is there a perfect leader in change? - diva portal

IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGYDEGREE PROJECT DESIGN AND PRODUCT REALISATIONAND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDYINDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2021

Is there a perfect leader in change?Transformational and servant leadership in agile transformation

ELIN LUNDSTRÖM

FILSAN YUSUF

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

Is there a perfect leader in change?

Transformational and servant leadership in agile transformation

by

Elin Lundström Filsan Yusuf

Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:354

KTH Industrial Engineering and Management

Industrial Management

SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM

Finns den perfekta ledaren i förändring?

Transformativt och tjänande ledarskap i agil förändring

av

Elin Lundström Filsan Yusuf

Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:354

KTH Industriell teknik och management

Industriell ekonomi och organisation

SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM

Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:354

Is there a perfect leader in change? Transformational and servant leadership in agile transformation

Elin Lundström

Filsan Yusuf

Approved

2021-06-11

Examiner

Pernilla Ulfvengren

Supervisor

Lars Uppvall

Commissioner

Contact person

Kent R Johansson

Abstract

The current environment of the automotive industry is affected by new technologies, growing

market dynamics, increasing demands from customers, and regulations such as sustainability

requirements. To handle rapid changes many firms are leaning towards a more agile and flexible

way of working. Such transformations have a tremendous effect on how organizations are

managed and led. This leads to challenges for the leadership that should be able to lead the

organization and the people through changing environments. Transformational and servant

leadership have been explored in the context of change. However, previous studies show

contradictory views on appropriate leadership approaches for companies that are facing change.

Therefore this study seeks to evaluate servant and transformational leadership in situations of

agile transformations. The purpose of this thesis is to develop recommendations for leaders

within incumbent firms that are facing agile transformations.

A qualitative case study was conducted and limited to an R&D department within the hardware

development at an incumbent automotive firm. Department managers, section managers, project

managers, and group managers were interviewed to deepen the understanding of the challenges

that the company was facing. Findings indicate that it is important for leaders to consider

challenges such as facing resistance to change, considering a new role as a leader, and ensuring

psychological safety. This was elaborated on further and the two leadership models;

transformational and servant leadership, were expected to contribute to a smoother change

process. As psychological safety was seen as important in this change, the leaders had a mindset

to encourage followers to take risks. This was done by promoting autonomy and encouraging

followers to “test and try”. Servant leaders support agile principles and transformational leaders

strive to encourage change initiative. These leadership approaches can therefore enhance and

support organizational efforts in working more agile. However, there can not be drawn any

conclusion of which leadership model is most suitable for change. Servant and transformational

leadership show indications of which leadership attributes are desired for change. Leaders need

to evaluate the change situation and the followers' needs to determine appropriate leadership

approaches.

Keywords: Change, Leadership, Leadership challenges, Agile transformations,

Transformational leadership, Servant leadership

Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:354

Finns den perfekta ledaren i förändring?

Transformativt och tjänande ledarskap i agil förändring

Elin Lundström

Filsan Yusuf

Godkänt

2021-06-11

Examinator

Pernilla Ulfvengren

Handledare

Lars Uppvall

Uppdragsgivare

Kontaktperson

Kent R Johansson

Sammanfattning

Traditionella tillverkningsföretag möter utmaningar med ny teknik, förändrad marknadsdynamik,

ökade krav från kunder och hållbarhetskrav. Dessa förändringar har en stor effekt på hur

organisationer hanteras och leds. Detta leder till utmaningar för ledare som ska kunna leda

organisationen och människorna genom förändrade miljöer. Transformativt och tjänande

ledarskap har utforskats under förändringar. Tidigare studier visar dock motstridiga åsikter om

lämpliga ledarskapsmetoder för företag som står inför förändring. Denna studie försöker därför

undersöka transformativt och tjänande ledarskap i agila förändringar. Syftet med detta

examensarbete är att finna rekommendationer för ledare inom traditionella företag som står inför

agila organisatoriska förändringar.

En kvalitativ fallstudie genomfördes och avgränsas till hårdvaruutveckling inom en FoU-

organisation i ett traditionellt tillverkningsföretag. Avdelningschefer, sektionschefer,

projektledare och gruppchefer intervjuades för att fördjupa förståelsen för de utmaningar som

företaget står inför. Resultaten visar indikationer på att det är viktigt för ledare att hantera

utmaningar som till exempel att möta motstånd i förändringsarbetet, överväga en ny roll som

ledare och att skapa trygghet. De två ledarskapsmodellerna; transformativt och tjänande

ledarskap, förväntades bidra till en smidigare förändringsprocess. Trygghet ansågs vara viktig i

denna förändring och därför hade ledarna en inställning att uppmuntra medarbetare att ta risker

genom att ledarna främjade autonomi och uppmuntrar medarbetarna att testa och prova.

Tjänande ledare stöder agila principer och transformativa ledare strävar efter att uppmuntra

förändringsinitiativ. Dessa ledarskapsstrategier kan därför förbättra och stödja organisatoriska

insatser för att arbeta mer agilt. Det kan dock inte dras någon slutsats om vilken

ledarskapsmodell som är mest lämplig för förändring. Transformativt och tjänande ledarskap

visar indikationer på vilka ledarskapsattribut som är önskvärda i en förändring. Ledare måste

därför utvärdera förändringssituationer och medarbetarnas behov för att bestämma lämpliga

ledarskapsstrategier.

Nyckelord: Förändring, Ledarskap, Ledarskapsutmaningar, Agila förändringar, Transformativt

ledarskap, Tjänande ledarskap

Acknowledgment

Firstly, we want to express our gratitude to our supervisor Kent R Johansson, at the

case company for providing us an interesting thesis topic. Thanks for all the personal

support you provided us with, how you challenged our thoughts, for valuable

insights, and for allowing us to actively take part in the organization. We truly

appreciate how you supported us with valuable advice and internal contacts which

contributed to the results of our study.

A special thanks go to Lars Uppvall, our supervisor at the Royal Institute of

Technology. Your guidance, feedback, notes, and academic support have been

appreciated, as well as your recognition of our thoughts which was an invaluable

source of support. We would also express our appreciation to our seminar leader and

examiner, Pernilla Ulfvengren, for valuable insights and notes. Your support has

guided us through this master thesis process. Also a big thanks to our seminar

groups for giving feedback on our drafts through the process.

A special acknowledgment to all participants and informants at the case company we

came across. Your knowledge, engagement, and unreserved devotion of time have

provided us with valuable information. We hope that the readers and especially the

case company find it interesting and valuable for insights into leadership in change.

All things considered, this thesis would not be possible without the support of many

people.

Elin Lundström and Filsan Yusuf

Stockholm, June 11, 2021

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Purpose and Research Questions 2

1.3 Delimitations 3

2 Literature Review 4

2.1 Leadership 4

2.2 Agile Organizational Change 7

2.3 Leadership in Change 9

2.4 Summary of Leaders in Change 18

3 Method 20

3.1 Research Setting 20

3.2 Research Design 20

3.3 Research Process 22

3.4 Data Collection 23

3.5 Data Analysis 27

3.6 Research Quality 29

3.7 Ethical Consideration 30

4 Empirical Findings 31

4.1 Pre-study: Overview of the Main Challenges in an Agile Transformation 31

4.2 Main-study: Leadership Challenges in An Agile Transformation 34

5 Discussion 47

5.1 Organizational Change towards Sustainable Work 47

5.2 Leadership Challenges 48

5.3 Encouraging Change as a Transformational Leader 53

5.4 Supporting in Change as a Servant Leader 56

5.5 Servant and Transformational Leadership in Change 60

5.6 Discussing the Research Process 63

5.7 Discussing the Purpose of the Study 65

5.8 Summary of Leadership in Change 66

6 Conclusion 68

6.1 Research Questions 68

6.2 Further Recommendations 71

References 74

Appendix A. Interview Guide to Pre-study

Appendix B. Interview Guide to Main Study

List of Figures

Figure 1. Elements of Transformational Leadership ........................................... 10

Figure 2. Characteristics of Servant Leadership .................................................. 13

Figure 3. Framework of the research process within the context of agile

transformation ......................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4. Description of the data collection and analysis process ..................... 28

Figure 5. Leadership challenges in an agile transformation.................................48

Figure 6. Large scale agile transformation in Hardware …............................... 66

Figure 7. Large scale agile transformation in Hardware …............................... 70

List of Tables

Table 1. Interview participants during the pre-study ......................................... 24

Table 2. Interview participants during the main study ....................................... 25

1 Introduction

This thesis seeks to address leadership challenges to find recommendations on what

leadership approach is needed to support agile transformations. The research

setting is a research and development (R&D) department at a larger automotive

company in Sweden facing transformations toward more agile ways of working.

1.1 Background

The automotive industry has historically been relatively stable with time-consuming

R&D cycles and long lead times, which has led to an environment with a strong focus

on incremental process improvements. Changes such as growing market dynamics

and increasing demands for individualization by customers are currently affecting

this industry (Winkelhake, 2018; Burggräf et al., 2020). The nature of the automotive

industry is also changing due to new technologies such as electrification,

connectivity, and autonomous driving (Speranza, 2018). Incumbent firms are

undergoing rapid transformations and are starting to adopt agile methods to

maintain their market position and manage new trends in transportation and

logistics (Dikert et al., 2016). The challenging part with implementing agile methods

is that traditional leadership methods of command-and-control and hierarchical

organizational structures do not support agile principles (Coleman & Whitehurst,

2014; Parker et al., 2015; Theobald et al., 2020).

Leaders are vital during a transformation because they can influence the

organization and the followers to work towards common goals by setting strategies,

aligning people, spreading values, and creating the attitudes of the organization to

the employees (Dinh et al., 2014; Nahavandi, 2015; Chiniara & Benteins, 2016). One

of the common conclusions found in the literature is that leadership is related to

organizational ability to cope with change (Dikert et al., 2016; Kalenda et al., 2018).

Leaders have an important role in leading change because the central elements of

leadership are to prepare for change, help the organization through the change

process and handle challenges related to such change (Kotter, 2001). However,

leaders need particular skills and competencies to manage rapid transformations and

navigate the business through changing conditions (Burnes, 1996; Kotter, 2001;

Davis, 2014).

The literature mentions two central leadership models to handle organizational

changes; transformational leadership and servant leadership. Research studies have

found that transformational leaders are associated with managerial effectiveness

during organizational change (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Pawar & Eastman, 1997, cited in

Carter et al., 2012). Transformational leadership shows a relationship to increased

employee proactiveness due to their ability to build commitment to the organization

by showing positive consequences of the change and creating engagement (Strauss et

al., 2009; Faupel & Süß, 2019). Servant leaders support the agile mindset of valuing

1

individuals by focusing on serving their followers, giving autonomy, and involving

the followers in the daily work (Van Dierendonck, 2011; Wipfler & Vorbach, 2015;

Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Faupel & Süß, 2019). Similar to transformational

leadership, studies have shown that servant leadership could also be beneficial to

gain commitment during organizational changes (Liden et al., 2008; Kaltiainen &

Hakanen, 2020).

There are differences in opinions on which leadership approach is the most

appropriate. Servant leadership is preferred in stable working environments,

whereas transformational leadership is effective in uncertain working environments

(Smith et al., 2004). However, if the uncertainty involves the individual, servant

leaders can help the followers to satisfy their needs, which shows that servant

leadership might be effective in some change processes (van Dierendonck et al.,

2014). If an organizational change is rapid or unplanned, leaders should focus on the

relationship with the followers by creating emotional connections to overcome

resistance towards change (Nahavandi, 2015). Both servant and transformational

leadership focus on the individuals. Transformational leaders strive to help

individuals to cope with change and guide them through the transition process.

Servant leaders focus on fulfilling psychological needs such as autonomy,

relatedness, and competence, which increases the follower’s well-being and

motivation (Van Dierendonck et al., 2009; Nahavandi, 2015).

Previous research studies show contradictory views on which leadership approach is

most suitable for organizational change. Few studies investigate servant leadership in

a change process (de Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2014; Kaltiainen & Hakanen, 2020).

De Sousa & van Dierendonck (2014) suggest that servant leadership needs further

investigation in contexts of change and uncertainty to distinguish the model from

others models such as transformational leadership. Further research to understand

how transformational leaders encourage or obstruct organizational change is also

needed and under what conditions organizations need transformational leadership

(Nahavandi, 2015; Peng et al., 2020). Therefore, this study seeks to address the gap

in a limited understanding of appropriate leadership styles for companies facing agile

transformations within the hardware environment (Parker et al., 2015; Paasivaara et

al., 2018).

1.2 Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this thesis is to develop recommendations for leaders within

incumbent firms that are facing agile transformations. In order to reach the purpose,

leadership challenges are investigated during an agile transformation through the

lens of servant and transformational leadership. This study seeks to answer the

following research questions;

2

Main Question: How do leaders in large-scale agile transformation describe

leaders in change?

sub RQ1: What are the key challenges for leadership in a large-scale agile

transformation in an incumbent firm?

sub RQ2: What aspects from servant and transformational leadership are driven by

leadership challenges in transformation?

1.3 Delimitations

The delimitations of this study are mainly regarding the research focus of leadership

from a servant and transformational perspective in a large-scale agile

transformation. The master thesis focused on an incumbent Swedish automotive

company where the empirical contribution of the research is limited to the

company’s R&D departments that focus on hardware development. The hardware

department is at the early phases of the change process, a transformation towards an

agile way of working, which started during the thesis work. There are various phases

to study during an organizational change. The focus of this study has been on the

beginning of the change and not after the implementation. Organizations usually

focus on planning and creating a foundation to cope with change during the early

phases, which might affect the outcome of the results because it is premature to

experience the intended effects of the change actions.

The data collection consisted of leaders within various positions and areas of

responsibility, from department managers to group managers. Delimitations on

interesting study groups such as employees stem from the limited amount of time

but allowed gathering significant material on leadership perspectives. Further, the

number of study participants was delimited. Nevertheless, this research has some

delimitations, but the analysis and conclusion can provide value for incumbent firms

or larger organizations to gather new ideas for transformations. Leaders in a change

process might also find new propositions to consider.

3

2 Literature Review

This chapter discusses the current research within the area of management and

leadership. It presents a review of the literature on traditional management and

organizations and leadership. The first section presents concepts within the

leadership area, while the following sections give an overview of the environment

of change, and leaders in change.

2.1 Leadership

The leadership area has been explored for decades with many different ideas,

definitions, and concepts. One of the common conclusions found in the literature is

that leadership is strongly connected to an organization's ability to cope with change

(Dikert et al., 2016; Kalenda et al., 2018). Differences in the opinions in the literature

mean that the leadership role and common attributes for leaders vary. In casual

conversations, it is therefore challenging to distinguish between leaders and

managers. Although, the areas of responsibilities and activities differentiate the

leader from the manager (Nahavandi, 2015). This section attempts to distinguish the

differences between management and leadership and describe the components of

effective leadership and leadership attributes.

2.1.1 The Difference Between Management and Leadership

The difference between management and leadership is often vague (Kotter, 2001).

Leaders are expected to set a direction that includes the company’s vision and

strategy, as well as handle rapid change (Nahavandi, 2015). Davis (2014) explains

leadership as “the act and art of persuasion”, which shows that leaders must be able

to motivate, encourage and guide. Managers are expected to set goals and allocate

resources for leaders (Kotter, 2001). Kotter (1996) distinguishes significant

differences where management’s main task is to sustain stability and order, whereas

the leadership focuses on change and development in the organization. Managers

organize by implementing procedures, and leaders initiate strategies and goals

(Nahavandi, 2015). The difference between management and leadership mainly

involves certain areas of responsibilities and people-approaching methods. The three

essential processes for management involve: to plan and allocate a budget;

organizational tasks and human resources tasks; and controlling and solving

problems (Kotter, 1996). Managers control processes, review plans and results,

coordinate employees, and solve problems (Kotter, 1996). Therefore, managers are

responsible for the daily business and for simplifying processes (Kotter, 1996).

Nahavandi (2015) differentiates leaders’ and managers' roles as managers focus on

the present while leaders focus more on the future. The three essential processes for

leadership involve: to provide goals and visions, align employees with goals, and

motivating and inspiring employees (Kotter, 1996). Leaders usually assume a

4

hierarchy within a group, which can either be formal and specified, or informal and

flexible (Nahavandi, 2015). Formal communication with groups is more common in

hierarchical organizations, which could result in challenges in decision-making and

information flow (Moore, 2009).

Rapidly changing markets mean that organizations must adapt to new situations

(Kotter, 1996). The task of leadership is therefore to explore new alternatives and

directions (Kotter, 1996). Maylor’s (2010) characteristics of a leader are someone

who strives to create and have a positive influence on individuals, whereas seeing

people as resources is a management approach. Leadership is, therefore, more

people-related than management (Maylor, 2010). Leaders influence others through

their actions and personality by creating a culture that is based on shared values

(Maylor, 2010). They can also establish a relationship with the followers (Nahavandi,

2015). Another difference between leaders and managers is that leaders in order to

create change, initiate goals, and create a culture, use personal power instead of

position power (Nahavandi, 2015). However, leadership and management

complement each other and are therefore needed in organizations that operate in

changing and uncertain environments (Kotter, 2001). For example, Moore (2009)

shows the importance of leaders who can lead with a direction and vision instead of

managing in an agile organization.

2.1.2 Traditional Management and Leadership Concepts

Traditional management is characterized by a command-and-control structure and

strict compliance with plans and processes to manage uncertainties and changing

situations (Korge, 2017). The order is established by organizational structures and

rigid hierarchies that are seen as a necessity for planning and stability (Parker et al.,

2015). The assumption is that when control increases, the structure of processes and

order also increases, which reduces risks (Korge, 2017). Employees are seen as a

resource and are interchangeable (Parker et al., 2015). Work is processed in structure

by being broken down into tasks and then assigned to a responsible person.

Managers handle risks through extensive and detailed planning (Parker et al., 2015).

Although, traditional organizational management and leadership concepts have

proven to be successful over the last decades (Korge, 2017). The literature specifies

that traditional concepts of top-down and command-and-control management are

no longer suitable methods (Theobald et al., 2020). For many years, productivity was

the primary goal for organizations. However, human factors such as employee

motivations have also started to play an important role (Theobald et al., 2020).

Further, in an environment where teams structure their work in a decentralized

approach means that traditional managerial control is less achievable and less useful

(Bäcklander, 2019). Consequently, traditional management and leadership methods

that aim to improve performance conflict with people’s ability to perform (Nold &

Michel, 2016). In order for organizations to adapt and move quickly in the future

5

means that rigid command-and-control structures must be removed (Murray &

Greenes, 2006). At the same time, Moore (2009) concludes that it is more important

to identify leaders with key leadership attributes than have the right organizational

structure to be successful in an agile organization.

2.1.3 Effective Leaders and Leadership Attributes

Effective leaders need a vision and the ability to lead their employees to work

together towards a common goal (Davis, 2014; Nahavandi, 2015). Nahavandi (2015)

defines leaders as “any person who influences individuals and groups within an

organization, helps them establish goals, and guides them toward the achievement

of those goals, thereby allowing them to be effective“. Kotter (2001) states that

studying activities connected to leadership can help to clarify which leadership skills

are desired. Alignment of people is an example of an activity connected to leadership,

which leaders practice by strong communication that explains the direction and

vision (Klein, 1996; Kotter, 2001). Alignment is something leaders can create by

setting the right conditions, using clear communication, feedback, and active

listening (Olofsson & Nilsson, 2015).

Being a successful leader is not comparable to being an effective leader. An effective

leader has productive and satisfied employees while a leader that is promoted quickly

is seen as a successful leader. Therefore, the focus for effective leaders is on the

people while successful leaders tend to focus on themselves and networking activities

(Nahavandi, 2015). Moreover, Uhl-Bien (2006) concludes that the key for leadership

is to form relationships with the followers instead of using authority and dominance.

Discovering and studying these relationships can explore how leadership arises

through interactions with others instead of only focusing on productivity from a

management perspective (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Time, resources, and the right environment enable leaders and teams to perform

(Olofsson & Nilsson, 2015). Teams are also dependent on support from the R&D

leaders, both by leaders providing the resources and setting a vision (Moore, 2009;

Olofsson & Nilsson, 2015). Leaders should motivate the team members using

individual and collective communication, which is important for getting people to

commit to a change (Kotter, 2001; Moore, 2009). The people must also feel

motivated to follow the decided direction of the change (Kotter, 2001). Besides

coaching and training, support can be to create a safe environment for the followers.

In new product development, the leader influences the psychological safety of the

followers. It is of importance that the leader creates a climate that promotes

innovation and learning by inviting others. The followers will then be able to take

risks, question the process, and give ideas that might result in more effectiveness in

the projects (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). Nahavandi (2015) states that “leaders

are effective when their followers achieve their goals, can function well together,

6

and can adapt to changing demands from external forces''. Therefore, leadership

effectiveness can be described with three aspects: smooth internal processes, goal

achievement, and external adaptability.

For leaders to be successful and effective, there must be genuine trust between the

leader and followers (Nahavadi, 2015). Leaders also need to have the ability to

handle rapid change (Kotter, 2001). This is in line with Nahavandi (2015) who states

that, in a fast-changing environment, one of the key attributes for leaders is to be

flexible and open to change. To handle change, the leader and people need to have

emotional stability because if they have control over their feelings they can use them

in the right way (Goleman, 1998). Moreover, leaders need the ability to balance the

needs of the individuals and the team (Moore, 2009).

2.2 Agile Organizational Change

The agile mindset is radically starting to change the way organizations are managed

(Hesselberg, 2018). This mindset emphasizes valuing individuals and interactions

over processes and tools, working software over comprehensive documentation,

customer collaboration over contract negotiation, and responding to change instead

of following a plan (Wipfler & Vorbach, 2015; Cooper & Sommer, 2016). Although

agile methods were initially used in smaller organizations, larger companies have

been influenced to use them as a way to handle competitive and changing

environments (Karvonen et al., 2018).

However, organizational change can be hard to manage for leaders. Studies state that

40-80 percent of change projects that involve new technology fail (Berggren &

Lindkvist, 2001; Burnes, 2009). In addition, the organizational size and existing

structure decrease the speed of the change process (Paasivaara et al., 2018). It is

therefore argued that management and leadership are of high importance to succeed

with an organizational change (By, 2005). For instance, Burnes (1996) and

Nahavandi (2015) argue that change comes in different forms and should be

approached depending on the situation. Further, Goleman (1998) agrees that

different situations can not be managed with the same leadership style. This shows

that organizational change requires an adjusted and suitable leadership approach.

