2020) Interviewed by Korniat, E. and Wehner, T. (23 April 2020).

Interviewee S2. (2020) Interviewed by Wehner, T. (28 April 2020).

Interviewee S3. (2020) Interviewed by Wehner, T. (1 May 2020).

Interviewee S4. (2020) Interviewed by Wehner, T. (1 May 2020).

Interviewee US1. (2020). Interviewed by Wehner, T. (28 April 2020).

Interviewee US2. (2020) Interviewed by Wehner, T. (30 April 2020).

Interviewee US3. (2020) Interviewed by Wehner, T. (1 May 2020).

Interviewee US4. (2020) Interviewed by Wehner, T. (1 May 2020).

Kamann, M., 2019. Annual Leave Days in Sweden - 5 Weeks of Vacation. Hej

Sweden.

Kempster, S. and Gregory, S.H., 2017. ‘Should I stay or should I go?’Exploring

leadership-as-practice in the middle management role. Leadership, 13(4), pp.496-

515.

63

Kennett-Hensel, P.A. and Payne, D.M., 2018. Guiding Principles for Ethical Change

Management. JBM, p.19.

Kettinger, W.J. and Grover, V., 1995. Toward a theory of business process change

management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), pp.9-30.

King, A.W., Fowler, S.W. and Zeithaml, C.P., 2001. Managing organizational

competencies for competitive advantage: The middle-management edge. Academy

of Management Perspectives, 15(2), pp.95-106.

Klein, S.M., 1996. A management communication strategy for change. Journal of

organizational change management.

Kotter, J. P. (2007) ‘Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’, Harvard

Business Review, 85(1), pp. 96–103.

Kotter, J.P., 1996. Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, JM, & Posner, BZ (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA.

Lal, M. and Bhardwaj, G., 1981. Motivation across three job levels. Vikalpa, 6(2),

pp.101-114.

Lescano-Duncan, L., 2019. Reorienting the Role of Middle Managers for Creating

Value within the Organization: an Economical, Social and Ethical Proposal.

McClelland, D.C. and Winter, D.G., 1969. Motivating economic achievement.

McClelland, D.C., 1962. Business drive and national achievement. Harvard Business

Review, 40(4), pp.99-112.

McGregor, L. and Doshi, N., 2015. How company culture shapes employee

motivation. Harvard Business Review, 11, pp.1-13.

Moran, J.W. and Brightman, B.K., 2000. Leading organizational change. Journal of

workplace learning.

Ng Choi Teng and Rashad Yazdanifard (2015) ‘Managing Organizational Change and

Resistance from an Individualist vs. Collectivist Perspective’, International Journal

of Management, Accounting & Economics, 2(9), pp. 1065–1074.

64

Nickson, W. J. (1973). Hawthorne experiments. In C. Heyel (2 Ed.), The encyclopedia

of management (pp. 298-302). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S. and Boylaud, O., 1999. Summary indicators of product

market regulation with an extension to employment protection legislation.

Oakland, J.S. and Tanner, S., 2007. Successful change management. Total Quality

Management & Business Excellence, 18(1-2), pp.1-19.

Olding, E. and Adnams, S. (2018) “Four Must-Have Practices for Successful

Organizational Change” Gartner, pp. 1-10

Ololube, N.P. ed., 2016. Handbook of research on organizational justice and culture in

higher education institutions. IGI Global.

Pardee, R.L., 1990. Motivation Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor &

McClelland. A Literature Review of Selected Theories Dealing with Job

Satisfaction and Motivation.

Patnaik, J.B., 2011. Role of Work Culture in Improving Organisational Health. Amity

Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(1).

Phillips, J.R., 1983. Enhancing the effectiveness of organizational change

management. Human Resource Management, 22(1‐2), pp.183-199.

Raelin, J.D. and Cataldo, C.G., 2011. Whither middle management? Empowering

interface and the failure of organizational change. Journal of Change

Management, 11(4), pp.481-507.

Schlesinger, L.A., 1987. The Transformational Leader, by Noel M. Tichy and Mary

Anne Devanna, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986, 306 pp.,

$19.95. Human Resource Management, 26(1), pp.135-138.

Scott, B.R., 2011. Capitalism: its origins and evolution as a system of governance.

Springer Science & Business Media.

Senior, B. and Fleming, J., 2006. Organizational change. Pearson Education.

Singh, K. (2017) Quantitative Social Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

65

Singh, R., 2011. Job Enrichment: A prerequisite for change management. Globsyn

Management Journal, 5(1/2), p.39.

Tan, S. (2013). ‘Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory on Work Motivation: Does it Works for

Todays Environment?’ Global Journal of Commerce and Management Perspective.

TARIQ, M.U., 2015. Hypothetico-deductive method: A comparative

analysis. JOBARI, 7, pp.228-31.

Taylor, A. and Helfat, C.E., 2009. Organizational linkages for surviving technological

change: Complementary assets, middle management, and

ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), pp.718-739.

TINYpulse. (2019). ‘THE 2019 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT REPORT’, TINYpulse.

Toe, T.T., Murhadi, W.R. and Lin, W., 2013. Research Study on the Correlation

Between Employee Job Satisfaction and Employee Motivation. International

Journal of Business Management, 6(1), pp.142-166.

Tosi, I. and Rizzo, J. and Carroll, S. 1986. Managing Organizational Behavior.

Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

TSheets, 2019. Are You Giving Your Employees Enough PTO? 2019 Survey.

Ukil, M.I. and Akkas, A., 2016. Determining success factors for effective strategic

change: Role of middle managers' strategic involvement. Serbian Journal of

Management, 12(1).

