ICOM - DiVA portalhj.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:321846/FULLTEXT01.pdf · We also want to express a special thanks to our contact person at ICOM, Christina Stenberg. Finally,

ICOM

- A study on leadership and feedback within a communication company

Bachelor thesis within Business Administration

Author: Camilla Englund

Linnéa Hallberg

Anna Wredenberg

Tutor: Mona Ericson

Jönköping May 2010

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to ICOM for the cooperation during our

research for this thesis. A special thanks to all of the interviewees for devoting their

time to help our research.

We also want to express a special thanks to our contact person at ICOM, Christina

Stenberg.

Finally, we also want to express our gratefulness to our tutor Mona Ericson for her

wise guidelines, expertise and support throughout the process of creating our thesis.

___________________ ___________________

Camilla Englund Linnéa Hallberg

___________________

Anna Wredenberg

Bachelor Thesis within Business Administration

Title: ICOM

Author: Camilla Englund, Linnéa Hallberg and Anna Wredenberg

Tutor: Mona Ericson

Date: 2010-05-24

Subject terms: Authentic leadership, transformational leadership, feedback,

performance review, ICOM and IKEA

Abstract

Background IKEA Communications (ICOM) is IKEA‟s communication

company which creates communication tools, such as the IKEA

catalogue and brochures. The company also functions as IKEA‟s

internal communication agency. In 2008, ICOM went through a

reorganization adopting a matrix structure. This imposes

challenges since the employees report to different leaders in

different situations. The competence leaders (CL) have the

traditional staffing responsibility while project leaders (PL) are

the operating leaders and responsible for leading the projects.

Purpose We will investigate how the leadership in terms of role

clarification and area of responsibility of the CLs can be made

more distinct in relation to their employees. Second, we

investigate how the relationship between PLs and CLs can be

further developed in terms of feedback. This involves sharing

employee performance review and individual development after a

project as well as how the CL can conduct employee performance

review meetings.

Method The study was performed with a qualitative method. A number of

13 semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees

and leaders at the production department at ICOM.

Conclusion Two areas of development have been identified at ICOM. It is

evident employees are confused regarding the CL‟s role and area

of responsibility. The role of the CLs is clear in theory but not in

practice. Hence, the first area of development is to increase the

distinction of CL‟s leadership in terms clarifying their role and

responsibility. The study also discovered there is no common

feedback routine used between PL and CL where they exchange

information regarding employee‟s performance within a project.

The second area of development is regarding the usage of a

structured feedback routine for providing this information.

i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................... 1

1.1 Problem discussion ......................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of Problem ...................................................................... 3 1.3 Purpose ........................................................................................... 4 1.4 Delimitations .................................................................................... 4 1.5 Disposition of the thesis .................................................................. 4

2 Theoretical framework .......................................................... 6

2.1 Leadership Theories........................................................................ 6 2.1.1 Authentic leaders and leadership ........................................ 6 2.1.2 Transformational leaders .................................................... 8

2.2 Feedback theories ......................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Feedback model ............................................................... 10 2.2.2 Feedforward...................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Performance management ............................................... 12

2.3 Structure theory: 7-S model .......................................................... 13 2.4 Theoretical emphasis .................................................................... 15

3 Method ................................................................................. 16

3.1 Qualitative method ........................................................................ 16 3.1.1 The (pre)-pilot study .......................................................... 17 3.1.2 The interview .................................................................... 18 3.1.3 The interviewees ............................................................... 19

3.2 Information analysis ...................................................................... 19 3.3 Weaknesses encountered ............................................................. 20 3.4 Trustworthiness ............................................................................. 20

