Field notes · 5 min read
Where change actually gets decided
The town hall ends. The slides are good, the questions were polite, the leadership team feels it went well. Then, in a corridor or on a call ten minutes later, someone turns to their manager and asks: "So what does this actually mean for us?"
That conversation, and the hundreds like it, is where a lot of change gets decided. Strategy gets written in the boardroom. It gets decided out here, often by middle managers, often without senior leaders in the room.
Managers talk to each other first
In a long study of a company moving from a hierarchy to a more decentralised structure, researchers followed middle managers as they tried to make sense of what was happening. What shaped their understanding most was their sideways conversations with each other, "in the absence of senior management" (Balogun and Johnson, Academy of Management Journal, 2004).
Their shared picture of the change went through stages. First a common view, then separate clusters with different views, then a shared but more varied understanding. None of that was in the communication plan. It happened in the gaps between official messages.
This has a practical side. If managers make sense of change together, then what they hear from each other can matter as much as what they hear from the top. A leadership team that only briefs managers one way, and never hears what they are saying to each other, is missing much of the picture.
Managers translate, every day
A study of a high-end clothing company watched how middle managers carried a strategic change into their everyday work with staff and customers. The researcher described four things they did: translating the new direction into local terms, reframing the strategy in language that made sense to the people in front of them, steering how customers were handled, and justifying the change (Rouleau, Journal of Management Studies, 2005).
That goes well beyond passing on a message. Managers drew on what they knew about their people and their customers to make the strategy workable. A later paper by the same researcher and a colleague described two skills behind it: "performing the conversation" (finding the right words) and "setting the scene" (choosing the right moment and setting so people can take part) (Rouleau and Balogun, Journal of Management Studies, 2011).
A review of 25 years of research makes the wider point. Middle managers contribute to strategy, not only to carrying it out (Wooldridge, Schmid and Floyd, Journal of Management, 2008).
Two ways to get it wrong
A three-year study of a large firm going through radical change found managers had to balance two things at once: committing to the change themselves, and paying attention to how their people felt about it (Huy, Administrative Science Quarterly, 2002).
Both failure modes showed up. Where managers had little commitment to the change, things stalled. Where they pushed hard but paid little attention to people's feelings, the result was chaos. The groups that adapted best had managers who did both. They kept service quality steady while new skills were built.
That balance is hard to hold if the manager is also anxious, overloaded and finding out about the change at the same time as their team.
A note on the numbers
You will often see Gallup's finding that managers account for 70 percent of the variance in team engagement (Gallup). It is a striking figure, but it is about engagement, not change. We would not use it to claim how much of a change's success depends on managers. The studies above are mostly detailed work inside single organisations. They are strong on how change happens, and they do not give a neat percentage. We think that is fine.
What we suggest instead
Brief managers before the announcement, not with everyone else.
Give them time to understand the change and their questions answered before their teams ask them.
Give them room to translate.
Agree what must stay fixed and what each manager can adapt for their team. A message that has to be repeated word for word is hard to make real.
Put managers in the room with each other.
They will make sense of the change together anyway. Make it a planned conversation with someone listening, not only a corridor one.
Listen to what comes back up.
Managers hear the real objections first. Set up a simple, regular way for that to reach the people who can act on it, and show that it does.
Look after their load.
Huy's balance takes time and energy. If managers are carrying the change on top of a full job, something needs to come off.
Back both halves of the job.
Recognise managers who keep the change moving and the ones who keep their people steady. Usually you need the same person to do both.
The short version
Senior leaders set the direction. Middle managers turn it into something people can act on, through translation, conversation and judgement. The research suggests that work is strategic and that it happens whether or not anyone plans for it. The question is whether you equip it, or leave it to the corridor.
So, after your next announcement: what are your managers saying to each other, and who is listening?
Sources and further reading
- Balogun, J. and Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal.
- Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving. Journal of Management Studies.
- Rouleau, L. and Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies.
- Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change. Administrative Science Quarterly.
- Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T. and Floyd, S. W. (2008). The middle management perspective on strategy process. Journal of Management.
Sources are cited from published research and industry reporting. Copies are held on file and available on request.