HOW AND WHY MIDDLE MANAGERS SUPPORT OR RESIST STRATEGIC

CHANGE
Strategic change is an essential aspect for the growth of any organisation. In a
world which is constantly changing and growing in terms of change in social
preferences, evolving technology and shifting market trends, an organisation
that cannot change and grow in alignment with these is likely to suffer extinction.
Research on strategic change and its success has identified middle managers as
key to the success rate of any strategic change in an organisation (IBM Global
Making Change Work Study, 2008). Floyd and Wooldridge (1994), have identified
middle managers as those in the organisation that connect the organisations
institutions (strategic) and technical (operational) levels through communication
and implementation. This is supported by the Australian Institute of Management
(2014). They explain that middle managers are key facilitators of change as they
have been tasked with ensuring that the strategies of the organisation is fully
implemented to achieve its goals.
The issues this paper looks to address are the reasons why middle managers will
support or resist change in the organisation. It has been estimated that the
average success rate of implemented change in organisations is 56% to 70%
(Australian Institute of Management, 2014). This has been attributed to a
number of issues paramount of which is resistance to change. Braaf (2011) has
pointed out that resistance to change objectives has a distinct impact on the
success rate of strategic change process in organisations.
Resistance to change has been acknowledged as any form of action or inaction
by employees based on a perceived notion that the change process will create
inconveniences, costs (both tangible and intangible) as well as instability in the
current status quo. This is understandable as the Models of Planned Change tend
to overhaul the current culture for the new and desired one. The level of
disruption the change is most likely to introduce within the short-term will
automatically illicit resistance from employees. (Ansoff, 1988; Brower & Abolafia,
1995; Giangreco & Peccei, 2005; Zaltman & Duncan, 1977)
Middle management are not immune to resisting change. The reasons why
middle manager may resist change is due to the nature of the Models of Planned
Change. Hart (1992) has pointed out that one thing that the Models of Planned
Change overlook is the role middle management play in the change process and
the issues they face in the change process. This is supported by Schaafsma
(1997), who explained that the Models of Planned Change focus more on a topto-bottom change, through the process of re-structuring and development, and
corporate strategies rather than looking at the details of implementation, chain
of command and instrumental approaches in managing the change process.
Based on the above it is clear to see that middle managers are likely to resist the
change process when top management develop the concepts and processes of
change and send it down the hierarchy of the organisation without effectively
dialoguing with middle management on the desired impact of the change
process. Without involving middle management in the change process, it creates
uncertainty over the outcome of the change process for middle management
regarding the effects of the change process in terms of its impact on their roles,

workload, and their level of responsibilities. These concerns on the part of middle
managers will create resistance to the change process.
Therefore, for middle managers to support strategic change there should be a
bottom-to-top change approach adopted rather than a top-to-bottom approach.
In essence, if top management include middle managers in the development of
the change process they are more likely to support it rather than resist. Doing
this provides middle management the confidence to implement the process.
Also, as they serve as a bridge between top management and the rest of the
organisation they can address any potential resistance from the rest of
employees at the development level.
Furthermore, providing middle managers with some level of autonomy in
implementing the change objective will increase their support for it. In addition
to the bottom-to-top approach, the provision of autonomy erases any conflict of
roles or uncertainty that middle management will have regarding the change
process as they understand that they are fully responsible and involved in the
change process. This will increase their support for the change process as they
know they are in charge for its success.
As explained earlier, strategic change brings about an increase in workload
which can result in resistance from middle management. Accompanying this with
an increase in rewards/salary for middle management is most likely to increase
support.
In conclusion, it is safe to assert that middle managers resist change when they
are not fully involved and consulted in the change process by top management.
By involving them in the process, top management will gain their support and
successfully implement the change process.

REFERENCES
Ansoff, I. (1988), The New Corporate Strategy, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Australian Institute of Management (2014) Engaging Middle Managers for
Positive Organisational Change. Australian Institute of Management.
Brower, R. S., & Abolafia, M. Y. 1995. The structural embeddedness of resistance
among public managers. Group and Organisation Management, 20: 149-166
Braaf, P. (2011), The Role of Middle Management in Change Management
Programme, A Case Study of Telesur. Maastricht, Maastricht School of
Management
Floyd, S.W. and Wooldridge, B. (1994) "Dinosaurs or Dynamos? Recognizing
Middle Management's Strategic Role", Academy of Management Executive
Giangreco, Antonio and Peccei, Riccardo (2005). The Nature and Antecedents of
Middle Manager Resistance to Change: Evidence from an Italian Context. The
international journal of human resource management, 16:10october 2005,pp
1812 1829
Hart, M. (1992), Working and Educating for Life. Feminist and International
Perspectives on Adult Education, Routledge, London
Schaafsma, Hank. (1997) A Networking Model of Change for Middle Managers.
Leadership & organisation development journal, 41-49. Schein