Moreover, research has discussed two central areas of agile organizational changes

(Karvonen et al., 2018). Firstly, there are several studies that discuss the challenges

and success factors related to the transformational process (Paasivaara et al., 2008;

Korhonen, 2013; Dikert et al., 2016; Kalenda et al., 2018; Paasivaara et al., 2018).

Second, other studies discuss how traditional roles and practices change (Jovanović,

et al., 2017; Karvonen et al., 2018). With many elements at play for organizations

undergoing agile changes, this study emphasizes the leadership and cultural aspect of

such transformations.

7

2.2.1 Resistance to Change

Resistance to change is one challenge to overcome in a large-scale agile

transformation (Dikert et al., 2016). In Dikert et al. 's (2016) systematic literature

review, they found that there is a general resistance but also skepticism of the new

way of working, resistance from management, and top-down mandate that generates

refusal to accept the change. Denning (2010, cited in Nahavandi, 2015) suggests

using leadership tools during change. The leadership tools consist of supporting,

role-modeling and inspiring. The benefit of these tools is dealing with resistance in

several effective ways. Piderit (2000) divided the view of resistance to change into

three dimensions; cognitive, affective, and behavioral. This makes it possible to study

the core of the resistance in a complex way and to get a separate view of the feelings,

opinions, and behavior towards change. These dimensions can not be seen as

independent and are related to each other. Although, the dimensions cover different

aspects of the resistance among the employees (Oreg, 2006). Wanberg and Banas

(2000) found a strong relationship between the employees’ resistance to change and

the communication from managers. Similarly, Oreg (2006) found that the

acceptance of change depends on the communication from the leaders. The

employers' trust in management was related to all of the three resistance dimensions.

The strongest connection was with the cognitive dimension (Oreg, 2006).

Rapid and unexpected change often has a stronger resistance from the employees

than progressive and planned change. Both negative and positive change can result

in stress and anxiety, which results in decreased speed of the change (Nahavandi,

2015). Therefore, large-scale transformations need a longer time to process the

change and require more support to make the followers able to adapt to the changes.

Although, resistance to change can result in a negative and bad experience for the

employees (Oreg, 2006) but also contribute to feedback on how to make the change

process smoother (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). Employees questioning the change

openly can save the organization from making unnecessary and costly changes

(Wanberg & Banas, 2000).

Managers can actively or passively decrease the speed of the change with their

resistance (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). Leaders that have confidence in their

followers and promote independent work can reduce resistance (Nahavandi, 2015).

Further, to reduce the resistance towards change among the employees, the view of

change as negative must be reframed. If the employees can see the potential of

change the support will be increased. To change the perception employees need to be

engaged and rewarded in the transition (Nahavandi, 2015). The employees need to

be more involved and have a feeling of influence to act more positively towards the

change (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). However, the feedback and input from the

employees during the change need to be taken seriously and implemented to ensure

involvement (van Dijk & van Dick, 2009).

8

2.2.2 Commitment to Change

One challenge during change is to maintain support and commitment from the

employees. For employees to be committed to change there is suggested that both

people and task-oriented leadership is needed (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012). Van

den Heuvel et al. (2009) states that communication is one of the keys to getting the

commitment from employees. Communication such as direction and vision is

considered to be a tool that task-oriented leaders have. On the other hand, followers

are expected to support change more actively when they experience leaders being

truthful and fair (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012) which can be seen as an attribute

that people-oriented leaders have. Research studies have found that leadership

models such as servant leadership and transformational leadership enhance the

employees’ commitment to organizational change. For example, Kool and van

Dierendonck (2012) confirm that there is a relationship between servant leadership

and organizational commitment as well as commitment to change through optimism.

Whereas other studies on transformational leadership link positive emotions in

employees and enhanced commitment to the organization, which can increase

employee proactiveness (Strauss et al., 2009; Nahavandi, 2015).

For teams to be able to work towards organizational goals, there needs to be a shared

understanding communicated by the leader (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009).

Moreover, Dikert et al. (2016) and Paasivaara et al. (2018) argued that mindset,

training, and support were important in an agile transformation. Further, the

resistance towards change can be mitigated by building a leadership team that had

an agile mindset (Paasivaara et al., 2018). This would act as role models and inspire

people to support the change. Acting as a role model could be important because the

leader sets the mindset and principles in the organization. They influence others to

work more lean and agile by their beliefs, actions, and decisions (Leffingwell et al.,

2018).

2.3 Leadership in Change

Leaders’ ability to cope with change is vital for organizations facing changes such as

an agile transformation (Dikert et al., 2016; Kalenda et al., 2018). New skills and

competencies are needed when leadership must handle rapid transformations, and

navigate the business through changing conditions (Burnes, 1996; Kotter, 2001;

Davis, 2014). Such skills and competencies can be found in two leadership models;

transformational leadership and servant leadership. There are certain similarities in

these models, but also significant differences. Transformational leadership is

described as a process of encouraging change, while the servant leadership model is a

leadership approach that supports agile principles (Seltzer & Bass, 1995; Van

Dierendonck, 2011; Wipfler and Vorbach, 2015; Cooper and Sommer, 2016). Two

9

characteristics are likely needed for organizations facing agile changes;

transformational leaders’ ability to encourage change, and servant leaders that have

an agile mindset.

2.3.1 Elements of Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is described as the process of encouraging substantial

changes to an organization by building commitment to the organization and its

mission (Seltzer & Bass, 1995). This process emphasizes emotions and values, which

the leader supports by articulating a compelling and idealistic vision and

emphasizing the value that the individual makes to the organization (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1995).

Figure 1. Elements of Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership involves three elements that leaders combine to achieve

organizational change (see Figure 1). One of the key elements of transformational

leadership is charisma and inspiration, where the intention is to create deeper

emotional bonds between leaders and individuals (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990).

The outcome is loyalty and trust in, as well as mirroring of, the leader where

individuals are inspired to pursue the leader’s vision (Navahandi, 2015). Individuals

are therefore less likely to resist change which enables organizations to undertake

major transformations (Navahandi, 2015). The second element involves intellectual

stimulation, where the leader motivates individuals to solve issues by challenging

them intellectually and encouraging them to develop innovative solutions

(Navahandi, 2015). Transformational leaders assure individuals of their abilities and

capabilities, which enables them to question existing values and assumptions within

an organization and seek new answers (Shin & Zhou, 2003). This results in new ideas

10

and empowerment, which in turn, increases the team's effectiveness (Kark et al.,

2003). The third element is individual consideration, where the leader treats people

differently but equally to provide individual attention and develop personal

relationships (Navahandi, 2015). This results in people that perform better due to

feeling encouraged, motivated, special, and developed (Dvir et al., 2002, cited in

Nahavandi, 2015). Individual consideration also supports the leader in

understanding how skills and abilities reflect the needs of the organization

(Navahandi, 2015). The three elements of charisma and inspiration, intellectual

stimulation, and individual simulation support effective leaders that strive for

external adaptation (Navahandi, 2015).

To summarize transformational leadership is about articulating a compelling and

idealistic vision of an organizational change and emphasizing the value that the

individual contributes to the change (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Studies have

shown that transformational leadership is linked to positive emotions in employees

(Nahavandi, 2015), and enhances the commitment to the organization, which can

increase employee proactiveness (Strauss et al., 2009). Furthermore, other studies

describe relationships between transformational leadership and organizational

climate (Eisenbeiß et al., 2003) and innovation (Eisenbeiß et al., 2003; Kim et al.,

2018). However, transformational theories also present some flaws in spite of the

extensive research. First, training leaders to become transformational leaders where

they inspire and intellectually stimulate individuals may be difficult (Navahandi,

2015). One theory suggests that transformational behaviors include characteristics

that one develops early in life (Bass, 1985, cited in Nahavandi), which implies that

not everyone has the ability to become a transformational leader. Second, there is a

lack of research that describes under what conditions organizations should consider

transformational leadership (Navahandi, 2015). There is also limited evidence that

explains the potential negative outcomes of transformational leadership. For

instance, transformational leadership emphasizes certain elements that may lead to

excessive dependency and unethical behavior (Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2013; Kark et

al., 2003). Further, Eisenbeiß and Boerner (2013) concluded in their result that there

is a link between transformational leadership and the creativity of the followers. The

creativity was reduced due to the dependency on the leader in transformational

leadership.

2.3.2 Transformational Leaders in Change

The transformational leader communicates by listening to employees, being open,

providing feedback, participating in activities, and building relationships, where

common methods in communication involve face-to-face interaction, and, or

telephone conversations (Men, 2014). This implies that transformational leaders care

about their followers’ well-being and personal growth and is often associated with

11

face-to-face interaction where walking around the working environment is a part of

the leadership work (Men, 2014). One-on-one communication is used to understand

the needs of the individuals; abilities, goals, and potentials (van Dierendonck et al.,

2014). Men (2014) suggests that organizations should provide transformational

leaders with information that is clearly aligned with the organizational goals, and

train leaders in communication to practice their communication of internal

strategies.

Cai et al. 's (2018) study show that transformational leadership is effective when the

aim is to increase the trust and acceptance of change among the followers. The

followers must trust their leaders to receive support (Cai et al., 2018). To achieve the

desired results means that managers at all levels of an organization must feel the

need to cooperate with others and know how to influence others (Korejan & Shabazi,

2016). Cai et al. (2018) explain that transformational leaders achieve trust by

creating a collective vision, using a leadership style that focuses on the individual,

and encouraging change to foster the follower’s trust in the leader. This enhances the

willingness to support change initiatives and results in respect and a positive attitude

towards the leader. Trust in the leaders is what ultimately facilitates acceptance of

change, and not necessarily the acceptance of the leadership behavior from the

management side (Cai et al., 2018). Leaders receive more trust if the followers

perceive their leaders as effective and competent (van Dierendonck et al., 2014).

2.3.3 Characteristics of Servant Leadership

Servant leadership “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve

first” (Greenleaf, 1977, cited in de Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2014). Servant

leadership can be seen as a holistic leadership approach that influences followers in

several ways, for example, relational and emotional, to empower them to grow (Eva

et al., 2019). Servant leaders focus on fulfilling psychological needs such as

autonomy, relatedness, and competence which increases the followers’ well-being

and motivation (Van Dierendonck et al., 2009). The core for servant leaders is to

empower followers to become motivated and self-directed (van Dierendonck, 2011).

Van Dierendonck (2011) presented six key characteristics of servant leadership

empowering and developing employees, interpersonal acceptance, humility,

providing direction, authenticity, and stewardship (see Figure 2).

12

Figure 2. Characteristics of Servant Leadership

The first characteristic, empowering and developing employees, is explained as

followers are given autonomy when performing tasks and take responsibility in

self-leadership. Understanding other people's feelings and thoughts is described as

interpersonal acceptance, which is the next characteristic. The capability for a leader

to take its own accomplishments and interests in the right perspective is stated as

humility (Van Dierendonck, 2011). The fourth characteristic is to provide direction.

This is explained as leaders need to ensure that the followers understand their task

and the expectation of them. Moreover, Pratt & Ashforth (2003) (cited in de Sousa &

van Dierendonck, 2014) state the servant leaders need to translate to the followers

how the change might impact the follower but also create meaningfulness through

the change. Authenticity is about being true to oneself and open to thoughts and

feelings (Harter, 2002, cited in Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012). The sixth and last

characteristic is the stewardship which is introduced as the leader's willingness to

take responsibility and serve the organization instead of focusing on him- or herself

(Spears, 1995). In a change process, “stewardship will be critical to framing the

change process into a larger strategic picture, such that workers can understand the

purpose and intent of the process” (de Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2014).

Additionally, having a culture that promotes the fulfillment of psychological needs

for the employees is an advantage for an organization. In order to create this culture,

the structuring of work and the work environment should enhance the development

of skills, foster interdependence and autonomy, and encourage relationship building.

Moreover, this could increase the well-being of the employees and strengthen the

individuals’ development and at the same time be beneficial for the innovation and

effectiveness of the organization (Chiniara & Benteins, 2016). The results from

13

Chiniara and Benteins’s (2016) study indicate that promoting servant leadership in

important and influential roles could benefit the organizations. This must be aligned

within the organization but also outside when hiring new candidates. Servant

leadership will strengthen self-esteem, increase confidence and enhance the

well-being of followers (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012).

To summarize servant leadership is about being a role model, involving followers and

learning from them, being true and open about themselves, and understanding and

considering others’ feelings (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Previous research has studied

the relationship between servant leadership and its outcomes. They found support

that servant leadership has an impact on organizational commitment (Liden et al.,

2008), job satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2008), employees’ well-being (Peterlin et al.,

2015), and creative behaviors (Neubert et al., 2008). Moreover, servant leaders have

been seen to consider the economic, ecological, and social aspects in their decisions

(Peterlin et al., 2015). However, Eva et al. (2019) have critiqued that most of the

research studies about servant leadership had not done an extensive process of

validation and construction. Furthermore, Alvesson and Einola (2019) express that

servant leadership is complex to investigate because of the serving aspect. Leaders

have difficulties serving everyone and making everyone happy. It is both hard and

rare to be able to do that in organizations.

2.3.4 Servant Leadership in Change

Servant leadership addresses the psychological needs and can therefore be effective

when creating engagement in an environment with high uncertainty (de Sousa & van

Dierendonck, 2014). As an example, it can increase motivation and at the same time

reduce the stress of losing the job (de Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2014).

Organizations going through change processes that are turbulent can benefit from

developing and hiring servant leaders (Kaltiainen, & Hakanen, 2020). However, this

contradicts with other studies that show that servant leadership is only suitable for

organizations in a stable environment (Smith et al., 2004). However, servant

leadership in change indicates that it is beneficial for increasing the engagement

among the employees and decreasing burnouts. Servant leaders caring for the

employer’s well-being may result in benefits later in the change process when the

performance of the employer increases (Kaltiainen & Hakanen, 2020).

Kaltiainen and Hakanen’s (2020) study is one of few studies that investigate servant

leadership in the context of organizational change. They found that servant

leadership was related to increased work engagement and fewer burnouts. Servant

leadership might be suitable when there is high personal uncertainty in the change

process (de Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2014). Furthermore, by fostering well-being

14

during change processes the organization might also increase the performance of the

employees (Kaltiainen, & Hakanen, 2020).

De Sousa & van Dierendonck’s (2014) findings indicate that servant leaders use an

adaptive and co-evolving approach through a change process. This means that during

the change towards a new organization form or way of working, the leaders need to

balance the need for a clear direction with the ability to empower the followers. In

workplaces where the employees are motivated and happy, they are willing to change

to meet the new requirements and be a part of the process. Kaltiainen and Hakanen’s

(2020) study underpins the core of servant leadership theory to “investing in

employees comes first and after that positive organizational outcomes follow”.

Furthermore, they express that this may be especially important during change and

uncertainty.

2.3.5 The Difference Between Transformational and Servant Leaders

The transformational leadership concept encourages leaders to direct their focus

towards the organizational objectives, while the servant leadership concept

encourages leaders to direct their focus towards the follower’s needs (Yukl, 1999,

Stone et al., 2004). In addition, Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) explain that servant

leaders strive to prepare and serve their followers, whereas transformational leaders

strive to lead and inspire their followers to perform better in order for the

organization to reach its objectives. This could explain why servant leadership does

not encourage intellectual stimulation to the same degree as transformational

leadership (Smith et al., 2004). Servant leadership describes some characteristics of

intellectual stimulation such as empowering and developing, but in a different

context compared to transformational leadership. For instance, empowering and

developing in servant leadership means that the leader aims to develop individual’s

potential and further their personal development, whereas, in transformational

leadership, components of intellectual stimulation relate to innovation and creativity

(Smith et al., 2004; van Dierendonck, 2011; Nahavandi, 2015). Hence, by promoting

innovation and creativity, a transformational leader may accept potential mistakes of

the followers for the possibility of the organization to experience the benefits from

their innovative efforts (Smith et al., 2004). Whereas, a servant leader would

encourage followers to learn from their mistakes through support by providing

opportunities to gather knowledge and apply it within the organization to earn a new

level of responsibility (Smith et al., 2004). The empowering and developing

components within the servant leadership model do not necessarily promote

innovations and creativity for the interest of the organization, which

transformational leadership does (van Dierendonck, 2011; Navahandi, 2015). For

instance, the transformational leadership model encourages risk-taking behavior as

an essential component of organizational success, whereas servant leadership does

15

not encourage such behavior (Smith et al., 2004). Transformational leaders are also

at the center of an organizational process, where the leader’s initiative mainly relates

to risk-taking as an important part of the company’s future success, as well as the

follower’s willingness to change towards more effective practices and systems (Smith

et al., 2004; van Dierendonck et al., 2014). Whereas the servant leaders place the

followers at the center of the organizational process, which means that servant

leadership has less focus on the leader than the transformational leadership model

(van Dierendonck et al., 2014).

Servant leaders value the people within the organization and do not necessarily share

the same values of reaching the organizational objectives as a transformational

leader does (Harvey, 2001). This implies that the transformational leader serves with

the intention of achieving results by building commitment to the organizational

objectives, with a primary focus on the organization, while developing and

empowering followers are secondary to achieving organizational objectives (Yukl,

1998, cited in Stone et al., 2004). The outcome of transformational leadership is

therefore enhanced performance in the followers (Yukl, 1998, cited in Stone et al.,

2004). This is significantly different from the servant leader that focuses on serving

the followers, where the leader’s first responsibilities are relationships and people,

which are prioritized over responsibilities in tasks and products (Stone et al., 2004).

The idea is that organizational objectives are achieved on a long-term basis only by

facilitating the follower’s growth, development, and general well-being (Stone et al.,

2004). Therefore, servant leaders are better at fulfilling the follower’s needs, while

transformational leaders are perceived as more effective leaders because of their

primary aim in getting their followers to commit to the organization and perform

(Seltzer & Bass, 1995; Stone et al., 2004).

In order for followers to be committed to the organization, two vital parts involve

employee satisfaction and leadership effectiveness (van Dierendonck et al., 2014).

Van Dierendonck et al. (2014) conclude that transformational and servant leadership

are related to work engagement and commitment to the organization. The difference

is that servant leaders focus more on followers’ satisfaction, whereas

transformational leaders use their perceived effectiveness as leaders. Further,

servant leadership is preferred in stable working environments that value the

well-being of the employees, whereas transformational leadership is preferred in

uncertain working environments that are in need of effective leadership (van

Dierendonck et al., 2014). However, if the uncertainty involves the individual,

servant leaders can help the followers to satisfy their needs, which shows that servant

leadership might be effective in some change processes (van Dierendonck et al.,

2014). Further, van den Heuvel et al. (2010) explain that servant leadership is

preferred when the manager strives to understand individuals’ personal needs during

situations of change and environments with higher levels of uncertainty. These

managers should promote self-awareness among their employees to provide a better

understanding of the change and emphasize the opportunities for learning and

development. Some studies argue that transformational leadership might be a more

16

effective type of leadership than servant leadership due to the stronger focus on

serving the organization’s needs and their distinctive ways of facing change (Graham,

1995; Smith et al., 2004).

2.3.6 Challenges for Leaders in an Agile Change Process

Paasivaara et al. (2018) discuss organizational challenges in a software firm that is

transitioning towards an agile way of working and found that resistance to change

was the main challenge. Similar challenges were found by Dikert et al. (2016) when

they explored the large-scale agile transformation by doing a systematic review.

Dikert et al. (2016) stated that the leadership challenges that were mentioned the

most in the literature were resistance to change, coordinating challenges in a

multi-team environment, and hierarchical management. Moreover, too fast

integration of agile methods was also a challenge to be aware of in a transformation

(Kalenda et al., 2018). Other leadership challenges were establishing a common view

of the customer value, supporting the change, creating and maintaining a shared

foundation, and problems related to process and organization according to Kasuli et

al. (2021). However, Kasauli et al. (2021) notice that these challenges remain without

a solution that can be evaluated. Further, Kalenda et al. (2018) suggest that an

investigation of the challenges at larger companies needs to be done to find solutions

and also the relationship between the components in an agile transformation. Dikert

et al. (2016) found that in an agile transformation, the middle managers’ role in a

larger organization is unclear. This might create problems since working agile

implies having a goal of becoming more self-organized. There could be a need for

cultural change from the middle manager’s perspective where fewer

command-and-control methods should be used and a new role given to the manager.

Managers going from competing with others for resources to a more agile mindset

can be problematic. The knowledge about the new agile methods decreased among

the employees and Dikert et al. (2016) found studies that showed challenges like

middle managers micromanaging and taking non-supportive leadership roles.

In an agile environment, there is a need for overcoming challenges such as building

and motivating teams according to Moore (2009). Teams must have technical skills

but also softer ones. In a systematic literature review by Dikert et al. (2016), the main

success factors were related to leadership and management, such as management

support, leadership, mindset engaging the employees, coaching, and communication.

Kalenda et al. (2018) also identified success factors in a large-scale agile

transformation at a software company. The key success factors at the software

company were management support, agile culture, and common values. This goes in

line with Kasauli et al. (2021), which concluded that knowledge of how to support

change was a challenge to overcome. Additionally, Paasivaara et al. (2018)

concluded that it was important to “consider using an agile mindset and taking an

experimental approach to the transformation”. Moreover, a common framework,

17

training, and coaching in an agile transformation are needed to create a common

direction in a change process. Further, for an agile transformation to be successful

Dikert et al. (2016) found that the employees needed to be committed to the change.