4 Empirical presentation ....................................................... 23

4.1 Empirical material .......................................................................... 23 4.1.1 For how long have you been working at ICOM and within IKEA? ................................................................................ 24 4.1.2 What characterize a good leadership for you? Does your leader meet your expectations? .......................................... 24 4.1.3 Do you feel you receive the right conditions to perform a good job? .................................................................... 24 4.1.4 How do you experience the relationship and the communication between CL and PL? .......................................... 25 4.1.5 How does this relationship affect you in your daily work?... ........................................................................................ 25 4.1.6 In what way does the CL and PL relationship affect the whole organization, according to you? .................................. 26 4.1.7 Do you have any ideas on how the relationship and responsibility can be further developed between CL and PL?...... ........................................................................................ 26 4.1.8 How distinct is the responsibility distribution between CLs and PLs for the employees? .................................. 27 4.1.9 What expectations do you believe your employees have on you? ............................................................................... 27

ii

4.1.10 What do you think of the reorganization made in 2008 where ICOM became both assignment and competence based? .................................................................... 28

5 Analysis ............................................................................... 29

5.1 Leadership theories ....................................................................... 29 5.1.1 Role clarification ............................................................... 29 5.1.2 Organizational support ...................................................... 30 5.1.3 Work experience ............................................................... 31 5.1.4 Area of responsibility ........................................................ 32

5.2 Feedback ...................................................................................... 33 5.2.1 Feedback model ............................................................... 33 5.2.2 Feedforward...................................................................... 35 5.2.3 Performance management ............................................... 36

6 Results and concluding discussion .................................. 39

6.1 Results .......................................................................................... 39 6.1.1 Area of responsibility and role clarification ........................ 39 6.1.2 Feedback .......................................................................... 40

6.2 Concluding discussion ................................................................... 40 6.3 Further research ............................................................................ 41 6.4 Recommendations ........................................................................ 42

6.4.1 Responsibility distribution and role clarification ................ 42 6.4.2 Feedback .......................................................................... 43 6.4.3 Other recommendations ................................................... 45

List of references ..................................................................... 47

Appendix .................................................................................. 50 Appendix 1 – Basic Matrix Structure ...................................................... 50 Appendix 2 - The interview guide in Swedish to the employees ............ 51 Appendix 3 - The interview guide in Swedish to the CL/PL/PDL/Production Manager ............................................................ 52 Appendix 4 - The interview guide in Swedish to the CEO ...................... 53 Appendix 5 - The interview guide in English to the employees .............. 54 Appendix 6 - The interview guide in English to the CL/PL/PDL/Production Manager ............................................................ 55 Appendix 7 - The interview guide in English to the CEO ....................... 56 Appendix 8 – The GPM cycle ................................................................ 57

List of Figures

Figure 1: Organizational structure of the production department 2

Figure 2: Feedback model 11

Figure 3: The 7-S model 14

1

1 Introduction

“I see the communication as the biggest potential for improvement”

“Good leadership for me is presence, distinct leadership and involvement…”

Quotations from two interviewees

1.1 Problem discussion

One of the many tasks a leader has is to manage organizational change. Companies

continuously evolve and change through e.g. expansion, globalization and technological

changes. These types of changes impose challenges in the role of the leader. According

to Kotter (2001), changes can be handled through aligning the company's employees,

motivating the staff and setting directions. “Leadership and change are inexhaustible

subjects. Our ability to lead people and generate positive change in organizations is

developed as we learn from experience and the insight we gain from others” (Martin &

Vine, 2010, p. 26).

One company that recently experienced a change is IKEA‟s communication company

IKEA Communications AB (ICOM). It is the IKEA unit which produces the IKEA

catalog and several other communication tools, e.g. brochures and the website. It is also

IKEA‟s internal communication agency. ICOM has 285 employees (C. Stenberg,

personal communication, 12 February 2010) and is situated ICOM in Älmhult, Sweden.