Van Dijk, R. and Van Dick, R., 2009. Navigating organizational change: Change

leaders, employee resistance and work-based identities. Journal of change

Management, 9(2), pp.143-163.

Van Wyk, B., 2012. Research design and methods Part I. University of Western Cape.

Wisdom, J. and Creswell, J., 2013. Mixed Methods: Integrating Quantitative And

Qualitative Data Collection. [ebook] AHRQ, pp.1-8.

Yonardy, C. and Mekel, P.A., 2014. Analyzing Change Management in

Organization. Jurnal EMBA: Jurnal Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis dan

Akuntansi, 2(1).

66

Zhang, Y., Pei, L. and Xu, H., 2017. Identification for Key Functional Features of

Middle-Level Managers Based on GRA Method: a Case Study of Logistics

Industry. Journal of Grey System, 29(4).

67

APPENDIX 1: Introduction & Interview Guide

I am a third year Dual Degree IT student of DePaul University from the United States.

At this moment, I am writing my final thesis to complete my study abroad experience

and graduate with a Bachelor of Business Administration.

The focus of my thesis studies “Change Management Motivation of Middle Managers”

which includes the research questions:

What motives does middle management have when handling organizational change

management in the IT industry?

How does institutional context affect motivating factors of middle management?

It will be necessary for interviews from managers preferably in middle management

positions who have experience in change management/ implementing change in the

organization. The aim of these interviews is to compare current known motivators of

employees in change management and define those which apply to managers tasked

with the challenge.

The criteria that we have created for the purpose of our study are the following:

1. Minimum of three years’ experience with organizational change,

2. Professional experience within the industry,

3. Managed at least 3 change related projects.

This interview is preferred over video/audio conference or e-mail.

I would be more than thankful if you could be so kind to help in this research.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Korniat

**Sample email sent to the prospective interviewees

68

INTERVIEW GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

Presenter will be Elizabeth Korniat and Thomas Wehner

Presentation of the thesis introduction. Following this, it will be made sure

the aim is understood and an agreement established of participant contribution

ETHICS

Before we start, we would like to remind you of the ethical procedures. Firstly, we will

keep anonymity of any personal information and process it confidentially without

mentioning it in our report. Secondly, during the interview, if there are any questions

you do not feel comfortable answering, you can inform us without justification. Finally,

we would like to audio record the interview to review and summarize with the utmost

accuracy at a later time. Do you consent to this recording?

QUESTIONS

Introduction to Change

1) How would you define Change?

a) Within your organization?

2) How much professional experience do you have with implementing change within

your company?

3) Can you tell us about sometimes that you had to implement change into your

organization?

a) What kind of change did you implement?

b) Who was involved in the project and what role did you play?

c) Why did your company implement the change?

d) What percent would you say failed?

e) What was the reason for failure?

Personal Details

4) How old are you?

69

5) What is your ethnicity?

6) What gender do you define yourself?

7) How would you describe your role/position within your organization?

8) What background experience do you have for this position?

9) How does your company help you in your position? What are ways that they

motivate you?

10) What do you enjoy about your position?

11) What are some challenges of your role?

12) Have you ever gone against orders to implement changes even if you think there is

no benefit?

a) Why may most managers not speak up?

b) Is there a fear of losing your job? Is fear a motivation?

13) How are projects usually agreed upon? Is there ever consideration to disagree with a

superior?

General Questions

14) What are your organization's strengths in implementing change?

a) Weaknesses?

15) What are some challenges you face when implementing change?

a) From lower level employees?

b) From Top management?

16) Approximately how many employees are within your organization?

a) Approximately how many employees do you oversee?

17) How important do you think middle level management is in implementing change?

a) Why do you say that?

18) What services does your company provide?

a) What are the most common services you provide?

Employee Commitment to Implement Change

19) How do you motivate your employees to implement change Financially?

a) Non-Financially?

20) What are the actions that you take when employees resist new changes or are

unwilling to implement change?

70

Motivation

21) What motivates you to implement change you agree with?

a) Disagree with?

22) Would you say that you are self motivated?

23) What are some external factors that motivate you such as pressure or involvement of

others to motivate you?

24) Rank the motivators from most to least important for yourself. 1 being highest and

12 being lowest:

25) Achievement, Personal Life, Work Itself, Job Security, Advancement, Company

Policies, Growth, Working Conditions, Status, Job Responsibility, Interpersonal

Relations, Recognition/Feedback

71

APPENDIX 2: Interview Information

Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research. The information below will

explain the topic of the thesis, your role, and the conditions to take into consideration.

The study’s topic, as mentioned in our initial contact, is change management motivation

of middle managers. In addition, we aim to look at the types of motivation and analyse

how your motivations may differ from other level managers, other industries, and based

on your institutional context.

The purpose of this interview is to receive more insight into our topic. If you agree, we

would like to record the audio to your insight again and properly analyse after the

interview. Before we start, we will lay out the subjects and possible questions to

investigate. Despite this, the interview will be flexible and adjust to your answers and

knowledge discussed. If there is information that is uncomfortable to discuss or unsure

of any subject, you can refuse to answer, and we will proceed with the other subjects

without the need to justify.

To respect privacy, your name and any association to your workplace will not be

displayed in final reports. With your approval, we would like your title to be included as

well as the country you work in to better define your responsibilities.

The information provided in the interview will be used for research only. In the end, the

thesis will be published meaning others will have access to collected data.

If there are any terms you disagree with, please let us know and modifications will be

made accordingly. Thank you again for taking time out of your schedule to be

interviewed.

72