2.4 Summary of Leaders in Change

Larger companies are starting to implement agile methods as a way to respond to

changing environments and handle competition (Cooper & Sommer, 2016;

(Karvonen et al., 2018). This affects how organizations are managed and that can be

difficult for leaders supposed to cope with change (Dikert et al., 2016; Kalenda et al.,

2018; Hesselberg, 2018). Traditional leadership styles of command-and-control and

management’s view of compliance to plans and processes are also not appropriate in

agile environments that emphasize the importance of valuing individuals and

interactions over processes and tools, and responding to change instead of following

a plan (Wipfler & Vorbach, 2015; Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Korge 2017). This shows

that new leadership approaches are needed to address challenges that come with an

agile transformation (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Framework of the research process within the context of agile transformation

Previous research emphasizes that resistance to change and maintaining support and

commitment from employees are usually found in companies facing agile

transformations (Paasivaara et al., 2008; Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012; Korhonen,

2013; Dikert et al., 2016; Kalenda et al., 2018; Paasivaara et al., 2018). Two

characteristics are likely needed for organizations to handle such challenges;

transformational leaders’ ability to encourage change, and servant leaders that

support agile principles (Seltzer & Bass, 1995; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Wipfler &

18

Vorbach, 2015; Cooper & Sommer, 2016). Creating deeper emotional bonds between

leaders and individuals may result in trust and people less likely to resist change

(Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). Transformational and servant leadership

emphasize the importance of creating emotional bonds between the leaders and the

followers. Dikert et al. (2016) explain that resistance to change is one of the

leadership challenges during an agile transformation, which both transformational

and servant leadership can address but for different purposes. Research studies have

found that servant leaders have a positive impact on organizational commitment

because they strive to understand and be role models to the followers, which can be

used for the purpose of addressing resistance to change (Liden et al., 2008).

Transformational leaders show elements of charisma and inspiration to gain trust

from the followers, which enables the organization to undertake an agile

transformation (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). Further, Kasauli et al. (2021)

explain other types of leadership challenges such as creating and maintaining a

shared foundation. This has a negative impact on the leaders’ ability in getting the

people to work towards common goals, creating alignment, and spreading agile

values (Dinh et al., 2014; Nahavandi, 2015; Chiniara & Benteins, 2016). Servant

leaders can address this gap by providing direction where leaders strive to ensure

that the followers understand what is expected from them, which enables autonomy

in the followers (Pratt & Ashforth, 2013, cited in de Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2014).

Lastly, the transformational leader may also address this gap since this leadership

approach emphasizes the importance of creating a collective vision of the change (Cai

et al., 2018). Therefore, transformational leadership may be used for the purpose of

encouraging an agile organizational change, and the servant leadership approach

encourages the organization to work in an agile way.

19

3 Method

This chapter describes the methodology of the study and motivates the chosen

methods. Initially, the research design is presented which describes the general

plan for the case study. Thereafter, the research approach is introduced where

theory is used to build the research work. Further, discussions on the chosen

methods for data collection and analysis are presented. This chapter concludes with

a discussion regarding research quality and ethical aspects.

3.1 Research Setting

This thesis investigated the automotive industry and the leadership area. Incumbent

firms within this industry are experiencing pressures to be more flexible and

responsive to meet changing environments. With the industrial environment in

mind, this thesis involved a case study specifically focused on an R&D department

within an incumbent automotive company in Sweden that operates globally. The case

company is experiencing the rapid transformations occurring in the automotive

industry, which affects leaders. This study investigated the leadership needed for

incumbent firms facing an agile transformation.

3.2 Research Design

The purpose of this thesis was to develop recommendations for leaders within

incumbent firms facing agile transformations. A qualitative case study enabled the

study of the phenomenon of leadership in change through the lens of

transformational and servant leadership (Yin, 1994; Gehman et al., 2018).

Eisenhardt (1989) explained how a single case study could contribute to the theory

by increasing the understanding and expanding the knowledge of a subject. This case

study followed an exploratory approach to gather knowledge about the type of

leadership needed in agile transformations. According to Theobald et al. (2020),

command and control leadership concepts are not appropriate to enable agility

across an organization. Paarisvara et al. (2018) implied that few studies exist on agile

leadership used for purposes other than software engineering. Therefore, using an

exploratory approach was appropriate for this case study since the subject is

relatively unexplored, the open-ended research questions, and the investigation of

the phenomenon of leadership in an agile change (Saunders et al., 2015).

A single case study approach allowed limiting the research methods for the master

thesis conducted within five months. Leadership in an agile transformation in an

incumbent firm was in focus because of the need from the case company, the limited

amount of time, and the interest in the research area. Using a case study approach

has been valuable in researching real problems within the automotive industry.

20

However, Yin (2009) explained that case study research could lack scientific

accuracy and provide little basis for generalization, where research findings might be

applicable in other settings. Nevertheless, case studies are acknowledged as scientific

methods if quality criteria of objectivity, reliability, and validity are achieved (Yin,

1994). Firstly, striving to be impartial in a company-driven project has been

important throughout the research work to present the collection and analysis of

data objectively and as free from biases as possible (Graber, 2004). Secondly, the

intention has been to reveal clear, traceable evidence step by step, from the phase

description of the study, providing the questions to the interviews, to explaining how

the data has been interpreted (Graber, 2004).

The research questions in the master thesis were open-ended within a field of limited

literature. One approach to investigating the research questions more in-depth has

been in the context of a real working environment. Identifying general challenges

could contribute to new insights in leadership during agile transformations (Yin,

1994). Qualitative methods could answer the research questions because building

knowledge required qualitative data of previous literature, interviews, and

observations (Watkins & Gioia, 2015). The primary data collection techniques

consisted of various interviews and observations to obtain in-depth material and

address the research topic's complexity (Einshardt, 1989). The interviews were

semi-structured with managers at different levels at the case company (Blomkvist &

Hallin, 2015). The observations were of a participant kind, which involved one

department meeting and one education related to the transformation at the case

company.

This master thesis has an abductive approach. Saunders et al. (2015) explained that

an abductive approach is an iterative approach where researchers explore a

phenomenon by identifying themes and using frameworks to test the collected data.

The iterative process of this study involved incorporating existing theory in

appropriate contexts to build new theory or modify the existing theory (Saunders et

al., 2015). In the initial stages of the research process, the case company's problem

was unidentified and not specified from a theoretical perspective. Using a

combination of deductive and inductive approaches contributed to formulating the

research problem. This abductive approach meant to have an iterative and flexible

process by moving back and forth between the collected data and theory, which was a

well-used method when researching within the managerial field (Saunders et al.,

2015; Awuzie & McDermott, 2017). An abductive approach meant taking a pragmatic

perspective, which involved taking the research problem as the starting point of the

research process, focusing on the research questions to contribute to practical

solutions for the future (Saunders et al., 2015). The pragmatic point of view provided

a deeper and more realistic view of the study participants because of the ability to

understand complexities, changes, and challenges in an organizational setting

(Farjoun et al., 2015). However, this implied that subjective experiences and

meanings of the individuals played a vital part in the results of this study (Starman,

21

2013). Therefore, the data analysis aimed to present the findings objectively and as

free from biases as possible (Graber, 2004).

3.3 Research Process

The research process of this thesis followed a 4-phase model to produce and deliver a

master thesis of good research quality (Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015). The four-phase

model involved an iterative process in producing four prototypes that resulted in a

structure to design the research process.

Phase 1. Formulating the case challenge and conducting a pre-study. The initial step

was to contact a large automotive company operating in the industrial and

technology-intensive industry, which suggested a master thesis about leadership in

the R&D department to match the academic criteria of the education. The

commissioner explained how the company was facing transitions towards a more

agile way of working due to a changing environment. Therefore, investigating the

leadership during an agile transformation was of need at the company. The next step

involved creating a prototype by conducting a problem formulation combined with

the background on the subject and research questions (Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015).

The case company's problem was unidentified and not specified from a theoretical

perspective. Discussions with the supervisor at KTH and the commissioner helped

align the problem formulation with the case company's aim and make it a

researchable problem. Writing a thesis proposal finalized the first phase with

revisions from received feedback at peer-review seminars. The first phase also

involved a pre-study in getting an overview of the leadership area and shaping

further research work (Collis & Hussey, 2013). The pre-study aimed to gather a

broader knowledge of the leadership and changes within the case company by

interviewing seven managers and conducting a literature review.

Phase 2. Designing the case. The gathered knowledge during the pre-study helped

shape the second round of interviews at the case company, focusing on a more

in-depth understanding of the actual challenges. This phase involved conducting

interviews and transcribing continuously, which enabled to increase the

understanding of the challenges and asking complementary questions. The utmost

time spent in this phase was gathering empirics and compiling data; section 3.5.1

Data Analysis of Interviews explains this process. A comprehensive collection of

data allowed writing the empirical chapter of this report. This phase resulted in a

mid-term report and feedback from the supervisor, the commissioner, and the

peer-review seminar.

Phase 3. Iteration phase. At the beginning of this phase, feedback from the

supervisor, examiner, commissioner, and the peer-reviewers helped change and

develop the research content. The last set of interviews gave more empirical data to

22

summarize in the empirical chapter of this report. The further work involved

developing the analysis and discussions chapter of this report with key findings from

the empirical data and analyzing how the information related to existing literature.

In this phase, the agenda was to iterate and develop the thesis further. All chapters

were read through and re-written several times to piece the text together. Using an

abductive approach resulted in revising and including more information in the

literature review and other sections of this report. The purpose of this phase was to

refine the content to create a coherent report.

Phase 4: Delivering the case. The outcome of the iteration phase was a refined and

adjusted report using the feedback given from the peer-reviewers, examiner,

supervisor, and commissioner. The report was carefully read through and refined to

finalize the content for the final submissions at KTH and prepare a presentation for

the commissioner at the case company. This phase also involved a final presentation

with an opposition. Using the feedback from the opponents, examiner, and

supervisor, the report was further developed as the last step in the 4-phase model.

3.4 Data Collection

The primary methods to collect data involved qualitative interviews, a literature

review, observations, and a review of internal information provided by the case

company.

3.4.1 Interviews

Semi-structured interviews provided the empirical data of this study and followed an

interview guide (see Appendix A) but with a flexible approach to create an authentic

discussion. The interview questions were open-ended to avoid interviewer bias,

allowing the interviewer to answer freely, describe situations to exemplify, and clarify

the answers (Saunders et al., 2015). Sharing sensitive information was of high

importance to the case company. Therefore, interviews started by informing

participants of their anonymity and not sharing sensitive information to show

appropriate research ethics (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002). The interviews took place in a

digital setup due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions at the case

company.

The qualitative interviews involved conducting a pre-study and the main study. The

interview participants consisted of managers of different ages and genders within the

case company. For the sampling procedure, the commissioner gathered a list of

managers to ask to be a part of this study. Almost all of the people in this list

voluntarily participated. The commissioner provided valuable contacts as the

participants had several years of experience within the case company, contributing to

23

relevant insights on the transition from leadership perspectives. The second round of

interviews aimed to limit the bias in the selected interview participants.

The first round of interviews involved conducting a pre-study of seven people in

managerial positions within different departments (see Table 1). The pre-study

aimed to increase the knowledge about the company's actions, barriers, and aims.

The interviews followed a semi-structured manner with several predetermined

questions that were not too extensive or too detailed and handled with flexibility

throughout the interviews (see Appendix A). The focus of this study was more

general to contribute to the problem formulation. Questions regarding leadership

and its challenges in agile transformations had an introductory manner (e.g., Can

you describe the changes that are happening within the company?"), a probing

manner (e.g., "Can you describe what you mean?"), and a specifying manner (e.g.,

"What did you do to solve challenges as a leader?").

Table 1. Interview participants during the pre-study

Interview

respondent

Role of

respondent

Department/Area Duration

[min]

Date

Department

Manager 1

Department

Manager

Hardware

Development

35 2021-02-15

Department

Manager 2

Department

Manager

Hardware

Development

35 2021-02-23

Department

Manager 3

Department

Manager

Human Resources 31 2021-02-23

Project Manager 1 Project Manager Hardware

Development

35 2021-02-16

Project Manager 2 Senior Project

Manager

Project Management 38 2021-02-16

Project Manager 3 Senior Project

Manager

Electrification 34 2021-02-22

Project Manager 4 Project Manager Research 30 2021-02-24

The second round of interviews involved conducting the main study of 17 managers

mainly within departments focusing on hardware development (see Table 2). The

main study contributed to a more in-depth knowledge of agile in the hardware

environment from the leadership perspective. Some of the leaders had a greater

understanding of the agile change and had worked with it for months, whereas

others were not that familiar with the topic due to not being as involved as the other

leaders. The difference in experiences contributed to more perspectives and how

different leaders might interpret the change process at the case company. The second

round of interviews aimed to gather a deeper understanding of the challenges and

24

leadership attributes needed to support agile transformations. The sampling method

consisted of the list of managers provided by the commissioner. In order to avoid a

biased selection of participants, a snowballing approach implied considering

recommendations from the interview participants (Cohen & Arieli, 2011). These

recommendations resulted in additional information and different views of

leadership and challenges during an organizational change, which helped to limit

biased results. The interviews followed a semi-structured manner with several

predetermined questions that were not too extensive or too detailed and handled

with flexibility throughout the interviews (see Appendix B). Questions regarding

leadership and its challenges in agile transformations had an introductory manner

(e.g., "How do you experience the current changes?"), a probing manner (e.g., "Can

you develop that further?") and a specifying manner (e.g., "How do you create a safe

environment in the current changes?"). The total number of 24 interviews resulted

in several perspectives and a more in-depth understanding of the research problem.

Table 2. Interview participants during the main study

Interview

respondent

Role of

respondent

Department/Area Duration

[min]

Date

Department

Manager 1

Department Manager Hardware

Development

56 2021-03-15

Department

Manager 4

Department Manager Hardware

Development

30 2021-03-31

Section Manager 1 Section Manager Hardware

Development

43 2021-03-17


Development

50 2021-03-18


Development

32 2021-03-18


Development

33 2021-03-19


Development

41 2021-03-22


Development

30 2021-03-24


Development

51 2021-03-30

Project Manager 5 Project Manager Business

Development

47 2021-03-22

Project Manager 6 Project Manager Electrification 34 2021-03-31

25

Project Manager 7 Project Manager Business

Development

39 2021-04-09

Group Manager 1 Group Manager Hardware

Development

40 2021-03-29

Group Manager 2 Group Manager Electrification 40 2021-04-08

Group Manager 3 Group Manager Electrification 31 2021-04-08


development

30 2021-04-09


development

33 2021-04-16

The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. However, during

interviews, words and expressions should be carefully evaluated because they could

have different meanings, emphasis, or contextual values (Saunders et al., 2015). It

was, therefore, of high importance to ask the participants for clear examples to get an

understanding and obtain accurate results in the empirical data. Asking for clear

examples provided data of real-life situations and actions from the participants

(Shondrick and Lord, 2010). The recordings were stored and saved anonymously on

two local servers to create reliability. Furthermore, in future research, the recordings

could be revised and evaluated to ensure ethical research practices (Yin, 1994;

Vetenskapsrådet, 2002).

3.4.2 Observations

Observations enabled gathering more empirical data by studying what people do and

how they act (Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015). This method provided more knowledge and

created a better understanding of the challenges in the case company, which was also

an effective way to gather data directly and complement the other methods of data

collection (Krishnaswamy et al., 2006; Saunders et al., 2015). The observations

involved a leadership education and a department meeting. This participant

observation approach means that data collection and analysis coincide

(Krishnaswamy et al., 2006). The digital setup of the observations could limit the

results because facial expressions and body language relating to the activity are

limited in digital environments. Krishnaswamy et al. (2006) explained that

observations are beneficial when facial expressions and body language are

noticeable. However, the digital setup of the observations allowed gathering

important information related to the change process relatively effectively compared

to conducting interviews. Documenting during these observations involved taking

notes of what people had said, actions occurring and analyzed throughout the

observations. The digital setup limited the ability to document feelings and

perceptions of the people but documented to the possible degree to create a better

understanding of the gathered empirics (Saunders et al., 2015). The documentations

26

considered anonymity of the employees and not sharing information to follow

appropriate research ethics (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002).

One of the observations involved a leadership education in the investigated R&D

department with a digital setup. The education aimed to prepare the leaders through

the transformation towards an agile way of working. The commissioner and a

manager suggested that observing the education would provide relevant information

for the study since the agenda involved leadership and change processes. One of the

managers within the department held a four-hour-long education for seven leaders

at different levels at the company. The education started with a recap of a previous

session, followed by an introduction to the new subject and discussions of how the

participants used the gathered knowledge from the previous session to their daily

work. It concluded with discussions of current challenges and suggestions of how to

move forward in different projects. Observing the education provided a deeper

understanding of the challenges and solutions expressed by the people within the

R&D department.

The second observation involved a department meeting in a digital setup, which

provided more knowledge about the case company, ongoing projects, and challenges.

The department manager held a one-and-a-half-hour-long meeting for employees

within the department. During this meeting, the department manager presented

information about the change process and scenarios for the future. Other people of

managerial positions discussed ongoing projects within the company to inform their

colleagues. Observing this meeting provided new insights into projects related to the

change and why the transformation was needed.

3.5 Data Analysis

This chapter discusses the procedure for analyzing the interviews and the two

observations.

3.5.1 Data Analysis of Interviews

The complexity of analyzing interviews means that there are various methods to

analyze the data (Flick, 2013). Therefore, using a thematic analysis allowed analyzing

the collected data systematically and to ensure reliability and validity (Blomkvist &

Hallin, 2015; Sanders et al., 2015). This analysis method involved identifying codes

when analyzing the qualitative data (Flick, 2013). The thematic analysis considered a

pragmatic approach to analyzing the data through the interview participants'

experiences and actions (Kelly & Cordeiro, 2020).

The pre-study phase started with seven interviews recorded in a digital setup, which

involved transcribing manually and writing general descriptions. These

documentations resulted in ideas for the main study phase. The second step involved

27

mapping the insights into categories to get an overview and an understanding of the

challenges at the case company.

The main study involved 17 interviews also recorded in a digital setup. This process

involved transcribing manually right after the interviews to document the

impressions directly and taking notes of general thoughts during or after the

interviews. These documentations were inspected twice by the two writers to ensure

quality and avoid incorrect information. Throughout the interview phase, the

transcription process occurred to take additional questions to interviews and

understand the empirical data. The transcribing process meant listening to the

interview recordings, writing them down manually, and then marking text into

subcodes. Common subcodes from the texts enabled to create categories. These

provided themes and patterns to identify similarities and differences from the

interview documentations. This data analysis meant to consider the literature review

and the research problem to reach the aim of this study. For example, Braun and

Clark (2006) explained that themes should be meaningful to reach the aim of a

study. The data analysis process shows in Figure 4.

Braun and Clark (2006) explained that thematic analysis could lack analytical

narrative or overlapping themes. Nevertheless, Guest and McLellan (2003)

expressed how a thematic analysis could be flexible and lead to valuable insights

when analyzing qualitative data. Therefore, to ensure validity, categories were

aligned with the purpose of the research (Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015). Two authors

conducted the coding procedure to guarantee intra-coder reliability and avoid bias.

After that, themes were decided and established from the categories and further

evaluated. The last step involved analyzing if the collected data in the themes

supported the literature review.

Figure 4. Description of the data collection and analysis process

28

3.5.2 Data Analysis of Observations

The collected data were initially transformed into written text and systematically

organized into categories (Marvasti, 2013). The analysis included non-spoken

observations such as people's actions or text in presentation slides. This process

involved an iterative process refining and redefining categories and themes by

searching for patterns and relationships in the collected data (Saunders et al., 2015).

The data were analyzed inductively to systematically generate theory in agile

leadership (Thorpe & Holt, 2008). The inductive analysis involved considering

previous data collections of literature review and interviews (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008).

The data analysis of the observation occurred during the data analysis of the

interviews (see Figure 4).

3.6 Research Quality

It was essential to ensure a good research quality in the thesis, which involved

considering reliability and validity (Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015). Reliability meant

conducting the study in the right way, and validity meant focusing on the right thing.

However, high reliability does not guarantee validity but is required to ensure high

validity (Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015; Patel & Davidsson, 2019). In a qualitative study,

reliability and validity have to some extent, been intertwined (Patel & Davidsson,

2019). Therefore, the research methods are transparent with motivations and clear

explanations to enhance the research quality; see section 3.4 Data collection and 3.5

Data analysis (Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015). In these sections, detailed explanations of

chosen methods and processes aimed to strive for transparency to enhance the

possibility to generalize the findings and use the results in similar contexts (Lincoln

& Guba, 1985).

The discussions chapter of this report consisted of the results from the interviews,

observations, and previous literature. One of the drawbacks of the semi-structured

interviews could depend on the lack of standardization of collecting data. The main

concern is how other researchers might collect information that corresponds to the

current findings (Saunders et al., 2015). Patel and Davidsson (2019) expressed how

qualitative studies are a unique method. Nevertheless, there should be some aspects

to take into consideration to guarantee validity. Therefore, different data methods to

collect information consisted of interviews, observations, and literature review,

which enhanced the accuracy of this study (Yin, 1994; Patel & Davidsson, 2019).

Another aspect was how the study aligns with the aim. Therefore, analyzing the data

involved identifying categories of challenges during agile transformations from the

leadership perspective to align the findings with the research aim and ensure validity

(Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015).

29

Although this study sought to ensure a good research quality, there was still a

possibility for biased results. One example is that the master thesis took place within

a company. Company-driven projects may imply that there are challenges in being

impartial because of the natural reason of developing closer relationships with the

commissioner. The selection of interview participants could also be biased to some

degree because the commissioner selected these people. However, each of these

people voluntarily participated, and a snowballing approach provided a wider spread

of participants. In addition, striving to be impartial and transparent has been

important throughout the research to ensure good quality (Blomkvist & Hallin,

2015). Therefore, significant efforts strived to ensure that this study could handle

and investigate anything.

3.7 Ethical Consideration

The research ethical aspect mainly concerned the individual that was involved or

related to this thesis work. Since the work has both the academic aim and an external

partner from the industry, the ethical standards related to collaborative work were of

interest which included trust, mutual respect, and responsibility (Resnik 2015).

Furthermore, this included that the results were transparent and expressed morally

to ensure social responsibility (Saunders et al, 2015). Before the start of the master

thesis, a non-disclosure agreement was signed between the researchers and the case

company. This involved disclosing sensitive information and participants. Using only

the role of the participant and a general description of the work area when linking

quotes in the process, anonymity was assured. However, it created some

transparency to the study but the answers could not be linked to a specific

participant in the study.

To establish that the ethical aspect was considered, the Swedish Research Council’s

principles of ethical research for humanities and social science were followed, which

included the information, consent, confidentiality, and good use requirements

(Blomkvist & Hallin, 2015). Firstly, the interviewees have participated voluntarily.