During the fiscal year 2009, the catalog was made in 56 different editions and was

written in 27 languages in order to reach out to as many customers as possible. The

catalog was made in more than 198 million copies (IKEA, 2010a). ICOM is also

responsible for global commercial events, brochures and product information for the

IKEA department stores. ICOM has four main departments where the top manager of

these departments is part of the directorate (C. Stenberg, personal communication, 12

February 2010). Every department is divided into different competence groups where

several employees work. Each competence group has a competence leader (CL). The

CLs have the traditional manager responsibility. They are responsible for staffing and

the task of assigning their employees to different projects depending on the employees‟

competence. However, they are not involved in projects.

The employees are assigned to different projects and each project is lead by a project

leader (PL). The PLs are responsible for the leading and running the different projects.

Production leaders (PDL) share the responsibility for the project when the project enters

the mode of production, a later state of the project life cycle. Today's structure gives the

PLs daily contact with the employees while the CLs are not as much included in their

employees‟ daily work. One major responsibility the CL has is to be able to further

develop their employees‟ competences. Hence, the relationship between CLs and PLs,

in terms of feedback, is crucial.

2

During fiscal year of 2008, ICOM faced a change. The company made a re-organization

where it became assignment- and competence based. The reason for why the

reorganization took place was due to the need to make the organization more flexible

and put more focus on the different competencies within the organization. Today, the

different competencies are situated together according to their competence and together

with their CL. Before the employees were situated according to the different project

groups they were working in (C. Stenberg, personal communication, 12 February 2010).

Due to the re-organization the structure of ICOM has changed and the company became

a matrix organization. The matrix structure at ICOM has resulted in the employees

reporting to different managers in different situations. The employees report to the CLs

in terms of their self- and competence development, while they report to the PLs in

terms of work related issues. A matrix organization (see appendix 1) can be defined as

“an organizational structure in which employees report to multiple managers, such as a

functional manager and a project manager” (Sy & Cote, 2004 cited in Appelbaum,

Nadeau & Cyr, 2008, p. 236).

The matrix structure has imposed challenges for the leaders as well as the employees.

The figure below, see figure 1, presents the organizational structure of the production

department, which is one of the four departments within ICOM. This thesis will focus

on two areas within the production department at ICOM. The first area concerns the

roles and area of responsibility of the CLs in relation to their employees. The CL‟s role

and responsibility is not always distinct among employees. This area therefore concerns

leadership. Leadership is a challenging task. One of the many tasks a leader has is to

lead the employees in order to be able to fulfill the organization‟s goals (Winston &

Patterson, 2006). To be a leader it is important to be distinct in the communication

among employees (Bass & Riggio, 2006). It is also important to be able to further

develop employees (Luthans & Avolio, 2003), which is also one of the many

responsibilities a CL has.

Figure 1: Organizational structure of the production department (C. Stenberg, personal communication,

18 May 2010).

3

The other area of focus is the routine for feedback of performance and individual

development between CL and PL. In December 2009, ICOM implemented a feedback

routine on employee performance for CLs and PLs to use. However, it is not entirely

developed and the CLs and PLs are not yet using it. Some of them are not even aware if

its existents (C. Stenberg, personal communication, 18 May 2010). Feedback is

commonly used to share employee performance reviews (Nilsson & Waldermarson,

2005). To be able to provide feedback on how an employee has performed and what the

person can further develop is another important task as a leader (Goldsmith, 2003).

Feedback will encourage employees to further develop their competences. Feedback can

be given in terms of a performance management meeting. This meeting involves

providing support for the employees in their job and helps them further develop their

competencies (Russell & Russell, 2010). Feedback routines can be difficult to handle

depending on the organizational structure, especially in a matrix organization (M.

Steinholtz, personal communication, 10 March 2010).

These two areas are highly interesting and relevant due to the importance of distinct

leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and providing and receiving feedback to its

employees (Goldsmith, 2003). Feedback is often used in performance evaluations. In

order to have the best outcome, feedback should be given shortly after an event has

taken place (Nilsson & Waldermarson, 2005), for example directly after a project. One

leadership theory is the transformational leadership theory, which highlights the

importance for a leader to communicate clear vision and goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

This is important to use in order to increase a leader‟s distinction.