Secondly, to guarantee that the interviewees knew the purpose of the thesis and how

the data was used and treated, this was explained at the start of the interview. The

interviewees were informed that the interviews were anonymous. Moreover, the

interviews were held digitally and recorded in order to focus on the interviewees.

However, this was done with the consent of the interviewees to ensure that the

ethical aspect was considered and followed. They were also anonymized to get honest

answers which is important for this type of study.

30

4 Empirical Findings

This chapter presents the findings from the interviews and observations at the case

company. The first section describes the general challenges from the leadership

perspective, while the second section discusses some of these challenges in detail.

4.1 Pre-study: Overview of the Main Challenges in an AgileTransformation

This section gives an overview of the main challenges found during the pre-study

phase, which consists of seven interviews with employees in different leadership

levels in various areas of the case company. The intention of this study is to gather

general knowledge about the main challenges from the leadership perspective during

an agile transformation.

4.1.1 Understanding the General Challenges for Leaders in Change

This is not the first time the case company has tried to undertake an agile change.

Department Manager 2 gives an example of a project that ended with some

implementing agile methods while others did not. Change projects often come with

several challenges according to Department Manager 1 and Department Manager 3.

The leadership styles that are seen at the case company are two common leadership

approaches; traditional attributes as an expert with a managerial approach, and a

leadership view with a people-oriented approach. When Project Manager 1,

Department Manager 2, and Project Manager 4 describe the leadership in the case

company, they express that there are many leaders with strong technical skills.

Department Manager 3 further explains that managers with a strong operational

performance usually get promoted to a leadership role, but are not necessarily good

at leading people. Nevertheless, Project Manager 4 states that some of the leaders

show both technical and leadership skills. The case company is experiencing a shift

towards a new way of working and the barrier could be the different opinions of the

leader’s role according to Project Manager 4. In this large-scale agile transformation,

Project Manager 3 and Department Manager 1 see a need for leading and bringing

people together. Therefore, the current role as an expert is a barrier because fewer

leaders with technical skills are needed in a transition to a more agile way of working.

During this large-scale agile transition, all of the respondents expressed that the

leadership attributes needed are softer and more people-oriented skills to some

extent. The role of an expert can be a disadvantage because of the non-ability to

create a relationship with the followers and not be able to bring the employees with

them according to Project Manager 4.

31

The change also requires ambidexterity in the leadership. During this transition,

there is a need to handle old technology and introduce new technology in

combination with a new way of working. Therefore, the role of a leader consists of

many tasks, and leaders must balance these activities. Department Manager 3

expresses difficulty with managing all the tasks related to the position and gives an

example, “if you are going to work 100 percent operationally and also be a

manager, you usually get torn between both sides”. Another common challenge

explained in the interviews is the difficulties with leading through uncertainty. Many

questions related to the uncertainty were raised by the managers. Department

Manager 1 states that one of the challenges was how to be a leader in uncertainty.

The uncertainty included both the direction, new technology, and risk management

as Project Manager 1, Project Manager 4, and Department Manager 1 states. Project

Manager 4 thinks that “one of the challenges is that we have to deal with

uncertainties in a completely different way. There will be rapid changes that we

cannot plan for” and Project Manager 1 states that “we do not know what needs to

be done, exactly in which direction we are going, and the product areas are new

and unusual”. Furthermore, Department Manager 1 concludes that “there is no one

who can really tell it clearly either because we do not know yet but we are learning

and trying. But being in that uncertainty for too long is difficult”. Meeting

resistance to change is common in previous change projects, indicates the

participants. However, Project Manager 3 concludes that employees express that

they have been in the case company from the start of the change. According to

Project Manager 3, some say that the journey started in 2005, others in 2000 or

others already in 1985, “it is because you need to take a new start, a new normal

mode and what was previously normal you have got used to in the improved level”

and further Project Manager 3 explains it like an ongoing change journey.

Six out of seven participants in the first interview round express uncertainty as a

challenge that needs to be dealt with throughout the change process. Nevertheless,

uncertainty affects how leaders can both motivate and communicate with the

followers. With less understanding of the goal and process, there are difficulties to

explain to the followers the direction according to Project Manager 3. Moreover,

there are difficulties for leaders to motivate their followers to change which Project

Manager 1 and Department Manager 1 express. These leaders need to motivate and

inspire the employees in the change to make them engaged so they could contribute

in different ways. Department Manager 1 stated that one of the concerns is the

resistance towards change which included questions such as how to inspire and

involve people in the process. To get everyone engaged there is a need to

communicate this change, according to Department Manager 1.

Further, communication is one challenge to overcome. Both the lack of

communication and what to communicate is a big challenge for the case company

according to Project Manager 1, Project Manager 4, and Department Manager 2. This

is expressed as the main challenge for leaders in the current transition towards an

32

agile way of working. Department Manager 1 gives an example of how this change

was experienced. The respondent explains that the case company expresses that they

need to change but not knowing how to change and what methods to use. Moreover,

Department Manager 1 states that the lack of communication of these parts can

result in followers feeling uninformed and insecure about the change. There is a lack

of clear communication, which is expressed by the respondent. This is also seen in

the interviews where the participants explain the agile transition in various ways and

name it differently. The new way of working in the case company has been named

both “agile” and “lean-agile” which indicates that the communication is unclear. To

summarize the challenges from a leadership perspective, Department Manager 2

expresses the leaders’ role as; “To meet different types of people and understand

how to play the team you have”. This is related to what was mentioned before, that

the leadership challenge is connected to the relationship with the followers. A leader

should be able to lead a team and understand different individuals.

4.1.2 The View of a Leader in Change

Four project managers mention that communication is expected to be the main

solution to this transformation. The communication aspect includes what, when, and

how to communicate. Project Manager 1, Project Manager 2, and Project Manager 3

describe it as having a clear purpose, knowing all the steps, and seeing the goal for

the stated period. Additionally, Project Manager 4 says that clear communication is

of high importance. However, the leaders should be willing to compromise to reach

the goal and come closer to the vision. The communication aspect is also stated as a

challenge because this type of large-scale change project has not been done before on

this scale in the case company.

To ensure a successful implementation of the agile way of working, the followers

need to be motivated and engaged in the process. All of the respondents conclude

that the need to bring people together and with them in the transformation is crucial

for a leader. To bring people with you, Project Manager 3 thinks that empathy was

the key because if you understand the employees it is easier to motivate them.

According to Project Manager 3, being present and available could strengthen the

relationship with the employees and motivate them in the change process. Project

Manager 2 states that bringing people together and with you is important in the

future but also relevant in today's leadership. Another conclusion from Department

Manager 3 is the need for brave leaders in the change. Department Manager 3

explains being brave as “my value as a leader is not about hierarchy and knowing

more and having more information. But it's about us doing something together.

That kind of courage”.

For employees to feel motivated, the leaders suggest rewarding risk-taking, change,

and creativity. The current structure encourages strong results from an economic

perspective and the employees are being rewarded for how they perform from the

33

same perspective. Other measurements are customer satisfaction and employee

satisfaction which are often evaluated through a survey. Department Manager 1

expresses the difficulty to measure effectiveness in R&D but the participant states

that it is not necessary to measure everything. Project Manager 4 explains how there

is a lack of other types of rewards and templates that reward softer attributes and

performance. It is also difficult to translate propensity to change and risk-taking into

measurable values. If measuring success in softer values is hard it can be difficult to

reward the employees for being innovative. If risk and change are rewarded, this

could make employees feel satisfied and a sense of success according to Project

Manager 1 and Project Manager 2. Moreover, Project Manager 3 explains that the

company still needs to learn how to celebrate.

Another important aspect of leaders in change is to listen to the followers,

understand them and be open about the situation according to Project Manager 3,

who further thinks that “working with your employees is in some way the

foundation, purpose, and task you have as a leader”. Moreover, Department

Manager 3 and Project Manager 4 state that the leader must protect the followers if

things go wrong. During change, it is also important to involve the employees and

make them grow states Department Manager 1. To develop them, Project Manager 1

suggests “encourage to take initiative and have less control” or as Project Manager 4

expresses it, “freedom with responsibility”. Furthermore, Project Manager 1, Project

Manager 3, and Department Manager 1 encourage a probing mindset which includes

as Project Manager 3 expresses, “learning by doing” or as Department Manager 1

says, “trying and testing”. Project Manager 1 states that it is about handling the risks

when it appears but also shows good examples of similar situations or projects. This

mindset is implemented in the organization indicate Department Manager 3 and

Project Manager 1. Department Manager 3 explains that “there is also fantastic

loyalty, so when something goes a little bad then [the case company] really

becomes a single body” or as Project Manager 1 states “a forgiving organization”.

4.2 Main-study: Leadership Challenges in An Agile Transformation

The pre-study phase gave valuable insights into the ongoing transformation of the

case company and with that knowledge, significant depth of the leadership

challenges was gathered during the second round of interviews and during the

observations. These challenges are mainly about accepting a new role as a leader,

balancing the manager’s areas of responsibilities, resistance to change, ensuring

psychological safety, and setting a direction and vision. Noteworthy is that some of

these challenges are overlapping, and for further description, some of the interviews

from the pre-study phase are mentioned in this section.

34

4.2.1 Accepting a New Role as a Leader

When the interviewees were asked about the leaders' role in change and the future

role as a leader, most of the interviewees were convinced that the focus should be

more on people-oriented tasks. However, they see some challenges with that such as

leaders might have to reconsider their role in the change and in the new ways of

working. Section Manager 7 expresses the main challenge as “what is the role as a

leader” during the change and after the change. Section Manager 1 agrees and says

that the leader’s role in cross-functional teams must be further explored and is a

challenge to overcome.

A transformation can be seen as an unstable environment. Going from a

well-developed way of working towards a more uncertain future, creates questions of

what is the role and what should the focus be on. The most important attributes for

leaders may change or some attributes may be more prominent. Department

Manager 4, who has driven several change projects, discovered that “tough empathy”

is needed. It is explained as being “honest, straightforward and clear with what is

required and why you do things. I do not try to sugar-coating”. Furthermore,

Department Manager 4 claims that being responsive and having courage are two

leadership attributes important in change. Having the courage to drive the changes

that you as a leader believe in even if there are resistance and questioning, and being

responsive to process new information to change direction.

When Section Manager 4 expresses important attributes for future leaders, the

respondent said that a leader should “have a genuine interest in people”. Further,

the well-being and development of Section Manager 4’s followers are of high interest.

This is done by actions like motivating the followers and creating the right

conditions. Group Manager 2 supports that statement by saying that the first

prioritization as a leader is the employees, for example, ensuring their well-being and

developing the groups. Secondly, Group Manager 2 is responsible to support the

process if the followers get stuck with something. Group Manager 4 and Group

Manager 5 share the thoughts with Group Manager 2 and Section Manager 4, of

leaders being more about promoting and helping followers and improving their

well-being. Group Manager 1 and Group Manager 4 express that the technical

responsibility probably would transfer to the senior expert in the group. Using a

senior expert or senior constructor for detailed questions in the project is already

used by a majority of the leaders at the case company state Section Manager 1 and

Group Manager 2. However, Section Manager 7 expresses that half of the group

managers are more technical interested and the other half more interest in

developing the followers. Section Manager 7 further elaborates on this by stating that

the future might be that technical interested group leaders have smaller groups than

the others.

According to Group Manager 1, the future tasks for leaders are about ensuring

psychological safety and coaching the followers. This can be a challenge according to

35

Group Manager 4 because some of the leaders identify themselves with the technical

tasks rather than the leader position. In this agile change, leaders might need to

reconsider their tasks and role, but it can also conflict with their current view of a

leader. The leader's role is to create conditions for the followers to perform according

to Section Manager 4. This includes stating the tasks, creating an inner motivation to

perform, and establishing the possibility to grow. Group Manager 5 states that the

role of a leader depends on the followers and their needs. As an example, when

“having a new employee then I check and control the work more often, so they do

not work in the wrong direction for a long period of time”, while followers that have

been in the role longer are given more freedom. Section Manager 1 adds that

leadership is about understanding the followers, for example how they want to

improve and develop and pushing them in that direction. Therefore, leaders should

“not have a great need for control and the need to be seen oneself” states Section

Manager 4 which is consistent with Section Manager 5, which says that “leaders

should not be too involved in the details”. The group managers that work under the

section managers, share the same vision for leaders as the senior managers. Group

Manager 3 has learned that followers feel good when they are given responsibility

and the leader avoids being too involved in the details. When going through a change

towards being more autonomous, leaders should not be involved in too much detail,

said Group Manager 4 and Group Manager 5. Leaders being too involved in the

details have not been experienced at the case company in the last years, states Group

Manager 5.

Section Manager 7 has been involved in the transformation for a longer period has

met problems and learned that it is important to involve the employees in an early

stage. Additionally, it is about giving freedom to the group to solve the problems by

themselves. Section Manager 1 has experience from the software department where a

similar change has been made. Section Manager 1 learned that group managers being

too involved in the details creates confusion among the groups. This has resulted in

Section Manager 7 taking a role more as a coach to the team. Thus, even if the major

part of the interviewees agrees that leaders should focus more on the followers’ needs

and give more autonomy to the teams there could be challenges. Project Manager 7

expresses that some leaders might feel more comfortable with today's structure and

suggests that this could be handled by shifting roles. Project Manager 7 gives an

example of “the manager who spends 95% of the time on a product and wants to

keep doing it, then maybe that person can not be a leader because it does not work.

Then you may need to find another role for the individual, so the person can

continue to focus on the product”. Section Manager 7 has experienced this in the

groups, where half of the leaders have a technical interest and the other half a more

people-oriented interest. In the future, Section Manager 7 thinks that maybe they

“need to find a balance that those people-oriented managers may have larger

teams and those managers who have this technical interest they may rather go

towards a more technical role with a greater technical responsibility but still with

leadership responsibilities.” Even if many leaders at the case company are expressing

36

a more people-oriented focus in the future, they state that leaders must have the

knowledge about the engineering areas to be able to lead in this change. Group

Manager 2 elaborates on this by stating that to develop the employees, a leader

should know the product and process to guide and support in the daily work.

Further, the respondent has learned in the past years that “it is probably difficult to

lead engineers without being an engineer”.

4.2.2 Balancing Product, Process, and Person (Three P)

At all leadership levels, finding the right balance between product, process, and

people is a challenge. Section Manager 7 states that it is hard to manage and have

time for the product, person, and processes. As a leader, you need to be present most

of the time but also work operatively and with the strategy. Department Manager 1

states that especially the long-term strategy can not be forgotten when trying to

balance the work assignments. Department Manager 1 and Group Manager 2 act at

different levels within the company, despite that, they have the same challenge in

their role as a leader, to balance their tasks. Product, person, and processes are the

three core values and the pillars for the leadership at the case company. Project

Manager 7 claims that a problem within the leadership area is that leaders focus their

main time and energy on the product part. Project Manager 7 proposes that all

aspects should be considered in a leader role. To be able to have overall responsibility

and an attractive leadership, Section Manager 4 suggests that leaders must have a

strong network to keep up with the changes in the technical, process, environment,

and leadership. If there are problems or lack of the overall responsibility “people will

not join our company”. Therefore, having modern and attractive leadership is crucial

for a company according to Section Manager 4.

As a leader, you need to understand all parts of the business, processes, and tools

because if you do not, it will be challenging to represent the organization, argue for

them and defend your actions according to Section Manager 1 and Section Manager

5. Moreover, if leaders do not have the overall responsibility and only focused on

their followers, it could be a waste of their engineering knowledge and competence

states Section Manager 6. Section Manager 7 says that if leaders not knowing the

technical challenges, it could be hard to support and coach the followers. However,

being the expert is not needed but understanding what the followers do and how

things are connected is needed, states Section Manager 1. Further, Section Manager 1

claims that leaders who use an expert might have more time to focus on leadership.

Section Manager 7 and Department Manager 4 also express that they have received

help from a person that relieves the technical or strategic tasks to be able to balance

all of the leadership aspects. However, Department Manager 4 states that it is to

delegate assignments not resigning from the responsibility as a leader. To delegate

tasks requires a strong relationship with trust, which Group Manager 5 indicates. In

Group Manager 5's current role the technical parts are not considered as much as the

37

rest because the followers have been in their roles for a long time and the

relationship is built on trust.

When Project Manager 7 describes the groups in the future it is more fluid and

flexible groups, where a leader might have less control and responsibility for

components. Project Manager 7 states that “no one or very few leaders want to be

this, so to speak, consulting brokers who only have a personnel responsibility and

then sends out their resources to other places where they create magic under

someone else's direction” which could be the case in this transformation. Another

challenge related to this is how to incorporate the leader's technical knowledge in

discussions to drive the development forwards but give the employees the possibility

to operate with more responsibility of their own. Section Manager 6 expresses that

this is a question for further discussions in an agile organization.

4.2.3 Resistance to Change

A common challenge expressed during the interviews and during the observation of

education was resistance to change. During the observation, a participant expresses

that it is hard to motivate people when there are several ongoing change projects.

They become tired of the need to always change, even if change may result in less

work. Department Manager 1 agrees with this and says that “some people have

difficulties dealing with too many changes too quickly”. This is common in nearly all

of the change projects that have been done, some projects have met more resistance

than others. Leaders need to take action to handle the resistance and get everyone on

the same page. Department Manager 4 concludes that if not enough people willing to

change are involved, the change will not succeed.

The general thoughts among the managers about resistance to change in the agile

transformation at the case company is that resistance is not shown or seen in this

phase of the change process. In the second round of interviews, 13 out of 17

expressed that the change process is going smoothly and there have been few clear

examples of resistance. The other four were working in different areas and were not

affected in the same manner by the change project. Section Manager 7 expresses that

the receiving of the change has been mixed, like any other change project. Some

people are enthusiastic and want to be a part of it from the start, while others are

more negative in the beginning. This is seen as common in change projects at the

case company. However, Department Manager 4 states that some people show

passive resistance and to deal with that a leader must ask the followers if they want

to be a part of this journey. Other but few react to change by going into a conflict or

taking a defensive position explains Section Manager 2. These people need time to

process the change states Department Manager 1. It can also be seen that the

resistance to change differs within the change process and in different departments.

Section Manager 7 expresses that in some departments, there has been internal

38

resistance because the benefit of the change of working methods has not been seen.

In the first phase of another change project, Department Manager 4 had to replace

people to be able to go through with the change. Department Manager 2 has

experienced similar change projects where the projects have failed due to different

opinions about the change and not having everyone on the same side. Therefore, it is

crucial to bring people together in a transformation towards a new way of working.

That could be the difference between success or failure.

The difference in resistance in the departments could also depend on how long they

have come in the change process. It is clear during the observations and in the

interviews that everyone is in different phases in the transformation and has more or

less information about the different steps. During the observation of the change

education, seven employees with different positions expressed how long they have

come in the change process. Three of them placed themselves at the beginning and

the four others in the middle or near the end. Two of them also said that they were in

several stages depending on what was seen as the change. The second observation at

the department meeting strengthens this because with many ongoing projects it is

hard to be at the same phase in the transformation. Additionally, some of the leaders

in the interviews have recently been introduced to the first steps in the

transformation, some were not involved at all and others have worked with it for a

while.

According to Project Manager 5, resistance exists in this type of transformation

because it is difficult to somehow show the benefits for the people involved in this

change. Section Manager 1 thinks that the employees show resistance because they

now need to work with a less clear structure and more flexibility, which is a new way

of working. Section Manager 2 thinks that people who have worked for a long time at

the company may feel unsure about these new ways of working. However, Section

Manager 5 and Group Manager 5 say that they have not met so much resistance but

during change processes, there is always some kind of resistance that can be either

bad or good. On one side, resistance can be good if it creates a meaningful discussion

about the way forward. On the other hand, resistance with no willingness to

understand is problematic. Section Manager 6 agrees with Section Manager 5 that

there is little resistance to this change, but that people are worried and need safety.

They also need time to adjust to the change, says Department Manager 1. Meeting

and dealing with worried employees is one challenge to overcome in this change that

Section Manager 6 sees. Section Manager 1, Section Manager 2, and Section Manager

5 agree that communication and creating a safe environment can be the key to this

type of challenge. Nevertheless, questioning the changes and having a dialogue can

help during change, according to Section Manager 5. This is seen by Section Manager

5 in situations where the current change has been discussed and the environment

and people have been welcoming the transformation. Another suggestion from

Section Manager 1 to make followers feel more confident in the change is to give time

to process the change and show them the results. Explaining the facts and results go

39

in line with Section Manager 2’s solution of how to get more support through change.

To take the next step, the facts must include both positive and negative steps states

Section Manager 5. Even if there have been many changes, Project Manager 6 does

not think that there has been resistance either. However, Project Manager 6

concludes that they have “only scratched the surface so far, and there will be more

and tougher changes later on”. To develop this opinion, Section Manager 7 states

that going through a change towards an agile way of working will probably affect the

leadership the most. The employee might do exactly the same thing as before, have

the same job, and meet the same challenges in their daily work. While the leader

might have new tasks and therefore, it is important to clarify the new role as a leader

together with other leaders. However, during the observation, one respondent

expresses that using the phrase resistance to change could have a negative tone and it

would therefore be better to express it as getting commitment and involvement.

4.2.4 Ensuring Psychological Safety

In the pre-study phase, Department Manager 1 explains the importance of

contributing to an environment of psychological safety in an agile change. The

company is still at the early stages of the transformation and is expecting to make

mistakes during the change process. Ensuring psychological safety means getting

individuals to “test and try” while making sure that they feel safe with the possibility

of making mistakes, according to Department Manager 1.

In a change process, Project Manager 5 expresses that forgiving and taking risks is

necessary in the organization and that the case company is trying to figure out how to

balance risk-taking “without being the Wild West”. It is therefore needed to know the

business, the customer, and what is profitable according to Project Manager 5.

Section Manager 1 and Department Manager 1 also express how to encourage

risk-taking in an organization to be able to develop. Moreover, when a problem

occurs the leader must take the responsibility but also express that it is a shared

problem according to Section Manager 7, who “thinks it creates safety that there is a

collective responsibility when things go wrong as well”. In an example, Section

Manager 7 explains that when a problem occurs in this new way of working, a team

or an individual does not need to do everything by themselves. The team with less

workload could do it instead.

Managers that encourage followers to try should be there to take responsibility if

something goes wrong, according to Department Manager 1. The general perception

of the case company is that they have a forgiving nature to followers that make

mistakes. Section Manager 1 explains that it is permissible for the employees to do

wrong as long as they raise the risks so that the manager can take responsibility for

the potential mistake. Project Manager 5 believes that it should be more permissible

to take risks and further explains that this is something the company is working on.

40

The challenging part of ensuring psychological safety involves meeting different

individuals' reactions to change. Section Manager 7 explains that it is important to

get a majority of the employees in the change process. The respondent further

explains that everyone is at slightly different levels of understanding of the change

process and it is important to understand that all of the employees are at different

levels. Some of the employees may feel secure to work as they have always done and

see a huge challenge in making changes. Section Manager 4 explains that others may

react with fear and could lose control, which can be unpleasant. The respondent

further explains that people with a lack of security will probably not be open with

how they are feeling or when they do not understand, which results in negative

effects both in the change process and the working environment. Being transparent

with the employees at all times could enable the leaders to follow the positive and

negative developments taking place within their working environment. Section

Manager 5 believes that transparency can help to create discussions about the change

process. The respondent expresses that there is probably no one who has a clear

picture of the agile change and that is why it is important to be transparent with

information that is available when needed. Department Manager 1 shares a similar

view and explains that it is important to communicate in a transparent manner so

the employees gain a better understanding of what is happening, and what the

company is working on during the change process. Section Manager 4 explains that

leaders must be transparent in what is happening throughout the change process and

the importance of having an open climate where it is acceptable for people to express

what they do not understand or when they have made a mistake.

Several of the interview participants share that different individuals could respond

differently to the change. Project Manager 8 explains that some followers will

demand answers but that it is important to not fall into the trap of responding to

things they are uncertain about. The respondent further explains that the leaders

must create an environment that gives people a sense of security in the best way they

can. Section Manager 1 expresses that the leader role requires understanding what

different individuals want, while Section Manager 4 explains that the leader’s task is

to constantly develop and increase the commitment and make sure that the

individuals develop. Department Manager 1 expresses the challenge in conveying

security because of the time constraints in a leadership role. This further emphasizes

the challenge of making sure that the employees feel a sense of security throughout

the change process.Understanding the expectations that come with a role can also

contribute to ensuring psychological safety, according to Group Manager 4. Although

different individuals may express different needs, one way to contribute to ensuring

psychological safety is to “be clear in what is expected from both the employees and

the leaders”. Group Manager 4 further expresses the importance of being clear in the

areas of responsibility within a role, but that this is something the company needs to

improve on. The same respondent explains that many people within the organization

are starting to think about how the transformation will affect their areas of

responsibilities, and especially if roles are going to be removed. The main challenges

41

in ensuring psychological safety, therefore, involve meeting different individuals'

reactions to the change and being clear in what is expected from the employees.

4.2.5 Setting a Direction and Vision

The outcome of the organizational change is to provide sustainable transport

solutions and decrease carbon dioxide emissions. To do that the case company needs

to increase its flexibility, speed, and customer closeness. Department Manager 1

explains it as “be the leaders who change the transport industry to something that

works for this world, which makes it work for many generations”. Project Manager

2 expresses it as working actively and leading the industry towards these goals.

According to Department Manager 2, providing sustainable solutions are not only

about the end product. It also includes the journey from manufacturing to usage.

Further, Project Manager 2 states that “there is an enormous commitment and an

engagement to environmental issues” in the organization. Putting it into the

organizational context, the case company needs to “pull the carpet away and at the

same time keep what works well” to be able to become more sustainable and run

projects with that goal, according to Project Manager 1. At the same time, the

automotive industry is rapidly changing with electrification. Most of the leaders

within the case company seem to understand why the company is facing a

transformation. Department Manager 1 explains that a rapidly changing industry

requires the company to work in a faster manner that is able to change quickly as a

way to remain competitive. Several of the respondents express the challenge in

setting a direction since there is a higher level of uncertainty with the agile

transformation. Section Manager 7 explains that the management team is having

discussions about not knowing exactly where the company is headed and that there is

still a lot to do in setting a clear direction and defining the end goal. The respondent

further expresses that the company has made some progress and strives to have a

common backlog and priorities within a specific department. This refers to working

in an incremental period to reduce the development time, which has been

implemented across some of the company’s departments. Almost all of the

respondents share positive opinions about the incremental period, but some of the

respondents explain that this is not a new way of working since the company has

been working cross-functionally for a long time. However, Section Manager 7

explains that the incremental development period is some type of strategy for setting

the direction in a methodological manner, but that there is still a long way to go

before reaching common objectives within the department.

In addition, Department Manager 1 raises similar concerns as Section Manager 7,

which relates to how the company is going to achieve the overall transformation. The

respondent emphasizes “it is still unclear how the company is going to adapt to a

changing environment”. This can lead to many employees asking counter questions

such as “how do we do that?”, according to Project Manager 7. Section Manager 5

42

shares similar opinions on how the company is going to work closer to customers,

which is one of the important components of the transformation, according to

Department Manager 1. Although the respondent explains that it is more about

asking questions to the higher level of the organization than to get a solution. Project

Manager 7 shares similar opinions as Section Manager 5 and explains “a leader

must be confident in not being able to provide answers, but should point out the

direction so that the employees can reach a solution, which may not be comfortable

and easy for some of the followers”. Whereas Group Manager 5 expresses the

challenging part in setting the direction for new employees, and also senior

employees, where some of them do not want their leaders to “stand and point with

their whole hand” because most of the employees who work in the development area

are skilled and may not want to obey all the time. The respondent further expresses

that some of the managers within the company are knowledgeable with years of

experience and capable of setting directions through previous changes, but that most

of these managers are not qualified for the current environment of the company.

During the observation of the department meeting, goals to become more sustainable

were expressed and shown. The goal was to decrease carbon dioxide emissions and to

become a provider of sustainable solutions. Many projects were introduced where

there were connections to these targets and to be able to proceed with this

organizational change. Several of the respondents imply that there is not a clear

direction for achieving the overall transformation. The topic of leading a change

during vague conditions is also discussed in leadership education. One of the

participants explains that it is easier to agree when things are unclear, and compares

it to getting different alternatives if things are more defined or clearer. Whereas

another participant emphasizes that organizational changes are difficult to define,

which makes them vague. Group Manager 5 expresses the importance of knowing

why the company is changing and further explains “if you do now know why you

should do this, it is difficult to implement the change”. The same respondent shares

experiences of a previous change within the company, where it would have been

better to understand what they were trying to achieve with the change. Section

Manager 5 expresses a solution to Group Manager 5 statement and believes that

setting the direction needs to be done together.

The interviews and the observations show that employees within different levels of

positions, from managerial roles to advisors, are at different levels of the change

process. Department Manager 4 explains that there is a difference between the

management teams and the department’s understanding of the change, where the

department level was one step behind the management team because there are

different levels to process in order to get through a change. Group Manager 4

expresses that the company is in the middle of the change and that roles are not fully

defined, where some parts of the organization have come further, and others have

not taken the necessary steps, which results in a mismatch in everything. Group

Manager 5 explains that everyone must be informed about the change in a way that

43

describes why the management is making a change, not only from the top level of the

organization, in order for the people to understand why the company is changing,

and the effects they are expected to achieve from this change. Department Manager 1

expresses that information should be more transparent, clear, and precise in a

manner that describes what the company is working on, and what they are doing to

reach clarity in certain areas.

4.2.6 Developing Individuals and Giving Support

The leader's task in this change is more about “clear obstacles for employees and

make sure to be there and lift what needs to be lifted and support what needs to be

supported” says Section Manager 1. Group Manager 3 focuses on the group structure

to create an environment where they are effective and also feel good. To be able to

develop the followers, Group Manager 3 states that there is a need for “relevant

Personal Development plans”. The goals for the employees and their development

should be attractive and if they are not, Section Manager 4 experienced that it results

in lower motivation. Furthermore, Section Manager 2 has had reactions from

employees that indicate how important it is with personal development. The

followers highlighted how Section Manager 2 had “conversations about personal

development continuously and that there was a structure to work in the right way

and took questions one at a time” instead of ignoring these parts as some other

leaders had done. Another aspect to be able to develop and support the team is to

involve the team in the decision then they can discuss if they have enough resources

and competence for the tasks explains Section Manager 1.

Section Manager 1 and Section Manager 4 create trust and safety by supporting the

followers when they need help. Besides supporting followers, Group Manager 1

expresses the need to support other leaders. An example is how leaders should deal

with burnout among employees. In this situation, Group Manager 1 asked for

support from Human Resources and from other leaders that have been in a similar

situation. Exchanging knowledge among other group managers or receiving help

from a section manager about delivering results, balancing the tasks or problems

related to the group or followers, is helpful for Group Manager 1. Group Manager 1

expresses that it is “always possible to lift escalations” and gives an example where

the section manager called to ask about how the job is going. Creating psychological

safety and developing followers is not all about giving support and help. Project

Manager 7 explains how followers that solve the problems by themselves can build

self-confidence by feeling the opportunity to be a part of the change and influence the

result. Project Manager 7 expresses that in many situations, the followers have the

most knowledge, and “no one can figure out those answers better than themselves”.

Developing individuals is also about creating an inner motivation states Section

Manager 4. Further, Section Manager 4 divides inner motivation into “three main

44

areas, one is autonomy, one is competence and one is belonging” and in order to feel

inner motivation, there is a need to have this in place.

4.2.7 Make Followers and Teams Autonomous

Section Manager 5 shows positive opinions about the servant leadership model in

situations of uncertainty such as organizational changes and associates servant

leadership with coaching. The respondent expresses “I strongly believe in the

servant leadership model, to take a coaching role and say we do not have all the

answers, this is something you have to work through a bit yourself. We are together

as well, there is no one that can formulate a whole solution”. The respondent further

explains that leaders should try to talk about what the company wants to achieve,

describe the goals, and then coach the followers in how to reach the company’s

objectives, and not necessarily describe the next steps to avoid micromanagement.

Section Manager 6 also discusses the coaching elements that can be found in a

servant leader. The respondent explains “the longer the time has passed, and people

have become more comfortable, I have been able to take a coaching leadership

position to provide direction, and rarely involve myself in the detail issues”. The

coaching leadership approach is not necessarily a new type of leadership within the

company. Project Manager 6 explains that the company has talked about coaching

for many years and that many of the leaders are very good at coaching. However, the

respondent further expresses that the company’s structures are controlling, which is

difficult to work through as a leader. The same respondent explains a concern that

relates to the perception of agile by explaining that the picture of agile leadership

does not necessarily fit the company’s leadership. The respondent wonders if there is

an actual difference between them, where it could be a matter of the individuals

rather than significant differences between the company’s leadership and

characteristics of an agile leader. Although, the respondent further expresses that the

leadership style that is encouraged within many places of the company may not be

agile.

Providing the means for autonomy in the followers involves elements of

encouragement. Section Manager 5 gives an example of a leadership approach that

does not intend to provide people with a solution. It is more about helping the

individual to twist and turn the questions to reach the desired solution, which is

valuable for an individual's development. Section Manager 1 gives another example

of providing the means for autonomy as a manager, by sending employees to

meetings, and sometimes joining these meetings to understand, overhear, and go

together, as a way for the employees to gain more insights into the company. The

respondent explains this as a way of showing confidence in their employees, where it

is the individual who has the capabilities and should therefore be allowed to

represent the manager during certain meetings. Section Manager 6 also expresses

coaching characteristics but in settings of junior designers. The respondent describes

45

that when working in a group of junior designers, the leader could coach but also

help the group with technical questions, by taking the coaching role and providing

technical expertise.

Section Manager 3 expresses the importance of structure and does not necessarily

believe in autonomous teams that are “set free” with tasks, budgets, and mandates.

The respondent further explains the importance of structures in how the team

should work, and that they need support in different ways. The respondent explains

that the ultimate goal is to have completely autonomous managers, which requires a

lot for the average team. Some will be completely autonomous, and others will not

be, but that depends on the people that the company puts in these teams. Section

Manager 2 also believes in creating structures and functioning teams for the group to

be autonomous. The respondent explains that agile is when groups are independent

and able to handle their own problems, with leaders that support them towards

solving problems. Section Manager 6 believes that leaders should have the ability in

providing team members a sense of security so that they can make their own

decisions. Section Manager 1 explains that the decision-making process can be

misunderstood and that it is more about handing over the responsibility of how a

certain task should be done. The respondent explains that it is the manager that has

all the mandate and is able to make decisions together with the product owner.

Section Manager 7 expresses an important lesson from previous experiences by

explaining that “we have learned to involve the employees early” and have probably

spent a long time analyzing how to structure the team. The respondent emphasizes to

“involve the employees early, and let them solve it themselves as much as possible,

and rather take a coaching role in leadership”.

46

5 Discussion

This chapter analyzes and discusses the findings of this study. An attempt to

contextualize the empirical findings with the literature review is presented. This

starts with explaining the organizational goal of sustainable work. After that,

leadership challenges such as resistance to change, balancing the role as a leader,

ensuring psychological safety, setting a direction, and communicating a vision are

further elaborated on. This is followed by a discussion with the focal point in the

servant and transformational leadership model related to the change process,

concluding with a discussion on a combination of these two models.

5.1 Organizational Change towards Sustainable Work

The goal of the organizational change is to provide sustainable transport solutions,

which results in decreased carbon dioxide emissions. Several change projects within

this agile transformation are up and running. The way forward is somewhat unclear

and uncertain, but what is known is that there is a need for a new way of working to

reach goals of increased flexibility, speed, and customer closeness. However, this new

way of working affects the company’s current way of working since the R&D

department must have a more end-to-end approach, more customer involvement

and that requires new capabilities. Department Manager 1, Department Manager 2,

Project Manager 1, and Project Manager 2 agreed that the goal is to change the

industry and be the leading organization in the field of transportation. The

organization's science-based targets can be connected to the UN’s sustainable

development goals, and specifically 12. Responsible consumption and production,

which includes efficient use of natural resources and adopts sustainable methods, for

example in the production of their products (United Nations, n.d.). Connections to

these targets are found in some of the company’s projects that are further discussed

during observations and interviews of this study. Several of the leaders at the case

company show characteristics of transformational and servant leadership, which

indicates connections to the UN’s sustainable development goals 8. Decent work and

economic growth and 9. Industry, innovation, and infrastructure (United Nations,

n.d.).

Speranza’s (2018) study explained that new technologies change the automotive

industry. Companies able to take advantage of such technologies can strengthen their

market position, but also create more sustainable transports, which is needed to

reach the UN’s sustainable development goals (United Nations, n.d.). The

sustainable aspect can be linked to the transformational leadership model where one

of the elements involves promoting innovation, which is related to the ninth

sustainable development. It can therefore be argued that transformational leaders

are capable of influencing followers to be innovative and find sustainable solutions

47

(Kim et al., 2018). Transformational leaders may also accept potential mistakes of

the followers for the possibility of the organization to experience the benefits from

their innovative efforts (Smith et al., 2004). Some of the participants of this study

emphasized having a probing mindset and taking responsibility for the employee’s

potential mistakes. This is in accordance with the UN’s goal number 8. Decent Work

and Economic Growth describes the importance of having a safe and sustainable

working environment, which contributes to social sustainability. The servant

leadership approach is also associated with social sustainability because such leaders

aim to serve and contribute to the employee’s well-being, which results in a socially

sustainable environment for the individuals (Peterlin et al., 2015). Further, servant

leaders usually take economic, ecological, and social aspects into consideration in

decision-making processes (Peterlin et al., 2015). To reach the environmental

objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions while ensuring social responsibility

within the working environment means that organizational change must be carefully

considered. Research studies show that leaders have a key role in organizational

change (Kotter, 2001; Dikert et al., 2016; Kalenda et al., 2018). It could therefore be

argued that leaders within incumbent firms play an important part in contributing to

society’s goal of sustainable development.

5.2 Leadership Challenges

This research study investigated leadership challenges (see Figure 5) for an

incumbent firm that is facing agile transformations as a way to respond to a rapidly

changing environment. The case company is at the early stages of the transformation

and has therefore not met so much resistance to change. A majority of the study

participants expressed that future challenges for leaders involve giving more

autonomy to teams with a more focus on the employees' needs. Some of the

managers are also starting to think about how the transformation is going to affect

their role as a leader. Other challenges mainly involved setting a direction and

communicating the bigger picture of how the company is going to change.

Figure 5. Leadership challenges in an agile transformation

48

5.2.1 Preparing for Resistance to Change

It has been acknowledged through the majority of respondents that the change

process has been experienced positively. This mainly referred to working in an

incremental period to reduce the development time, which has been implemented

across some of the company’s departments. However, the explanations have been

that the change is in the beginning and larger changes such as new agile roles or

changing roles have not been implemented. The case company has been working

similarly as before with small implementations of a new planning method to set a

takt time for the R&D department. Several of the respondents shared positive

outcomes of more collaboration, more transparency, and a clearer plan. Additionally,

the respondents stated that they have not met so much resistance to change among

the employees which also indicates that the first step was implemented smoothly.

Thus, some of the respondents expressed that they already work in incremental

periods or have been working similarly for a longer time. Others expressed that this

method does not work for them as well as for other departments. This is exemplified

by engineers and leaders working in the calculation and testing field that had longer

simulation and testing processes. However, Project Manager 6 stated that people in

the organization are not aware of how big the change will be and that there is more to

come. It is therefore important to prepare for resistance as Section Manager 5 and

Group Manager 5 expressed that resistance is always a part of the change process.

Moreover, leaders need to consider getting people committed to the change since

previous experience resulted in some departments implementing agile methods

while others did not, according to Department Manager 2.

Using the word resistance could be negative and a better expression would be to get

commitment and involvement which was expressed during one of the observations.

Our findings indicate that resistance to change could be both good or bad. Seeing it

as a positive resistance could create discussion pushing the change forward.

Examples of this have been explained during the observation but also in the

interviews. Oreg (2006) expressed that resistance to change can indicate negative

and bad change and we argue along the lines of Giangreco & Peccei (2005) that it

could contribute with feedback on how to make the change process smoother.

Similar opinions are found in the literature where employees have questioned the

change openly which has saved the organization from making unnecessary and costly

changes (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). On the other side, resistance with no willingness

to change could create outcomes such as relocating people in the organization which

has been done in other change processes at the case company.

When meeting resistance among the followers, Section Manager 1, Section Manager

2, and Section Manager 5 agreed that communication can be one of the keys to a

change process. Previous literature has also discussed this and concluded that

communication from managers is connected to employees’ resistance to change

(Wanberg and Banas, 2000; Oreg, 2006). We argue in accordance with Wanberg and

49

Banas (2000) and Oreg (2006) that communication can be seen as a key for creating

commitment to change. From our findings, Department Manager 4 discovered in

previous change projects that “tough empathy” is needed which includes being

honest and straightforward as a leader. This requires that leaders explain the truth

and have clear communication. We further argue in line with Kool and van

Dierendonck (2012) who stated that leaders who are truthful and fair can expect

more active support during change. Another action from leaders to reduce resistance

is to promote independent work and have confidence in the followers (Nahavandi,

2015). This goes in line with Giangreco and Peccei (2005) who concluded that

employees more involved and who have a feeling of influence will act more positively

towards the change. Section Manager 8 similarly explained the importance of

involving the employees early, to let them solve obstacles themselves as much as

possible, and to rather take a coaching role as a leader.

5.2.2 Understanding the Leaders Role in the Future

Leaders at the case company are responsible for certain areas such as process,

product, and people. There are various opinions about how to balance the areas of

responsibilities, which might depend on the freedom that the leaders are given. Some

of the leaders prioritize people, while others seem to focus equally on all of them, and

other leaders focus on the product. It is clear that the participants of the case

company shared quite similar views of leadership. The respondents raised the

leader's role as creating the right conditions for the followers to be able to perform

and being supportive when problems occur. One could argue that the leaders who are

focused on the people might have a better ability in influencing others during the

change process. It has been expressed that although some of the managers within the

case company have years of experience, some of them may not be qualified for the

current environment of change as they focus more on details than act as support.

Our findings indicate that leaders at the case company might need to reconsider the

role of leadership and have a more supportive role than being too involved in the

details. The evidence that supports these opinions is that it is rare that leaders have a

strong technical interest in details. Most of the respondents exemplify how they use

senior experts or constructors to help with technical tasks. Even though technical

tasks are delegated, the leaders have the overall responsibility in the end. Maylor

(2010) described similar characteristics of a leader as someone who focuses on the

people, rather than seeing people as a resource, which is a traditional management

approach. Without technical knowledge, it can be harder to argue for the decisions

and get trust from the employees. This was communicated from all of the

interviewed leaders.

Leaders that have been involved in the transformation and with more insights on the

change process have expressed that it is important to involve the employees as early

50

as possible. This has resulted in the leadership focusing more on coaching the team

than taking every decision for the group. Even though the majority of the leaders

agreed that the future role as a leader is to focus more on the followers’ needs and

give more autonomy to the teams they saw future challenges. For example, the new

structure could be uncomfortable and new roles problematic. Some leaders

expressed uncertainty of the role during and after the change and this is also

exemplified in Dikert et al. (2016) study. They found in their systematic literature

review that the role of a middle manager in a larger organization is unclear because

the organizational change aims for more autonomy and to be more self-organized. At

the case company the section managers, which can be seen as the middle managers,

think that their role and tasks would be similar to what they are doing now. However,

leaders have indicated that their role could change more and be less about the

technical part and product part. While others have been unsure how the change

would affect the role as a leader. Dikert et al. (2016) described that in environments

of change leaders faced challenges such as a vague knowledge about new methods

and new ways of working, which resulted in micromanaging and leaders taking a

non-supportive role. This type of challenge has not occurred or is not seen in the

hardware department. However, previous experience from the software department

showed traits of micromanagement from group managers that were too involved in

details of the work.