We find these two areas to be very interesting to focus on since theory states it is

important to have distinct leadership as well as feedback routines. We also find this to

be interesting since ICOM has an interest to further investigate these areas. The above

discussion leads us to our problem statement, which will be presented in the following

section.

1.2 Statement of Problem

The role and area of responsibility of the CL is not as distinct as favorable within the

production unit at ICOM. The employees do not know whom of the CL and PL to turn

to in different matters and often ends up talking to both their leaders and in some cases,

even the PDL. The distinction of the CL‟s area of responsibility must then be more

evident as well as the role clarification.

Another issue is the lack of feedback strategy after a project has finished. In the

relationship between CLs and PLs, there is not a structured way for how, when, and

where feedback on employee performance and individual development should be

communicated. There is clearly a need for a better feedback strategy. Since one of the

main responsibilities a CL has is to develop their employees where providing feedback

is an important element.

4

The problem statement and problem discussion leads us to the specific purpose for this

thesis.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is twofold. First, we investigate how the leadership in terms

of role clarification and area of responsibility of the CLs can be made more distinct.

This is in relation to the employees within the CL‟s competence group within the

production department at ICOM.

Second, we investigate how the relationship between PLs and CLs can be further

developed in terms of feedback. This involves sharing employee performance review

and individual development after a project as well as how the CL can conduct employee

performance review meetings.

Recommendations will be given based on the twofold purpose.

1.4 Delimitations

We want to highlight that we will only focus on CL‟s leadership and not the PL‟s

leadership. If we had incorporated the PL‟s leadership into the purpose as well, our

purpose would have been too extensive. That is why we chose only to focus on the

distinction of the CL‟s leadership.

However, the PLs are important in regards to the feedback area within the purpose.

Hence, the empirical study included both CLs and PLs.

1.5 Disposition of the thesis

The thesis has the following structure:

The next chapter presents the theoretical framework where leadership theories, feedback

theories and an organizational change theory are presented.

The third chapter introduces the qualitative method used in this thesis. There are also

sections describing the pre-pilot study, the technique used to gather information, the

interviewees, and weaknesses encountered during the process of the method. The

chapter closes with a section on trustworthiness.

The fourth chapter presents the empirical findings. In the beginning of the chapter we

present relevant company information. The empirical materials are structured according

to the interview guide where we have chosen to use the questions and answers relevant

for the purpose of this thesis.

The fifth chapter presents an analysis of the empirical materials. This chapter is divided

into two sections that mainly follow the structure of the theoretical framework. The first

section presents the analysis on leadership while the second section provides the

analysis on feedback. The 7-S model will be incorporated in the two different sections.

5

The last chapter presents the results and concluding discussion. The chapter begins with

showing the main results of the analysis. The next section provides a suggestion on

further research. The chapter ends with a discussion on recommendations to ICOM

based on the purpose.

6

2 Theoretical framework

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section presents leadership

theories. These theories have been discussed with a Senior HR manager at IKEA. He

believed these theories describe IKEA’s leadership style in general (I. Hallberg,

personal communication, 15 March 2010). Since ICOM is facing some challenges in

feedback routines the second section presents theoretical models on feedback. The last

section provides a model discussing organizational change and efficiency since we

identified a need for a model explaining the different parts within an organization.

2.1 Leadership Theories

The leadership theories chosen are authentic- and transformational leadership. These

theories give an understanding of what leadership is and how it can be used.

2.1.1 Authentic leaders and leadership

The concept of authentic leadership is one of the oldest leadership theories according to

Avolio, Gardner and Walumbwa (2005). Authentic leadership involves the belief of

being true to oneself. Authentic leaders have to be confident and lead others based on

their own values and beliefs (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010). Avolio, Luthans, and Walumbwa

(2004) argue that authentic leaders are “those individuals who are deeply aware of how

they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and

others values/moral perspective, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in

which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and high on

moral character” (cited in Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans & May, 2004, p. 802-

804). This describes a leader who has an understanding of their selves and performs

leadership from this standpoint.