5.2.3 Creating an Environment that Promotes Risk-taking

A prominent topic in this study is the part in getting individuals to test and try since

the company is having an exploratory approach to the transformation. This has been

referred to by the leaders as having a probing mindset. Understanding how to meet

different individuals' responses to change could help the leaders to ensure

psychological safety. Department Manager 1 explained psychological safety as

making individuals feel safe in the possibility of making mistakes. However, it is

evident that everyone at the case company is at slightly different levels of

understanding of the change process. This could affect the ability to ensure

psychological safety as it becomes harder to predict what everyone needs. One study

in the product development setting discusses that in environments of change leaders

influence the psychological safety of their followers by creating an open environment

that promotes innovation and learning (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). Therefore,

the leadership at all levels may benefit in striving to have an open environment of

transparency.

Department Manager 1, Section Manager 4, and Section Manager 5 expressed in

accordance with Edmonson and Nembhard (2009) that having an open climate

involves being transparent which could influence the psychological safety of the

employees. For example, Section Manager 4 explained that leaders must be

51

transparent in what is happening during the change process, and have an open

climate that makes it acceptable for people to express what they do not understand

or when they have made a mistake. The potential outcome is employees that feel

encouraged to take risks, question the process, and give ideas that might result in

more effectiveness of the change process (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). The

difficulty in ensuring psychological safety is finding the time since the leader's role

consists of various areas of responsibilities, according to Department Manager 1.

It has been acknowledged through the interviews that the agile transformation is

closely associated with some uncertainty in what is expected from the managers. Our

findings support Dikert et al.’s (2016) study which explains that the middle

manager’s role becomes unclear in larger organizations facing agile transformations.

Understanding the expectations that come with a role can contribute to psychological

safety for many individuals, whereas it may not be as important for others. The case

company showed capabilities in creating an environment where people feel a sense of

security. One example is that the general perception is that many people have joined

the company due to it being a safe employer with a focus on educating their own

instead of hiring new people.

5.2.4 Providing Direction Through Transparency

Previous research has emphasized that throughout a change process aligning

employees requires leadership that provides goals and vision, and management’s

ability in initiating activities that solve challenges related to the transformation

(Kotter, 2001; Nahavandi, 2015). However, setting a clear direction and

communicating a common vision of the agile transformation has been proven to be

difficult at the case company. Several of the leaders expressed that there is not a clear

direction for how the company is going to transform, while other leaders implied that

there is not a clear picture that communicates the bigger vision of the

transformation. One explanation is that the company is still having discussions about

where they are headed, which impacts the ability in providing a clear direction and

defining the end goal of the transformation. Section Manager 5 suggested that

leaders need to be transparent and communicate that they do not have the solution,

but that transforming the company is done together in the organization. Edmondson

and Nembhard (2009) discussed that in order for teams to work towards

organizational goals, there needs to be a shared understanding that is communicated

by the leader. Research studies explained that communication is one of the keys to

get commitment from employees (Van den Heuvel et al., 2009). Since the company is

in the early stages of the transformation, communicating the vision of the company

as a fast-paced agile organization may involve working more customer-oriented, in a

flexible manner to respond to change, and value individuals and interactions over

processes and tools (Wipfler & Vorbach, 2015; Cooper & Sommer, 2016).

52

During the observation of the education, one of the participants explained that

organizational changes are difficult to define and therefore make them vague. This

opinion is in accordance with research studies that described organizational changes

as hard to manage (Berggren & Lindkvist, 2001; Burnes, 2009). Not being able to set

a clear direction for how the company is going to transform leads to the relevant

question of leading under vague conditions. Section Manager 8 explained that the

incremental period with a common takt time is some type of strategy for setting the

first steps, but that there is still a long way to go before reaching common objectives

within the department. Two of the leaders expressed concerns where no one seems to

follow up on the progress of the incremental period, which may lead to negative

implications for the leader who is responsible for spreading knowledge within their

department. Our findings imply that the company needs to establish common views

of the direction that is needed to transform or make decisions about the necessary

direction that is needed. Certain procedures for how to gather and spread knowledge

are also recommended to follow up on the new ways of working such as the

incremental period. Research studies have found that leadership challenges in an

agile transformation usually involve creating and maintaining a shared foundation

related to process and organization (Kasuli et al., 2021).

5.3 Encouraging Change as a Transformational Leader

The transformational leadership concept described certain elements that leaders

practice to encourage individuals to commit to an organizational change and reach

organizational objectives (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Stone et al., 2004). Seltzer

and Bass’s (1995) study has found that leaders build the followers’ commitment

towards the organization and its mission. This section attempts to analyze and

discuss the case company’s current way of working and how they could encourage the

people to commit to the agile transformation through the lens of transformational

leadership.

5.3.1 Building Trust to Get Commitment

Transformational leaders articulate a compelling and idealistic vision while

emphasizing the value that the individuals make to the organization (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1995). Several of the leaders have expressed that there is not a clear

direction for how the company is going to transform, whereas others implied that

there is not an end goal. A possible explanation for this involves that the company is

experiencing uncertainty and is at the beginning of the change where other parts of

the organization have come further. Articulating a compelling and idealistic vision

can therefore involve how the case company wants to be a flexible organization that

53

is competent in solving current issues based on the market needs and by working

closer to the customers. It could be argued that transformational leadership will fit in

this transformation because Van Dierendonck et al. (2014) study has found that

transformational leaders are preferred in environments of uncertainty. Our findings

indicate uncertainty of future roles, vision, and work methods to be faster and more

customer-centric.

One of the key elements in transformational leadership is charisma and inspiration

where the intention is to create deeper bonds between leaders and individuals to

build and obtain trust throughout the change process (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio,

1993). Trust may result in individuals more inspired, and motivated to pursue the

leader’s vision and are therefore less likely to resist change, which enables a

smoother change process for the company (Navahandi, 2015). One could argue that

in environments of uncertainty having trust in leaders are crucial to ensure a

successful outcome of the transformation. Several of the leaders showed

characteristics for building trust. Most of the leaders within the company seem to

share the same mindset of being present and available.

Our findings indicate that in order to build trust, transparency is needed throughout

the change process. Section Manager 5 related transparency to sharing information

as early as possible. Department Manager 1 and Section Manager 4 explained that it

is important for the company to communicate transparently and openly in how far

they have come, what they are working on, and the plans for reaching clarity within

certain areas. Research studies have found that trust in the leaders is what ultimately

facilitates acceptance of change, and not necessarily the acceptance of the leadership

behavior from the management side (Cai et al., 2018). We argue that an open

environment in change might result in trust, as transformational leaders promote.

This could enhance the psychological safety of the individuals that are more likely to

have a probing mindset throughout the transformation.

5.3.2 Motivate to Have an Experimental Approach

The transformational leadership model encourages risk-taking behavior as an

essential component of organizational success (Smith et al., 2004). Risk-taking

behavior can to some extent relate to taking an experimental approach in an agile

transformation, which the literature mentions as a success factor in a change process

(Paasivara et al., 2018). It is apparent that the case company is taking the same

approach as the literature mentions. Department Manager 1 and Project Manager 6

described an exploratory approach in the transformation and referred to it as having

a “probing mindset”. Most of the people seem to understand why the company is

changing, but how the company is going to transform is unclear, according to

Department Manager 1. One could therefore argue that an appropriate leadership

54

characteristic is intellectual stimulation where the leaders motivate the people to

solve issues by challenging them intellectually and encouraging them to develop

innovative solutions (Navahandi, 2015). Our findings suggest that a leadership

approach that is more about helping individuals is needed in a large-scale agile

transformation. Giving an example from the empirics where Section Manager 5 did

not provide a solution but helps the individual to twist and turn the questions to

reach the desired solution. It could be argued that this is valuable for the individual's

development.

The general opinion from the respondents is that people are being encouraged to

take risks. However, Project Manager 5 expressed “it should become permissible to

take risks”, which may imply that some of the people do not dare to take risks. In the

design and construction department, the perception is that it takes longer to redesign

in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) if problems occur because of the time needed for

simulation and testing. In software environments, it is often easier to run code and

get feedback faster. Even if there are challenges of working faster, our finding

indicates that engineers working in hardware development can benefit from working

more agile because it creates more transparency and a stronger focus on the most

important tasks. Section Manager 1 expressed that this means that employees must

dare to try and make mistakes, but feel safe that the leaders are there to take

responsibility. This shows one example of a leader that strives to influence the

psychological safety of their employees, which could potentially result in innovation

or organizational learning (Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). We argue along the line

with Shin and Zhou (2003) that leaders must assure individuals of their abilities and

capabilities. Section Manager 1 expressed that this requires leaders to understand

what different individuals want and if they are interested in developing and then

push them towards that direction.

Elaborating further on intellectual stimulation where leaders motivate employees

(Navahandi, 2015), it has been suggested that employees need to feel inner

motivation. Individuals with inner motivation create guidelines for leaders at the

case company and can create the necessary means for the employees to grow. Section

Manager 4 divided inner motivation into three areas; autonomy, competence, and

belonging. Our findings indicate that belonging should be further considered as the

organization is going towards a more cross-functional organization. Leaders have

shown concerns about the future structures in groups which could become

challenging for the employees who want to feel a belonging to their colleagues.

Reduced ability in control can become challenging for the leadership since Project

Manager 7 stated “no one or very few leaders want to be this, so to speak, consulting

brokers who only have a personnel responsibility and then sends out their

resources to other places where they create magic under someone else's direction”.

Competence is valued in the R&D setting and has been emphasized for a long time in

the case of a company, which can also contribute to the personal development of an

individual. Further, autonomy has been discussed and implemented in some

55

departments at the case company and it could be argued that there is an awareness of

the need for autonomy and a less command-and-control approach.

5.3.3 Develop Relationships during the Transformation

Getting a majority of the employees committed is important in the change journey.

This argues for leadership that practices individual consideration, where leaders

treat people differently but equally by providing individual attention and developing

relationships (Navahandi, 2015). Considering that all of the employees are at slightly

different levels of the change process shows that it is appropriate to use a leadership

approach that strives to practice individual consideration. One could argue that

providing individual attention and developing relationships is an effective way for

getting people to reach the same levels of understanding. Uhl-Bien’s (2006) study

showed that the key for leadership is to form relationships with the followers rather

than using an authority and dominance approach. Further, individual attention

means that it is important for the leadership to listen to their employees and

understand their needs and wants, according to Project Manager 6. Practicing

individual consideration could therefore involve adapting the leadership approach to

what the followers need during the change process. We argue along the lines of Oreg

(2006) that leaders need to support the followers early in the change process since

large-scale transformations require a longer time to process to adapt and commit to

the change. Support could potentially result in followers that perform better due to

feeling more encouraged, motivated, special, and developed (Dvir et al., 2002, cited

in Nahavandi, 2015). Creating an open environment of transparency means that the

leadership can direct their focus towards the individuals that do not express how

they feel, when they feel bad, or when they do not understand, according to Section

Manager 4. Such individuals are then more likely to feel more encouraged to perform

(Dvir et al., 2002, cited in Nahavandi, 2015). A possible solution could be to use

individual consideration as a method for the leaders to understand how the people’s

skills and abilities reflect the needs of the organization (Navahandi, 2015). This could

make it easier for the company to determine certain areas of responsibilities and the

challenge in that the leaders’ role becomes unclear in larger organizations facing

agile transformation (Dikert et al., 2016). Our findings suggest that individual

consideration enables the leaders to ensure that followers experience the required

understanding of the change process, but can also be used as a method for

determining areas of responsibility.

5.4 Supporting in Change as a Servant Leader

Previous literature has been investigating servant leadership and the outcomes and

found support that servant leaders impact the organizational commitment (Liden et

56

al., 2008), job satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2008), and creative behaviors (Neubert et

al., 2008). It has also been seen that servant leaders can support organizational

change (Kaltiainen, & Hakanen, 2020). Servant leadership includes elements such as

being a role model, involving followers, and being open (Van Dierendonck, 2011).

This section analyzes and discusses the current way of working in the case company

and how leaders could support the people to work more agile through the lens of

servant leadership.

5.4.1 What Followers need in an Agile Transformation

Several leaders at the case company have expressed difficulties in setting a direction

when there is uncertainty of the future which could result in reactions of refusal and

questioning. Servant leaders should provide a direction and according to Pratt and

Ashforth (2003), this means that servant leaders should explain how the change

impacts and creates meaningfulness to the employees. Further, it is about ensuring

that the employees understand what is expected from them (Van Dierendonck et al.,

2009). The current way leaders at the case company are dealing with resistance is by

being as clear as possible with the next steps and explaining that they do not know

everything at this point. The leaders also express and exemplify how they interact

differently with people, depending on work experience and needs. Employees with

several years of experience are given more freedom and less structure because they

have enough knowledge to work efficiently and deliver results in the current

environment. However, it has been found that future areas of responsibilities are not

defined, which could imply that employees are not aware of what is expected from

them during this transformation. It has been argued by the leaders in the

transformation that learning from others and showing good examples of others that

have been doing similar changes is necessary to get commitment and to understand

the direction.

Moreover, people are not always comfortable with change and they might react in

different ways and show resistance. As a servant leader, it is important to have

interpersonal acceptance and authenticity. In other words, this is about

understanding people, and being true and open to feelings and thoughts (van

Dierendonck, 2014). Group Manager 1 gave two examples, one of being open with

feelings in daily meetings where it starts with an open session about their well-being

or questions regarding work tasks. The second example is taking help from other

leaders or Human Resources when problems like burnout appear. Our findings

indicate that these actions go in line with the servant leadership characteristics of

providing direction, interpersonal acceptance, and authenticity. Using these actions

could help through change as Kool and van Dierendonck (2012) confirm that servant

leadership is related to commitment to change. According to Nahavandi (2015), an

effective leader focuses on the people and therefore has productive and satisfied

employees. Meeting resistance has not only been about understanding the followers

57

and focus on the people at the case company. Moreover, our findings suggest that

leaders who are present and available experience a strong relationship with their

followers. This is seen as an advantage when the aim is to motivate the followers in

the agile transformation.

5.4.2 Serving and Fostering an Experimental Approach

Servant leaders serve followers and fulfill their psychological needs which include

autonomy, relatedness, and competence. According to Van Dierendonck et al.

(2009), these actions could increase well-being and motivation. The first

characteristic in the servant leadership model is empowering and developing

employees. This element includes; autonomy given to the followers and

responsibility in self-leadership (Van Dierendonck et al., 2009). Leaders at the case

company have given several examples of when they gave autonomy to followers.

Most of the examples are trust in the team or followers to solve the problems by

themselves or dare to try new things. The outcome is to develop the individuals. This

indicates that they to some extent use a servant approach in their leadership at the

case company. Besides the benefit of developing the employees by promoting

risk-taking, Paasivara et al. (2018) concluded the importance of taking an

experimental approach in an agile transformation and mentioned it as a success

factor in a change process. We argue in accordance with Paasivara et al. (2018) that

using an experimental approach in an agile transformation could be important

during the change process which in this case is elaborated further and includes

promoting risk-taking. One example from our findings is expressed by Project

Manager 5 who explained forgiving and taking risks as necessary at the case

company in this change process. However, Project Manager 4 explained that in the

current environment risk-taking has not been awarded to the same extent as product

and process successes. Moreover, Project Manager 5 concluded that the challenge is

to figure out how to balance risk-taking and balance the right risk. As it is evident

that the group is becoming more important at the case company and that it is not an

individual person's responsibility to solve problems, our suggestion is to reward

risk-taking as a group instead of only praising individual achievements.

Even though autonomy is given, leaders at the case company indicate that they still

take responsibility when it goes wrong or protects their followers. This is evident in

the case company by the leaders’ willingness to be protective and take responsibility

so the followers challenge themself and dare to take risks. We argue that this goes

along the line with the sixth characteristic, stewardship, which Spears (1995)

explains as leaders taking responsibility and serving the organization. De Sousa &

van Dierendonck (2014) elaborate on stewardship in the change process by stating

that leaders need to frame and explain the process so the followers understand the

intentions. Section Managers that have worked more agile express a need to still have

a structure even though autonomy is given. Structures have to be there for a

58

smoother work process according to them which goes in line with de Sousa & van

Dierendonck’s (2014) view on stewardship. Our findings point towards a leadership

approach during agile transformation which promotes freedom with responsibilities

and learning by doing. The group managers have been in the change process longer

and they have seen indications that the followers' well-being increases when they are

given responsibility. This implies that leaders too involved in the details have less

potential to lead through this change. Our findings suggest stewardship and

empowerment as characteristics to use as a leader to give autonomy to groups that

are needed in an agile transformation.

5.4.3 Dealing with Personal Uncertainty as a Servant Leader

The servant leadership model tackles psychological needs and according to de Sousa

& van Dierendonck (2014), this approach might be suitable for leaders with the goal

to create engagement in an environment with high uncertainty. It has been

acknowledged from the interviews that some challenges are related to personal

uncertainty, as leaders express that there might be new roles in the future and

uncertainty about the future. De Sousa & van Dierendonck, (2014) exemplified

personal uncertainty by stating that it can be about reducing the stress of losing the

job. However, the case company is seen as a safe workplace, where people are not

afraid of losing their jobs. This indicates that the leaders do not need to focus on that

aspect of personal uncertainty. We argue with de Sousa & van Dierendonck’s (2014)

study that shows how people that feel highly personal uncertainty can benefit from

having servant leaders as it increases their well-being and increases their motivation.

Increasing their well-being can further boost the followers’ performance (Kaltiainen

& Hakanen, 2020).

Many of the leaders at the case company show signs of focusing more on the

individuals by supporting, creating structures, and caring about follower’s

well-being. This indicates that they are emphasizing the core of servant leadership,

“investing in employees comes first, and after that positive organizational outcomes

follow” (Kaltiainen and Hakanen, 2020). What indicates this more precisely is the

overall thoughts on the leadership in change which is more about the team and the

individuals rather than the product. We argue along the lines of Kaltiainen and

Hakanen (2020) that servant leadership is of importance during change processes

and uncertainty as leaders in the case company states how followers need to feel

psychological safety during change. Four out of five group managers concluded that

being a leader is becoming more about helping followers and improving their

well-being.

59

5.5 Servant and Transformational Leadership in Change

Even if transformational and servant leaders have certain similarities, their

differences might add value during an agile transformation. The transformational

leadership model encourages leaders to direct their focus towards reaching the

organizational objectives, whereas the servant leadership model strives to support

the followers' needs and aims for autonomy. Our recommendation is to use the best

of these models because our findings indicate that both transformational and servant

attributes are seen as important in agile transformations.

5.5.1 Being a Leader in Change

As previously discussed in this chapter, risk-taking has been promoted in the

transformation. Leaders at the case company implemented it as a mindset in the

organization and also by expressing how they support followers when problems

occur. The first action of encouraging risk-taking could be argued for being a

transformational leadership approach, whereas supporting is encouraged to greater

lengths as a servant leader. Smith et al. (2004) state that servant leaders support

followers and encourage them to learn from their mistakes. Support is created by

giving opportunities and freedom to learn and apply the knowledge in the

organization. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, promote innovation and

creativity which results in an acceptance of mistakes because of the potential benefits

(Smith et al., 2004). The innovation aspect in servant leadership is not as clear as in

the transformational leadership model (Van Dierendonck, 2011; Navahandi, 2015).

Therefore, transformational leadership fills a gap that servant leaders are missing.

Working with product development, innovation and creativity are of importance for

the R&D department at the case company.

With the goal to be more agile, which includes faster, more customer-centered, and

flexible, the organization has started different projects. Some of these projects

include more responsibility to the followers and the teams. Sochova (2020) argues

that servant leaders could play an important role as their aim is to serve and is a

leadership approach that is associated with agile ways of working. Compared with

transformational leaders, servant leaders fill the gap of promoting more

responsibility for the teams and less control from the leaders. Transformational and

servant leadership encourage risk-taking in different ways. For example, giving

empowerment as a servant leader could result in individuals taking risks, and

challenging individuals intellectually as a transformational leader may give similar

outcomes. The leaders at the case company and the literature (Paasivara et al., 2018)

states the importance of using an experimental approach in an agile transformation.

The leader indicates this by promoting risk-taking and having a probing mindset. A

probing mindset can be connected to innovation and creativity. However, a study by

Eisenbeiß and Boerner (2013) concluded that transformational leaders could reduce

60

the creativity among the employees because of the dependency on the leader. In an

R&D department, this can be seen as a weakness due to the need to be innovative.

This gap can be filled by using a servant leadership approach as Neubert et al. (2008)

found that creative behaviors could increase as servant leaders help and serve the

followers and give them more autonomy.

5.5.2 Leading in a Stable or Unstable Environment

Our findings indicate that both characteristics from servant leadership and elements

from transformational leadership are used by the leaders at the case company at the

beginning of the change process. Examples of this are stated by Section Manager 1

who expressed the need for supporting and clearing the path for the employees or

Group Manager 3 who raised the importance of developing the employees by setting

goals and plans. Further, Section Manager 5 explained the need for coaching and

believes in servant leadership. Other examples of aspects from the leadership models

are stated by Department Manager 1 and Department Manager 4. Department

Manager 1 expressed the need to have a mindset to be open to exploration and

Department Manager 4 the need for setting a direction to create psychological safety.

The literature is contradictory when describing which leadership approach is the

most suitable for change processes where the environment is unstable. Earlier

studies argue that transformational leadership is more effective in change than

servant leadership because of their distinctive ways of facing change with the

organizational goals in focus (Graham, 1995; Smith et al., 2004). Oppositely, van den

Heuvel et al. (2010) and van Dierendonck et al. (2014), expressed that servant

leadership could be effective in change processes with high uncertainty where

individuals and their personal demands need to be considered. Further, van den

Heuvel et al. (2010) explained how these managers should promote self-awareness

among the followers. This could provide an understanding of the transformation and

emphasize the possibilities for personal development and growth.

Our findings have indicated that command-and-control leadership has been replaced

with leaders focusing more on the individual and trying to give more autonomy.

Thereafter, transformational and servant leadership have been indicated from both

literature and the respondents to be suitable approaches in change. We argue along

the line with van Dierendonck et al. (2014) that both transformational and servant

leadership could be important for organizations. However, they use different

approaches to get commitment to the organization, where servant leaders focus on

followers’ satisfaction and transformational leaders use perceived effectiveness as

leaders (van Dierendonck et al., 2014). The leadership approach should depend on

the situation because Smith et al. (2004) expressed that transformational leadership

is better in situations of change than servant leadership, which is more appropriate

61

in a stable environment. Other authors state that servant leaders can be suitable in

unstable environments where there is high personal uncertainty (van Dierendonck et

al., 2014). Reflecting on Project Manager 3 statement, who expressed that change is

ongoing and has always been a part of the organization. It could therefore be argued

that the case company is in some kind of uncertain environment and has been for

decades. However, the changing pace is faster now and the level of complexity is less

predictable than before. Indication of both transformational elements and servant

characteristics among the leaders in the change is seen and questioning Smith et al.