Avolio et al. (2004 p. 805-806) “consider authentic leadership as a root construct that

can incorporate transformational and ethical leadership”. Authentic leadership involves

leaders to increase self-awareness and personnel development among their co-workers

and followers. This leadership style is based on positive psychological abilities

combined with a well-developed organization. Leading with positive behavior,

influencing and developing others positively are important components in authentic

leadership. Luthans and Avolio (2003) argue that authentic leaders have to be positive

and convinced toward the coming future for their organization. Authentic leaders should

further develop their employees and followers as well as constantly develop their ability

as a leader. In order to spread this leadership style within the organization it must begin

at the top of the company and move down to each employee. This will help to increase

the cohesion among employees and strengthen the company.

As authentic leadership relies on the leaders‟ past experiences, the leader might find it

easier to relate to a similar situation that occurred in his or her life (Shamir et al., 2005,

cited in Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Authentic does not imply that a person is a leader. In

order to fulfill the role as a leader, the employees must perceive and accept the person

7

as the leader. It is also important as a leader to create cohesion within its team of

employees and make sure they want to follow (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010).

Shamir and Eilam (2005, p. 396) describe authentic, based on a dictionary, as being

“genuine, original”. They argue that being an authentic leader involves four elements.

An authentic leader does not fake its leadership. This element involves not taking the

leader position because one is the appointed leader but rather since it comes natural.

This element also involves the belief of the „true‟ self where the leaders are being who

they are and behave based on this.

The second element implies an authentic leader does not perform a leadership role in

order to achieve status or prestige. The leaders act based on a natural feeling and their

inner values. The inner values become a drive toward exercising leadership where it is

important to convey these values to others. However, status and honor are not important

for authentic leaders.

An authentic leader is thus genuine and not fake. This leader is not any different from

other leaders in terms of behavior or opinions. The leader does not hold these opinions

because others, e.g. society, believe they are correct. Instead, authentic leaders have

values they believe in and can represent. Authentic leaders perform leadership based on

prior experience and knowledge.

The last element involves authentic leaders to base their leadership on their inner values.

The values the leader finds important will be the base of their leadership. They act in

accordance to their opinions and values (Shamir & Eilam, 2005).

While aiming at becoming an authentic leader it is important to develop certain

characteristics in order to become an authentic leader (George, 2003). The following

section will provide five characteristics that are important to have as an authentic leader.

Characteristics of authentic leaders

George (2003) has developed characteristics he believed an authentic leader has to

master and develop. These characteristics are:

Understanding their purpose

Practicing solid values

Leading with heart

Establishing connected relationships

Demonstrating self-discipline

The first characteristic means the authentic leader has to identify what one‟s purposes

are to engage in leadership. This becomes an inner direction and understanding of why

to practice leadership. Identifying the purpose is done through knowing one‟s self and

one‟s motivation. This is a fundamental step towards practicing authentic leadership. To

8

identify a purpose is also of relevance since it will guide the leader in his or her work

(George, 2003).

The second characteristic involves defining one‟s inner values and beliefs. These are

developed and formed during one‟s lifetime and becomes one‟s guidance in life

(George, 2003). Being committed to your values is an important characteristic. If the

leader exercises the values he or she believes in, others will find the leader to be

trustworthy and will be able to depend on that person (George & Sims, 2007). As an

authentic leader it is important to be honest. It is encouraged to give both negative and

positive feedback (George, 2003).

Leading with heart is to lead with enthusiasm and excitement. Authentic leaders find it

interesting to lead others and have a strong motivation for their job. Leading with heart

also involves understanding the employees and followers (George & Sims, 2007).

The forth characteristic involves the leader to accomplish actions at work through

teamwork and not alone. It is important to work towards the same goals and to have

good communication with your employees. If there are no established relationships the

authentic leader will be less authentic (George, 2003).

Lastly, demonstrating self-discipline involves converting values into actions. As an

authentic leader it is important to stand for your values and put them into action. The

values possessed should be in accordance to one‟s behavior (George, 2003). In order to

be successful and reach the aiming goals, an authentic leader must show the quality of

self-discipline (George & Sims, 2007).

Authentic leaders are based on the concept of being true to oneself where they lead

others based on their inner values and beliefs (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010).

Transformational leadership is defined by Burns (1978) and further developed by Bass

(1990) and Bass and Riggio (2006). This is presented in the next section.

2.1.2 Transformational leaders

Two scholars in particular, Burns (1978) and Bass (1990), have developed the theory of

transformational leadership. Burns (1978, p. 19) defines the concept of leadership as

“leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the

motivations - the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations – of both leaders

and followers”. Burns (1978) implies transformational leadership is based on more than

the compliance of followers. It involves the shifts in the beliefs, the needs, and the

values of the followers.

Bass and Riggio (2006, p. 3) further developed Burns‟ findings and define

transformational leadership as: “those (leaders) who stimulate and inspire followers to

both achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership

capacity”. The core of transformational leadership is for the leader to help and support

9

the followers and make them leaders. It is important to respond to the followers‟

individual needs and combine them with the goals and objectives of the group and the

organization.

A transformational leader is characterized as someone who motivates others to do more

than they originally thought they would. Transformational leaders set higher goals than

an ordinary leader and usually achieve higher performance. They also tend to have more

satisfied and committed followers (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).

Bass & Riggio (2006) have identified four elements of transformational leadership:

Idealized influence

Transformational leaders are seen as role models. They should strive to be admired,

respected and trusted by their followers. The followers give the leaders attributes such

as extra ordinary capabilities and are inspired to be like their leaders. There are two

aspects of idealized influence: the leaders‟ behavior and the elements that are attributed

to the leader by the followers. These two aspects represent the interactional nature of

transformational leadership. Leaders who uses idealized influence are risk takers and

consistent rather than arbitrary.

Inspirational motivation

A transformational leader should provide meaning and challenge to the follower‟s work.

Working with team spirit is highly encouraged and should be an ongoing process. To

clearly communicate visions and goals among the team is an important task for a

transformational leader. This increases the motivation among followers.

Intellectual stimulation

Leaders stimulate their followers by questioning assumptions, reframing problems and

approaching old problems in new ways. Followers are encouraged to think outside the

box and ideas are not criticized if they are not in line with the leaders‟ ideas. Hence,

creativity is important.

Individual consideration

Transformational leaders pay attention to followers‟ individual needs. They function as

a coach or mentor and should provide an inspiring and supportive climate. Acceptance

of differences is highly important and should be demonstrated through the leader‟s

behavior. Transformational leaders encourage a two-way communication and delegate

tasks in order to be able to develop followers.

A two-way communication is closely related to feedback where the sender and the

receiver communicate in order to understand each other better (Larsson, 2002). A two-

way communication is also used in feedforward sessions where employees and

10

managers focus on how to perform better in the future (Goldsmith, 2003). The

following section provides theories on feedback, feedforward and performance

management.

2.2 Feedback theories

According to Nationalencyklopedin (2000) feedback can be defined as the process of

providing individuals with information regarding their performance and behavior.

Feedback is when leaders give their employees information on how they have

performed. The leader also provides information on how well the employees carried out

the task and what they can improve in the future (Goldsmith, 2003).

2.2.1 Feedback model

Shannon and Weaver developed a basic communication model first presented in 1948.

Their model has been copied and further developed by many researchers over the years

but the main concepts have stayed constant. Their model is linear and includes a sender,

message, channel and a receiver as well as noise and effect of communication (cited in

Larsson, 2002). The basic communication model can be described through a set of

questions: “Who says what to whom, through what channel and with what effect?”