(2004) conclusion that transformational is better in change than servant leadership.

5.5.3 Differences in the Leadership Roles within the Case Company

There are some similarities and differences in the leadership areas within the case

company. This study has investigated leaders such as department managers, section

managers, group managers, and project managers. Department managers have

greater knowledge about the change process. One explanation could be that they are

closer to leaders responsible for developing the organization and therefore more

involved. Department Manager 4 explained that there are different levels to process

in order to get through a change, and, therefore, the department level’s

understanding of the change is somewhat different from the other leader's level of

understanding. Department Manager 1 also expressed that information regarding the

change process should be more transparent, clear, and precise, as a way for the

department managers to gain clarity in certain areas. Department managers may

experience difficulties in finding out how to balance between the previous ways of

working with the newly implemented methods. Department Manager 3 expressed

that working 100 percent operationally as a manager is challenging because it

requires finding a balance in activities related to the change process. Previous

attempts to work more agile have been made at the case company, where some

implemented agile methods while others did not. This implies that department

managers have an important role in creating a shared understanding of the change.

Several of the leaders have shown that many of the people within the organization

realize the need to change. This indicates that if enough people are willing to

contribute to the change, the transformation may succeed. However, Department

Manager 1 expressed uncertainty about how the followers feel about the change,

which is considered to be important in change.

It was harder to find similarities among the section managers as their roles have

completely different processes and tasks. There have been differences between

leaders working in the first development phases; the conceptual or industrialization

phase, with the leaders at the end of the development where leaders focusing on

product follow-ups and adjusting smaller changes. Elaborating further on the areas,

our findings show examples, where section managers within the area of specialized

62

orders and purchasing within the development department have another way of

working compared to groups only focusing on construction. Further, examples of

leaders within calculation have not been affected by the changes yet. What is known

is that leaders of specialized orders or purchasing are working more agile which can

be explained as faster and closer to the customer, such as the leaders at the end of

the product cycle. One explanation is that it is easier for these groups because they

consider smaller changes. Noteworthy is that Section Manager 7, who worked more

in the incremental period than others, has learned the importance of involving

employees as early as possible, to let them solve challenges as much as possible,

where the leaders should take a coaching role. It could therefore be argued that

involving employees early is important for other sections that are introduced to the

agile change. Other findings regarding the section managers are that they have

different knowledge about the change. Some are instituted because they worked in

close collaboration with the project team or had employees with interest in the

change, while others still feel unsure about what the change means and what is

implemented, for example how things are followed up. The section managers’ role

can be explored in the further development of the agile transformation.

The group leaders work more operational than the other leaders and closer to the

constructors which gives them the possibility of experiencing the change closer. The

group leaders all work with hardware development and most of them in the

electrification field. This field has implemented a new way of working and therefore,

the group managers are more involved than others in the hardware development.

These leaders have seen the change towards a more supporting leadership than

having leaders with more technical responsibility. The majority of the group

managers ask a senior technical specialist and aim for more autonomy in the group.

Different from other leaders they have been seeing new roles and starting to discuss

possible ways of group constellations and what the leader’s main tasks should be in

the future. Some argue that roles will be replaced or changed. This implies that other

groups that will be more involved later in this agile transformation will also consider

using a more supportive leadership approach because it is seen as suitable and may

face challenges regarding new roles. The transition towards more autonomy in the

group implies that group leaders can take a more supportive role. However, there

have been challenges and Section Manager 7 suggested that the solution might be to

have group leaders with a technical interest have smaller groups than group leaders

with a people-oriented mindset, who might have larger groups.

5.6 Discussing the Research Process

In chapter 3, Method, the methods during the research process have been discussed

and argued for. We believe that the choice to have a qualitative approach was right

63

and argue in accordance with Yin (1994) and Gehman et al. (2018) that the

qualitative approach has contributed to the outcome of this thesis study. Moreover,

performing a single case study has given in-depth knowledge and expanded our

understanding of the challenges during a large-scale agile transformation which is

the outcome of such a study according to Eisenhardt (1989). During this study,

semi-structured interviews have been conducted. This allowed us to receive a deeper

understanding and that the respondents were given the possibility to elaborate

further on their answers. Noteworthy is that complementary questions and

discussions could have affected the objectivity negatively, which is a risk during

semi-structured interviews. We are aware that our questions and discussions could

have affected the respondents’ answers but the discussions have resulted in new

insights and new subjects that we were not aware of. Valuable knowledge has been

collected during these discussions. As an alternative, structured interviews could

have increased the objectivity of the results. However, structured interviews would

not have resulted in these discussions as it limits the answers. To increase the

objectivity, two observations were done where leaders discussed the upcoming

changes and the related challenges. This made it possible to observe discussion

between leaders in a real context to avoid our impact of the answers from leaders in

change and furthermore in the result of this study.

As stated in the delimitations, the study has investigated the early phase of

organizational change. Therefore, the outcomes and results of the actions and their

planning can not be seen or investigated further. Some leaders have been in similar

changes and had, therefore, additional knowledge of the agile change process. These

leaders have been in other departments such as software. Notable is that in these

departments it is easier to work agile because of the ability to work in a faster way

and easier to redo codes. It could have been interesting to compare our findings to a

software department, however, the time and the focus were limited to the hardware

department. This is an appropriate environment to investigate because case

examples of working agile in hardware environments are limited in the literature.

The case company also expressed an interest in this research area. Therefore, the

time constraints might have affected the outcome of this thesis because more

in-depth knowledge of managerial challenges could have been collected and given a

more detailed view.

Further, the digital setup due to the pandemic COVID-19 could have limited the

study. Krishnaswamy et al. (2006) expressed the importance of body language, facial

expression, and interaction with others in observations and interviews which could

be affected by the digital set-up. However, the experience was that it was easier to

book an interview because everyone was more flexible and had more time. During

the interviews, everyone had their camera on which made it possible to read body

language and facial expressions. We argue that it was more efficient and smoother to

have digital interviews and could gather more data during this short amount of time.

64

Further, this set-up compared to a real interview has probably not affected our

results from the interviews. Although, the observations were harder as the

interaction and natural discussion were limited in this digital set-up. We think that it

would have gained an additional and more detailed understanding of the

observations if they had been made at the workplace because then the leaders had

been observed in their real working environment and with more interplay and other

interesting discussions.

To further reflect on the ability in conducting a research study that is generalizable,

some of the results in previous studies support that our findings can to some extent

be replicated in other studies. Our findings are somewhat limited to incumbent firms

that are at the early stages of an agile transformation since we have mainly focused

on this stage of the change process. Therefore, this study can be generalizable to

some extent since previous research shows similar challenges that have been found

in the case company.

5.7 Discussing the Purpose of the Study

We argue that the purpose is reached by giving recommendations of how leaders

should act in the agile transformation and how to view leadership in change. The

case company is in an early phase of the transformation and these recommendations

could help them through the transformation. The results and findings and our study

is found in the literature, which makes our results stronger. Moreover, some of the

participants in our study have gone through similar changes in other departments at

the case company which also strengthens the recommendations. However, the

recommendations need to be evaluated later in the change process to see if they were

valuable and contributed to a smooth agile transformation.

We chose to investigate two leadership models. There would undoubtedly have been

more specific and more in-depth results with one of these models, but both are

needed for this study. We believe both models complement each other quite well

with essential leadership attributes to use during agile transformations. For example,

transformational leadership consists of certain elements that encourage people to

undergo an organizational transformation. Leadership characteristics of

encouragement support having an experimental approach to an agile transformation.

Therefore, transformational leaders could encourage people to take risks, which is a

component that is missing in servant leaders. However, servant leaders have

essential attributes that create the means for autonomy and value agile principles.

The characteristics in the servant leadership model support the goal of creating

autonomous teams. Servant leaders emphasize agile principles, which

transformational leaders do not. We believe both of these leadership models consist

of different elements needed during an agile transformation

65

5.8 Summary of Leadership in Change

The leadership has been studied in the context of large-scale agile transformation in

a hardware development department. Four main challenges have been pointed out

during the interviews and observations and these have been analyzed through the

lens of the servant and transformational leadership models (see Figure 6). These

challenges are mainly about facing resistance to change, understanding the new role

as a leader, setting a direction for the transformation, and ensuring psychological

safety among employees. It is evident that the current role as an expert may become

an obstacle since autonomy in groups requires more of a people-oriented approach

in leadership. Our findings imply that characteristics of servant leadership such as

investing in employees, having clear communication, and supporting autonomy are

important in this change towards a more agile way of working. Furthermore, it can

be argued that elements of transformational leadership are important for leaders in

change. To encourage the agile transformation focus should be on building trust,

encouraging risk-taking, and creating relationships with the employees.

Figure 6. Large-scale agile transformation in hardware

Our findings then indicate that using a mix of the elements in servant and

transformational leadership is important in an agile transformation as the two

models fill a gap that the other is missing. For example, servant leaders support

autonomous teams, and transformational leaders working more actively on

motivating the individuals. It has also been seen that leaders at the case company

always face some type of change and therefore it can be argued that leadership needs

66

to be investigated frequently to find the right approach according to the situation. In

this case, the agile transformation needs leaders who actively promote a probing

mindset and leaders who support the people rather than focusing on the product and

process. Our findings suggest that this transformation needs to be done together with

the employees and have all leaders involved in the change. Throughout this study, a

recurring theme has been the level of uncertainty in both the direction, new

technology, and risk management. It has been expressed that it is important to be

open to change and try new methods that do not have to be perfect. Handling an

uncertain environment as a leader may therefore involve the agile mindset of

responding to change instead of following a plan (Cooper & Sommer, 2016). Being

able to prepare to change can therefore become a crucial part of the strategic work of

a leader.

67

6 Conclusion

The focal point of this study is to find recommendations for the leadership within an

incumbent firm that is currently facing a transition towards a more agile way of

working. Finding common challenges from a leadership perspective allows

formulating appropriate suggestions to enhance a large-scale agile

transformation.

6.1 Research Questions

sub RQ1: What are the key challenges for leadership in a large-scale agile

transformation in an incumbent firm?

Several leadership challenges were seen at the case company’s R&D department, the

four main challenges were related to meeting the individuals and understanding

them to proceed with the change. The common topic was the uncertainty of how to

lead in change.

Understand the new role as a leader: The first challenge was related to the

current role as a leader in a company that faces an agile transformation. The current

view of a leader might conflict with a leadership approach that is leaning towards

being more of a support system and giving autonomy to the team rather than being

the technical expert. Further, leaders with a stronger focus on the technical details

could find it challenging to work for autonomy since this requires less involvement in

the group's daily work.

Resistance to change: It has been stated that resistance to change has not been

experienced to a larger extent. The case company is still in the early phases of the

agile transformation and has not made significant changes such as changing roles,

transitioning, or removing positions. More and tougher changes are expected to

happen in the transformation. Our findings indicate that preparing to meet future

resistance is one challenge to consider in the further progression of the

transformation.

Ensuring psychological safety: The challenging part with getting individuals to

take risks is that everyone appears to be at slightly different levels of understanding

of the change process. It makes it difficult to predict and understand what employees

need to feel encouraged in testing or trying. Our findings indicate that finding the

time to ensure that different individuals feel psychological safety can be difficult

since the leadership role usually involves various responsibilities. Finding the time to

support and understand specific individuals throughout the transformation can

become time-consuming for a leader.

Setting a direction: Organizational changes are usually difficult to define. Our

findings indicate that there is not a clear direction for how the company is going to

68

transform. Many leaders seem to share similar views in setting the direction for how

the company will transform. It is something the people within the organization will

do together. Providing direction is needed to move forward with the transformation.

Our findings have indicated that setting a direction could involve pointing out some

initial steps.

sub RQ2: What aspects from servant and transformational leadership are driven by

leadership challenges in transformation?

The characteristics of transformational leadership were present in the case company

where leaders build trust by encouraging change initiatives such as trying and

testing. This action shows how transformational leadership is driven by the challenge

of ensuring psychological safety. Moreover, transformational leadership also

suggests that individual consideration ensures that the followers experience the

required understanding of the change process. This implies that transformational

leadership is driven by the challenge in understanding different people throughout

the transformation.

The servant leadership approach is appropriate since it encourages leaders to use

transparent communication by explaining what is known and what is not in the

change. Leaders have implied that what is missing is transparency in what is

happening throughout the change process. This should be handled in a

communicative manner that is transparent in how far the company has come, what

they are working on, and the specific plans for reaching clarity within areas that

pertain to the transformation. Having an open climate throughout the change

process may also enhance the psychological safety of the individuals who are then

more likely to have a probing mindset. Servant leadership also emphasizes investing

in the individuals and has a more supportive role in creating autonomous teams,

which is the core value in an agile way of working. The aspect of leaders supporting

autonomous teams is driven by the challenge of a new role as a leader. Our findings

indicate that this aspect should be considered by the leaders in an agile

transformation to be able to lead in the change.

Our recommendation is to have both a transformational and servant leadership

approach throughout the change process, which builds trust between the leaders and

the employees. Leaders can receive a commitment to change through

transformational leadership or servant leadership or using a mix of elements in the

different models.

69

Main Question: How do leaders in large-scale agile transformation describe

leaders in change?

In the case company, there are indications that both servant and transformational

leadership approaches are used and further seen as suitable for the agile

transformation (see Figure 7). In agile change, servant leadership has been suitable

for encouraging autonomy and responsibility to the followers. On the other hand,

transformational elements such as motivating and guiding through the change are

used and seen as important to overcome the challenges.

Figure 7. Large-scale agile transformation in hardware

In answering this question we turn to the challenges and the two leadership models.

The leadership challenges are related to meeting different types of people. An

example of this is how people react to change. Some people might be skeptical and

show resistance and need a leader that serves and focuses on personal uncertainty.

While others might feel enthusiastic and need a leader who embraces this and

motivates them to grow in this change. Therefore, the change could affect the

followers but also the leaders and requires adapting, thinking, or rethinking about

the leadership role in change. We argue that both transformational and servant

leadership is needed in the large-scale agile transformation, but which approach is

most suitable depends on the situation and the followers' needs. This implies that

leaders may have to use a mix of the attributes in the leadership models and consider

a dynamic leadership approach to the agile transformation, while having an

experimental approach to the transformation. With this in mind leaders will be

prepared to lead the shift in its industry.

70

6.2 Further Recommendations

This study attempted to address the lack of knowledge of appropriate leadership

styles for incumbent firms facing agile transition. The first section describes the

managerial implications, followed by the theoretical contributions. Lastly,

suggestions for further research studies are presented.

6.2.1 Managerial Implications

Our findings indicate that the case company is always going through some type of

change. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the leadership frequently to find

suggestions of which leadership approach is the most suitable for the situation and

type of change. In this agile transformation, it could be argued that leaders need to

encourage risk-taking as it moves the organization forward in the change and

additionally develops the employees to be more innovative and self-going. Having a

dynamic view of changes as a leader means that they can be more prepared to fail

fast, learn fast, and change fast. However, one must be aware that there is a fine line

between testing and becoming chaotic. Therefore, the leaders need to figure out how

to balance this probing mindset. Noteworthy is that the organization stands for

forgivingness and loyalty when problems occur. It implies that leaders should not be

afraid to promote risk-taking and explain how failure is not an individual’s problem,

it is a common problem that the group will solve together. Taking this mindset into

consideration our recommendation is to further investigate if risk-taking should be

rewarded as a group or an individual.

It has also been indications of leaders promoting autonomy and involving the

employees to a larger extent. We suggest that leaders need to encourage and engage

the employees early in this change. It implies that leaders need to have a more people

approach, with a focus on supporting, coaching, and be present. As the

transformation is only in the beginning, it is hard to predict what is coming.

However, discussion regarding new more agile roles has been brought up and this

could create future challenges for a leader that has to deal with employees’ inner

motivation such as belonging. Regarding belonging it also creates discussions of

leaders that work as a consulting broker which not many leaders are comfortable

with.

All the leaders at the case company share a similar view of what is needed of a leader

and how they should act. However, in this early phase, one must be aware that it is

easier to agree when the goal is unclear and prepare for resistance later in the

change. It is also evident that leaders need to have at least a general technical

knowledge and a will to serve the employees. Further, examples are seen in the case

company of leaders delegating tasks such as details regarding technical parts or

71

operative responsibility. We suggest considering this and trying to find answers to

what can be delegated and what is the leader’s responsibility.

For previous change projects, a lesson learned is the importance to have all leaders

onboard to be able to proceed with the change. Our findings also indicate that leaders

in agile transformation should promote risk-taking, involve employees in an early

phase, and have a dynamic approach. All these actions will increase the readiness for

leaders to be able to lead the shift in the industry.

6.2.2 Theoretical Contribution

Investigating servant and transformational leadership in a relatively unexplored

area, agile transformations in hardware development, have resulted in new insights

on leadership in change. Transformational leadership has been seen as suitable in

organizational change and servant leadership is seen as suitable in an organizational

change where there is high personal uncertainty. However, it is unclear if the models

are limited to these organizational changes because our study indicates that the

leadership is connected and depends on the situation and the followers. We

recommend investigating leadership in different transformations because more

research of what leadership approach is most suitable in different contexts.

Previous researchers have investigated transformational and servant leadership in

the context of organizational change. In most of these studies, the focus has been on

leadership models and how they are distinguished from others. Our study shows

evidence that leadership in change is neither transformational or servant leadership.

In the agile transformation, leaders use and promote attributes and approaches that

can be connected to both the transformational and servant leadership model. Most

common are leaders that use a mix of the elements which the leaders think are most

suitable during change. Using a transformational approach does not exclude that the

leader could show signs of characteristics from the servant leadership model and the

other way around. Even if the literature has been contradictory on which leadership

approaches are appropriate for companies going through change (Smith et al., 2004;

Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2014; Kaltiainen & Hakanen, 2020), this study has

addressed that servant and transformational leadership could be used in different

situations of agile transformations.

6.2.3 Recommendations for Future Research Studies

This research study was made at the early stages of a transition towards a more agile

way of working within an R&D department at an incumbent firm. Future research

work may therefore have an interest in our results since there are some gaps in our

72

knowledge. Two areas to further investigate involve the employee perspective and

balancing risk-taking.

Investigating the employees during an organizational change has a major research

value for a study that seeks to understand the elements needed to get a majority of

the people to join a change journey. Studying the employee perspective enables one

to understand why employees resist change, as well as what is needed to overcome

resistance towards change. More insights, within the transformational and servant

leadership models, on what motivates employees to commit to organizational change

can also be obtained. Gathering empirical data around the employee perspective can

contribute to more accurate results in determining which leadership approach is

most appropriate. The empirical data on the leadership perspective can complement

a study that investigates the employee perspective.

The topic of encouraging an exploratory approach, testing and trying, or taking risks

has been a prominent topic throughout this study. Finding the appropriate balance

in taking risks has not been further investigated. Further studies are needed on how

to encourage and reward risk-taking while finding an appropriate balance in meeting

certain expectations such as delivering results for an organization. It is also

recommended to evaluate how leadership models such as transformational and

servant leadership can contribute to finding the balance in encouraging individuals

to take risks for the intention of getting innovative solutions or obtaining

organizational learning.

73

References

Articles

Alvesson, M. & Einola, K. (2019) Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership and other

traps in leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(4), pp. 383-395.

Ashforth, B. & Humphrey, R. H. (1995) Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human

Relations, 48(2), pp. 97-125.

Awuzie, B. & McDermott, P. (2017) An abductive approach to qualitative built environment

research: A viable system methodological exposé. Qualitative Research Journal, 17(4), pp. 356-372.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. J. (1990) Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal

of European Industrial Training, 14, pp. 21-27.

Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006) Scale development and construct clarification of servant

leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, pp. 300–326.

Braun, V & Clark, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in

Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77-101.

Burggräf, P., Dannapfel, M., Adlon, T., Riegauf, A., Schukat, E., & Schuster F. (2020)

Optimization approach for the combined planning and control of an agile assembly system for electric

vehicles. In Nyhuis, P.; Herberger, D., Hübner, M.: Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Production

Systems and Logistics. CPSL. 137-146.

Burnes, B. (1996) ‘No such thing as ... a “one best way” to manage organizational change’.

Management Decision, 34(10), pp. 11–18.

By, R. T. (2005) Organisational Change Management: A critical review. Journal of change

management, 5(4) pp. 369-380.

Bäcklander, G. (2019) Doing complexity leadership theory: how agile coaches at Spotify practice

enabling leadership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), pp. 42-60.

Cai, W. J., Loon, M., & Wong, P. H. K. (2018) Leadership, trust in management and acceptance

of change in Hong Kong’s Civil Service Bureau. Journal of organizational change management,

31(5), pp. 1054-1070.

Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2012) Transformational

leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental

organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, pp. 942-958.

Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016) Linking servant leadership to individual performance:

Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The

Leadership Quarterly, 27 (1), pp.124-141.

Cohen, N., & Arieli T. (2011) Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges

and snowball sampling. Journal of Peach Research, 48(4), pp. 423-435.

Coleman, J., & Whitehurst, J. (2014) 3 priorities for leaders who want to go beyond

command-and-control. Harvard Business Review.

74

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1108_JOCM_10_2016_0215&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CLeadership%2C%20trust%20in%20management%20and%20acceptance%20of%20change%20in%20Hong%20Kong%E2%80%99s%20Civil%20Service%20Bureau&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1108_JOCM_10_2016_0215&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CLeadership%2C%20trust%20in%20management%20and%20acceptance%20of%20change%20in%20Hong%20Kong%E2%80%99s%20Civil%20Service%20Bureau&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1761744193&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CLinking%20servant%20leadership%20to%20individual%20performance%3A%20Differentiating%20the%20mediating%20role%20of%20autonomy%2C%20competence%20and%20relatedness%20need%20satisfaction&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1761744193&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CLinking%20servant%20leadership%20to%20individual%20performance%3A%20Differentiating%20the%20mediating%20role%20of%20autonomy%2C%20competence%20and%20relatedness%20need%20satisfaction&offset=0

Cooper, G. & Sommer, A. F. (2016). From Experience: The Agile- Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: A

Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity. Product Development & Management

Association, 33(5), pp. 513-526.

Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2016) Challenges and success factors for large-scale

agile transformations: a systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 19(9), pp.

87-108.

Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V. & Moe, N, B. (2012) A decade of agile methodologies:

Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), pp.

1213-1221

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014).

Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing

perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly. 25 (1), pp. 36-62.

Drury-Grogan, M. L., Conboy, K. & Acton, T. (2017) Examining Decision Characteristics &

Challenges for Agile Software Development. Journal of Systems and Software, 13(1), pp. 248-265.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, J., & Shamir, B. (2002) Impact of transformational leadership on

follower development and performance in a field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45,

pp. 735-744.

Edmondson, A .C. & Nembhard, I. M., (2009) Product Development and Learning in Project

Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, pp.

123–138.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532–550.

Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013) A Double-edged Sword: Transformational Leadership and

Individual Creativity British Journal of Management, 24, pp.54–68.

Eisenbeiß, S. A., Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2003) Transformational leadership and team

innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), pp. 1438-1446.

Elo, D., & Kygnäs, H. (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 62(1), pp. 107-115.

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019) Servant

Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), pp.

111-132.

Faupel, S. & Süß, S. (2019) The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Employees During

Organizational Change - An Empirical Analysis. Journal of change management, 19(3), pp. 145-166.

Farjoun, M., Ansell, C., & Boin, A. (2015) Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the

Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World. Organization Science, pp. 1-18.

Gehman, J. Glaser, V. L. Eisenhardt, K. M. Gioia, D. Langley, A. & Corley, K. G. (2018)

Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal

of Management Inquiry, 27(3), pp. 284-300.

75

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1491427564&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CLeadership%20theory%20and%20research%20in%20the%20new%20millennium%3A%20Current%20theoretical%20trends%20and%20changing%20perspectives&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1491427564&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CLeadership%20theory%20and%20research%20in%20the%20new%20millennium%3A%20Current%20theoretical%20trends%20and%20changing%20perspectives&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2190067120&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CServant%20Leadership%3A%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20call%20for%20future%20research&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2190067120&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CServant%20Leadership%3A%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20call%20for%20future%20research&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_14697017_2018_1447006&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2Ctransformational%20leadership%20change&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_14697017_2018_1447006&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2Ctransformational%20leadership%20change&offset=0

Giangreco, A., & Peccei, R. (2005) The nature and antecedents of middle manager resistance to

change: Evidence from an Italian context. The international journal of human resource management,

16(10), pp.1812-1829

Glasgow, R. E. (2013) What Does It Mean to Be Pragmatic? Pragmatic Methods, Measures, and

Models to Facilitate Research Translation. Health Education & Behavior, 40(3), pp. 257-265.

Goleman, D., (1998) What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review

Graber, R. K. (2004) Does case-study methodology lack rigour? The need for quality criteria for

sound case-study research, as illustrated by a recent case in secondary and higher education.

Environmental Education Research, 10(1), pp. 53-65.

Graham, J. W. (1995) Leadership, moral development and citizenship behavior. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 5(1), pp. 43-54.

Guest, G., & McLellan, E. (2003) Distinguishing the trees from the forest: applying cluster analysis

to thematic qualitative data. Field Methods, 15(2), pp. 186-201.

Harvey, M. (2001) The hidden force: a critique of normative approaches to business leadership. SAM

Advanced Management Journal, 66(4), pp. 36-48.

Hoda, R., Salleh, N., & Grundy, J. (2018) The rise and evolution of agile software development,

IEEE Software, pp. 58-63.

de Sousa, M. J. C, & van Dierendonck, D. (2014) Servant leadership and engagement in a merge

process under high uncertainty. Journal of organizational change management, 27 (6), pp. 877-899.

Jovanović, M., Mas, A., Mesquida, A. L., & Lalić, B. (2017) Transition of organizational roles in

Agile transformation process: a grounded theory approach. Journal of Systems and Software, 13(3),

pp. 174- 194.

Kalenda, M., Hyna, P., & Rossi, B. (2018) Scaling agile in large organizations: practices,

challenges, and success factors. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 30(10), pp. 1-24.

Kaltiainen, J. & Hakanen, J. (2020) Fostering task and adaptive performance through employee

well-being: The role of servant leadership. Business research quarterly, pp. 1- 16.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003) The two faces of transformational leadership:

Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 246-255.

Karvonen, T., Sharp, H., & Barroca, L. (2018) Enterprise agility: why is transformation so hard?

In: Garbajosa J., Wang X., Aguiar A. (eds) Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme

Programming. XP 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer Cham. vol 314.

Kelly, L. M., & Cordeiro, M. (2020) Three principles of pragmatism for research on organizational

processes. Methodological Innovations, pp. 1-10.

Kim, B.-J., Kim, T.-H., & Jung, S.-Y. (2018) How to enhance sustainability through

transformational leadership: The important role of employees' forgiveness. Sustainability (Basel,

Switzerland), 10 (8), pp. 1-13

Klein, S.M. (1996) A management communication strategy for change. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 9(2), pp. 32-46.

76

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_JOCM-07-2013-0133&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CServant%20leadership%20and%20engagement%20in%20a%20merge%20process%20under%20high%20uncertainty&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_JOCM-07-2013-0133&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CServant%20leadership%20and%20engagement%20in%20a%20merge%20process%20under%20high%20uncertainty&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_c811dcf7e04e464a84fdbf913843ee7f&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2Csustainability%20transformational%20leadership&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_c811dcf7e04e464a84fdbf913843ee7f&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2Csustainability%20transformational%20leadership&offset=0

Kool, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2012) Servant leadership and commitment to change, the

mediating role of justice and optimism. Journal of organizational change management, 25 (3), pp.

422-433.

Korhonen, K. (2013) Evaluating the impact of an agile transformation: a longitudinal case study in a

distributed context. Software Quality Journal, 21(4), pp. 599-624.

Korge, A. (2017) Agile Organization and Leadership 4.0: Decision-making support for

company-specific targets. ZWF, 11(2), pp. 289-292.

Kotter, J. P. (2001) What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review.

Korejan, M., & Shabazi, H. (2016) An analysis of the transformational leadership theory, Journal

of Fundamental and Applied Science, 8, pp. 452-461.

Kasauli, R., Knauss, E., Horkoff, J., Liebel, G., de Oliveira N., & Francisco G. (2021)

Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale agile system development. The

Journal of systems and software, Vol.172 (February)

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008) Servant leadership:

Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19.

pp. 161-177.

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008) Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower

needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 17, pp. 180-197.

Men, L. R. (2014) Strategic Internal Communication: Transformational Leadership, Communication

Channels, and Employee Satisfaction. Management communication quarterly, 28(2), pp. 264-284.

Moore, E., (2009) Influence of Large-Scale Organization Structures on Leadership Behaviors. IEEE

Agile Conference, pp. 309-313.

Mucambe B., Tereso A., Faria, J., & Mateus, T. (2019) Large-Scale Agile Frameworks: dealing

with interdependences, 33rd IBIMA Conference, Granada, Spain, 10-11 April 2019.

Murray, A. & Greenes, K. (2006) New leadership strategies for the enterprise of the future. VINE

Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 36, pp. 309- 313.

Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008)

Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on

employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93. pp. 1220-1233.

Nold, H. & Michel, L. (2016) The performance triangle: a model for corporate agility. Leadership &

Organizational Development Journal, 37, pp. 341-356.

Oreg, S. (2006) Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), pp. 73-101.

Parker, W., Holesgrove, M., & Raghhuvar, P. (2015). Improving productivity with

self-organised teams and agile leadership. International Journal of Productivity and Performance

Management, 64(1), pp. 112-128.

Paasivaara, M., Durasiewicz, S., & Lassenius, C. (2008) Distributed agile development: using

Scrum in a large projekt: In Proceedings of the 2008 3rd IEEE International Conference on Global

Software Engineering, ICGSE 2008, pp. 87-95.

77

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1108_09534811211228139&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CServant%20leadership%20and%20commitment%20to%20change%2C%20the%20mediating%20role%20of%20justice%20and%20optimism&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1108_09534811211228139&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CServant%20leadership%20and%20commitment%20to%20change%2C%20the%20mediating%20role%20of%20justice%20and%20optimism&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_research_chalmers_se_f873b1da_4115_48ac_94a3_4216fee2a540&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,SAFe%20Scale%20Agile%20Framework&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1524929127&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CStrategic%20Internal%20Communication%3A%20Transformational%20Leadership%2C%20Communication%20Channels%2C%20and%20Employee%20Satisfaction&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1524929127&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CStrategic%20Internal%20Communication%3A%20Transformational%20Leadership%2C%20Communication%20Channels%2C%20and%20Employee%20Satisfaction&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_ieee_primary_5261065&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CInfluence%20of%20Large-Scale%20Organization%20Structures%20on%20Leadership%20Behaviors%20Erik%20Moore&offset=0

Paasivaara, M., Behm, B., Lassenius, C., & Hallikainen, M. (2018) Large-scale agile

transformation at Ericsson: a case study. Empirical Software Engineering, 23, pp. 2550-2596.

Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997) The nature and implications of contextual influences on

transformational leadership: A conceptual examination, Academy of Management Review, 22, pp.

80-109.

Peng, J., Li, M., Wang, Z., & Lin, Y. (2020) Transformational Leadership and Employees’

Reactions to Organizational Change: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, pp. 1–29.

Peterlin, J., Pearse, N. J. & Dimovski, V. (2015) Strategic Decision Making for Organizational

Sustainability: The Implications of Servant Leadership and Sustainable Leadership Approaches.

Economic and business review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, 17 (3), pp. 273-290.

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view

of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of management review, 25(4), pp.783-794.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1995) Transformational leadership: beyond initiation and consideration.

Journal of Management, 16, pp. 693-703.

Shin, S. J., & J. Zhou. (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation and creativity: Evidence

from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, pp. 703-714.

Shondrick, S. J. & Lord, R. G. (2010) Implicit leadership and followership theories: Dynamic

structures for leadership perceptions, memory, leader‐follower processes. In G. P. Hodgkinson, & J.

Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. pp. 1–33.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004) Transformational and servant

leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,

10, pp. 80-91.

Solinski, A., & Petersen, K. (2016) Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice

usage. Software quality journal, 24 (2), pp. 447-482.

Speranza, G. M. (2018) Trends in transportation and logistics. European Journal of Operational

Research, 264(3), pp. 830-836.

Starman, A. B. (2013) The case study as a type of quality research. Journal of contemporary

educational studies, pp. 28-43.

Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009) Proactivity directed toward the team and

organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self efficacy. British Journal of

Management, 20(3), pp. 279-291.

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004) Transformational versus servant leadership:

a difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), pp. 349-361.

Theobald, S., Prenner, N., Krieg, A., & Schneider, K. (2020) Agile Leadership and Agile

Management on Organizational Level- A Systematic Literature Review. In: Morisio, M., Torchiano, M.

& Jedlitschka, A. Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2020. Lecture Notes in

Computer Science, Springer Cham, 12562, pp. 20-36.

78

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_88bcd76cdb124573ab853f4ae1c3ecce&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CStrategic%20Decision%20Making%20for%20Organizational%20Sustainability%3A%20The%20Implications%20of%20Servant%20Leadership%20and%20Sustainable%20Leadership%20Approaches&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_88bcd76cdb124573ab853f4ae1c3ecce&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CStrategic%20Decision%20Making%20for%20Organizational%20Sustainability%3A%20The%20Implications%20of%20Servant%20Leadership%20and%20Sustainable%20Leadership%20Approaches&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_lup_lub_lu_se_933f4df9_2b21_4c60_a9bf_7356114ba8ee&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2Cagile%20benefits&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_lup_lub_lu_se_933f4df9_2b21_4c60_a9bf_7356114ba8ee&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2Cagile%20benefits&offset=0

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and

organizing. The Leadership quarterly, 17(6), pp. 654-676.

Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Schreurs, B.H.J., Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B.

(2009) Does meaning-making help during organizational change? Development and validation of a

new scale, Career Development International, 14(6), pp. 508-533.

Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2010) Personal

resources and work engagement in the face of change, in Houdmont, J. and Leka, S. (Eds),

Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology: Global Perspectives on Research and Practice, John

Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, pp. 124-150.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011) Servant leadership: a review and synthesis, Journal of Management,

37(4), pp. 1228-1261.

Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014) Same

difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational

leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership quarterly, 25(3), pp. 544-562.

Van Dijk, R., & van Dick, R. (2009) Navigating Organizational Change: Change Leaders,

Employee Resistance and Work-based Identities. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), pp. 143-163.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000) Predictors and Outcomes of Openness to Change in a

Reorganizing Workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), pp. 132-142.

Wipfler, H. & Vorbach, S. (2015) Agile Management for Organizational Change and Development.

In: Dievernich F., Tokarski K., Gong J. (eds) Change Management and the Human Factor. Springer

International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 191-207.

Yukl, G. (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp. 285–305.

Books

Bass, B. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press: New York

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006) Transformational leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Inc, Mahwah, NJ.

Berggren, I. & Lindkvist, J. (2001) Projekt - Organisation för malorientering och lärande.

Studentlitteratur.

Blomkvist, P & Hallin, A. (2015) Method for Technology Students: Degree Projects Using the

4-phase Model. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Burnes, B. (2009) Managing Change. Prentice-Hall

Catanzaro, M. (1988) Using qualitative analytical techniques. In: Woods, P., & Catanzaro, M.

Nursing Research; Theory and Practice. New York: Mosby Company, pp. 437-456.

79

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_200761979&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CRelational%20Leadership%20Theory%3A%20Exploring%20the%20social%20processes%20of%20leadership%20and%20organizing&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_200761979&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CRelational%20Leadership%20Theory%3A%20Exploring%20the%20social%20processes%20of%20leadership%20and%20organizing&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1532994913&context=PC&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=primo_central_multiple_fe&tab=default_tab&query=any%2Ccontains%2CSame%20difference%3F%20Exploring%20the%20differential%20mechanisms%20linking%20servant%20leadership%20and%20transformational%20leadership%20to%20follower%20outcomes&offset=0



Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2013) Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and

postgraduate students. Palgrave Macmillan.

Davis, R. (2014) Leading in uncertainty: how Umpqua Bank emerged from the Great Recession

better and stronger than. Jossey-Bass: Portland, Oregon.

Dey, I. (1993) Qualitative Data Analysis. A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. London:

Routledge.

Denning, S. (2010) The leader’s guide to radical management: Reinventing the workplace for the

21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Flick, U. (2013) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE Publications.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977) Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and

greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Harter, S. (2002) Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive

psychology: 382-394. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hesselberg, J. (2018) Unlocking Agility. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston.

Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

Krippendorff, K. (1980) Content Analysis: An Introduction to is Methodology. Newbury Park:

Sage Publications.

Krishnaswamy, K. N., Sivakumar, A. I., & Mathirajan, M. (2006) Management Research

Methodology: Integration of Principles, Methods and Techniques. Pearson.

Leffingwell, D., Knaster, R., Oren, I., & Jemilo D. (2018) SAFe reference guide: scaled Agile

Framework for lean enterprises. Scaled Agile, Inc.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Marvasti, A. (2014) Analysing observations. In: SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis.

London: Sage Publications, pp. 345-366.

Maylor, H. (2010) Project Management. 4th edition. Pearson Education: Edinburgh.

Nahavandi, A. (2015). The Art and Science of Leadership. 7th edition. Pearson Education:

Edinburgh.

Olofsson, R. & Nilsson, K., (2015) Ledarskap och ledningsgrupper: ett utdrag ur OBM i

praktiken. Natur Kultur Akademisk: Stockholm.

Patel, R., & Davidson, B. (2019) Forskningsmetodikens grunder - Att planera, genomföra och

rapportera en undersökning. 5th ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Pratt, M.G. & Ashforth, B.E. (2003) Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work, in

Cameron, K., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler,

San Francisco, CA, pp. 309-327.

Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2015) Research methods for business students.

7th ed. Harlow: Pearson.

80

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=46KTH_ALMA_DS51165635050002456&context=L&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,SAFe%20Scale%20Agile%20Framework&offset=0

https://kth-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=46KTH_ALMA_DS51165635050002456&context=L&vid=46KTH_VU1_L&lang=en_US&search_scope=default_scope&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=default_tab&query=any,contains,SAFe%20Scale%20Agile%20Framework&offset=0

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2oA9aWlNeooC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&sig=GoKaBo0eIoPy4qeqRyuozZo1CqM&dq=naturalistic+inquiry&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3Dnaturalistic%2Binquiry%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

Sochova, Z. (2020) The Agile Leader: Leveraging the Power of Influence. Addison-Wesley

Profession, Boston.

Spears, L. C. (1995) Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of

servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley.

Thorpe, R., & Holt, R. (2008) The SAGE dictionary of qualitative management research. London:

Sage Publications.

Van Dierendonck, D., Nuijten, I., & Heeren, I. (2009) Servant leadership, key to follower

well-being. In D. Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations: 319-337.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Watkins, D. C. & Gioia, D. (2015) Mixed Methods Research - pocket guides to social work

research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Winkelhake, U. (2018) The Digital Transformation of the Automotive Industry. Hannover:

Springer International Publishing AG.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. Sage

Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research, design and method. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications.

Yukl, G. (1998) Leadership in Organizations. 4th edition. Prentice-Hall Inc: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Web Pages

United Nations (n.d.) United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [www website] URL

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (Accessed 2021-05-04)

Vetenskapsrådet (2002) Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig

forskning. [www website] URL http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf (Accessed 2021-02-08)

81

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf

Appendix A. Interview Guide to Pre-studyIntervjuguide - Förstudie

Introduktion________________________________________________________________________

Projektet är ett masterexamensarbete på KTH på avdelningen Industriell ekonomi, med ettföretag inom tillverkningsindustrin som uppdragsgivare. Och genomförs av Elin och Filsanmed stöd från kontaktpersonen på uppdragsgivande företaget och handledaren Lars Uppvallpå KTH.

Alla deltagare och företaget kan vara anonyma, dock kommer vi behöva använda engenerell beskrivning av position/roll som deltagarna har, ungefärlig storlek av företaget ochland som F&U verkar i. Intervjuerna kommer att spelas in och transkriberas, men kommerendast vara tillgängliga för oss två och användas i forskningssyfte.

Målet med studien är att undersöka frågor som relateras till ledarskapsfrågor i ett större,globalt och ledande fordonsföretag i Sverige som genomgår transformationer relaterade tillagila metoder i produktutvecklingsprocesser.________________________________________________________________________

Svarande person

Namn:Efternamn:Kön:Position (titel, antal år i rollen):Tidigare roller:________________________________________________________________________

Bakgrund och kontext● Vilka är de främsta förändringar som sker på företaget nu enligt dig?● Kan du identifiera större problem som är kopplade till dessa förändringar?

Förändring● Har du varit med om liknande förändringar på R&D?

○ Vilka utmaningar har du stött på?○ Vad krävs det av dig?○ Vilka nycklar har du använt?

● Hur skiljer sig dagens förändringar från tidigare förändringar?● Hur har du jobbat för att “Alla ska med”?● Hur tror du framtiden kommer se ut?

1

Flexibilitet● Vad innebär flexibilitet för dig?

○ Hur ser du på flexibilitet?○ Vad ska bli mer flexibelt?○ Vad ska inte bli mer flexibelt?○ Situationer när du behövt vara mer flexibel?

Ledarskap

● Beskriv ditt ledarskap.○ Vilka förväntningar har du på dig själv som ledare?○ Vilka nycklar/modeller/tankesätt använder du?

● Vilka utmaningar brukar du möta som ledare?○ Lösningar tror du enligt din erfarenhet?

● Hur ser du på ledarskapet idag och i framtiden?● Har du några reflektioner kring om/hur ledarskapet behöver förändras?

2

Appendix B. Interview Guide to Main StudyIntervjuguide - Huvudstudie

Introduktion________________________________________________________________________

Projektet är ett masterexamensarbete på KTH på avdelningen Industriell ekonomi, med ettföretag inom tillverkningsindustrin som uppdragsgivare. Och genomförs av Elin och Filsanmed stöd från kontaktpersonen på uppdragsgivande företaget och handledaren Lars Uppvallpå KTH.

Alla deltagare och företaget kan vara anonyma, dock kommer vi behöva använda engenerell beskrivning av position/roll som deltagarna har, ungefärlig storlek av företaget ochland som F&U verkar i. Intervjuerna kommer att spelas in och transkriberas, men kommerendast vara tillgängliga för oss två och användas i forskningssyfte.

Målet med studien är att undersöka frågor som relateras till ledarskapsfrågor i ett större,globalt och ledande fordonsföretag i Sverige som genomgår transformationer relaterade tillagila metoder i produktutvecklingsprocesser.________________________________________________________________________

Svarande person

Namn:Efternamn:Kön:Position (titel, antal år i rollen):Tidigare roller:________________________________________________________________________

Förändring

● Kan du berätta om den nuvarande förändringen som sker?○ Utveckla gärna med reflektion och egna tankar○ Vad har gått bra?○ Vilka utmaningar har du mött?

● Vad är viktigt för ledare i förändring?○ Hur får man med sig alla?

Ledarskap

● Vad är viktigt i dagens ledarskap?● Vad är din bild av ledarskapsprinciperna som tillämpas på företaget?

○ Finns det några delar som kan förstärkas eller utvecklas?● Vilka utmaningar möter du som ledare?

1

● Har du några reflektioner kring hur ledarskapet behöver förändras?● Vilka förväntningar kommer ställas på ledare i framtiden?● Vad är en agil ledare enligt dig?● Skulle det vara möjligt att dela på ledarskapet?

○ Vad har du för tankar och reflektioner om delat ledarskap?

Kommunikation

● Hur delar du information?○ Vilken typ av information behöver delas?

● Hur kommunicerar du som ledare?

Teamet

● Vilka utmaningar möter man som mest under tvärfunktionella arbeten?○ Hur brukar du lösa dessa utmaningar?

● Hur förbereder du ditt team för förändringar?● Hur brukar du hantera motstånd i team?● Hur förmedlar du trygghet?

2

www.kth.se

is there a perfect leader in change? - diva portal

Documents