(Lasswell (1948) cited in McQuail, 2000, p. 52-53). With more research, the sender‟s

purpose of the message and the interpretation (encoding/decoding) of the message by

the receiver are included in the communication model.

The concept of feedback is also added to the model (see figure 2 on p.11). This refers to

the idea that the receiver answers the sender and implies the model is not a one-way

communication (Larsson, 2002). One must also keep in mind the context in which the

communication is practiced is very important for the message and how it is encoded and

decoded. The context can be physical, psychological, social or cultural.

When a company is facing structural changes or reorganizes, the „communication

model‟ of the organization also changes. Employees can easily feel insecure about the

situation if not clear guidelines are set up and the need for structure is often increased as

the uncertainty increases. Therefore, the leaders must not only focus on their new tasks

but also on the interaction and the communication among the team members (Nilsson &

Waldermarson, 2005).

Feedback enables the communicator to know what affect the message has on the

receiver and if it has been received and interpreted the way the sender intended (Maltén,

1998). Feedback is often used in performance evaluations and in manager/employee

meeting. There are different types of feedback e.g. informational, personal reaction and

evaluation. Evaluation feedback means that a person‟s behavior in a certain situation is

evaluated or that a person‟s achievement is evaluated. It is important to note that this

kind of feedback is complex and difficult. It is often used in situations where an

employee is „evaluated‟ by his or her manager. It is vital the people involved feel safe

and trust each other in order for the feedback sessions to be effective and rewarding. To

11

be most effective, feedback should be given direct or as soon as possible after an event

has occurred. It should be honest, relevant and concrete and it is important to

distinguish the person from the event or task (Nilsson & Waldermarson, 2005).

Figure 2: Feedback model (Forsyth & Madden, 2005, p. 5).

The feedback theory argues the dialogue between the leader and the employee should be

as neutral as possible (Nilsson & Waldermarson, 2005). This can be difficult since

feedback focuses on evaluating employee performances. Goldsmith (2003) supports the

importance to have a positive approach towards employee evaluation by using the

concept of feedforward. Feedforward concentrates on future accomplishments instead of

past events.

2.2.2 Feedforward

Goldsmith (2003) argues leaders should use the concept of feedforward. This concept

suggests information given to employees should focus on improvements for the future,

rather than feedback which focuses on the past.

During a feedforward meeting there should be a two-way communication where the two

participants both provide and receive feedforward. Goldsmith (2003) outlined how a

meeting might look like. He suggests each meeting should take about 15 minutes where

each employee participates in approximately seven sessions. In the beginning of the

meeting the employee selects and describes a characteristic he or she prefers to improve.

The employee then asks for feedforward where the employee only listens to the

proposals given. The process then goes the other way around where the provider will be

the receiver.

One of the many reasons to use this concept is because it is preferable to focus on the

future and on what the employee can change instead of stressing the mistakes made in

the past. It puts focus on the positive aspect of improvements where possible solutions

are suggested. Goldsmith (2003) also states that feedforward is experienced among

Feedback

Message Sender Receiver Channel

12

participants as more open and dynamic compared to feedback. The communication is

also seen as more pleasant rather than negative.

Both the theory on feedback and feedforward discusses the evaluation of employee

performance. Russell and Russell (2010) have developed a model for how to conduct

performance management. It is called the Great Performance Management cycle

(GPM) and is presented in the following section.

2.2.3 Performance management

Performance management is the process of evaluating employee‟s performance and

support for further development. It involves different steps where performance is the

main focus. The employee‟s performance is evaluated in relation to the job description

and the organization‟s values and mission. The GPM cycle is presented in appendix 8.

The model the Great Performance Management cycle (GPM) is developed by Russell

and Russell (2010) and consists of five different steps.

The first step is Define great performance outcomes. In this step the purpose of the

employees‟ job is established. The manager defines what great performance means and

the most favorable outcome. This should serve as a targetable goal for the employee.

The authors have used “great” to highlight the importance of high performance. It is

important employees understand what is expected from them. It creates fair conditions

to perform the job well. The performance expectations should be based on the

customers‟ needs, and the organization‟s mission and vision. The performance

expectations should also be based on the job description of each employee. Each

employee then has different expectations depending on their position. The manager and

the employee should also decide upon how the performance will be measured. This will

create a better understanding for the outcome, what is favorable or not.

The second step is Develop goals and strategies, and take action to achieve outcomes.

Within this step, goals, strategies and actions are defined in order for the employee to

reach the most favorable outcomes. It also involves establishing the same elements for

the company; how will the company help the employee to reach the goals? It is

important the goals and strategies are targetable and measurable. This will help both the

employee and the manager to identify if the performance is good or not. It is also

relevant in this step to use the job description for each employee since this will remind

the employees of their purpose within the company and their contribution.

Provide support (training, resources, tools, information, feedback etc.) is the third step.

This step involves the organization to support the employees in their work in order to

reach the established goals. Support involves education, right resources, and feedback,

which will create the right conditions to perform well. It is highly important the

manager and the organization provide their employees with support since this will

increase the chances of positive outcomes.

13

The forth step is Evaluate performance. The manager together with the employee

discusses the performance outcome. This meeting is called the performance coaching

conversation. The outcome is compared to the already established goals of performance.

During this evaluation meeting, the manager and the employee identify possible

opportunities for future improvements.

Make improvements is the last step of the GPM cycle. During the performance coaching

conversation the manager, together with the employee recognizes improvements and

actions the employee can undertake for future performances. Russell and Russell (2010)

also suggest managers can provide their employees with logical consequences for their

performance. They encourage managers to use this approach in order to reach desirable

goals.

In order to perform proper performance management and feedback strategies it is

preferable the organization has a well functioning structure. When an organization

changes, the feedback strategy also changes (Nilsson & Waldermarson, 2005). The 7-S

model discusses the complexity of organizations and organizational change and

efficiency. Although organizational efficiency and change is not part of our purpose we

found it important to include a model that describes how organizational change affects

the organization. We chose the 7-S model since it provides an understanding of

organizational changes due to a reorganization of a company.

2.3 Structure theory: 7-S model

Waterman, Peters and Phillips (1980) discuss the complexity of organizational change

and the issue of organizational efficiency. According to Simon (1977) “the challenge for

managers in organizations is how to organize better” (cited in Waterman et al., 1980, p.

17). Simon (1977) continues to state that this subject is much more complex than what

previous models of effective organizations have presented.

Waterman et al. (1980) argue for three main ideas for why this model is preferable. The

first reason is there are many factors that together affect the organization's ability to

become effective and to adopt to change. Second, they argue these factors are connected

to each other. If a change is made in one area, other areas will be affected as well. The

last idea concerns the layout of the model. The model is constructed in a way where all

parts are integrated. There is no start and no end point. The start point can then be

different depending on the organization.

Waterman et al. (1980) identified a need for a new model, which describes a new way

of thinking about organizations. Weber (1998) argues that this model is one of the most

used when it comes to understand an entire organization. Waterman et al. (1980) model

combine 7 factors. These factors are; structure, staff, subordinate goals, strategy,

systems, style and skill (see figure 3 on p. 14).

14

Figure 3: 7-S model (Waterman et al., 1980, p. 18)

The systems factor involve components

that make the business function on a

daily basis. Subordinate goals are the

foundation of goals within an

organization. These goals give the

direction and instructions for the

employees. “Subordinate goals are the

fundamental ideas around which a

business unit is built” (Waterman et al.,

1980, p. 24). Both style, systems and

subordinates goals are important in the 7-S model. However, these factors are not

important for our purpose of this thesis. Therefore, we have decided to focus on those

four factors, which are relevant for this thesis.

Structure

Waterman et al. (1980) discuss the theoretical history of structure. “Structure divides

tasks and then provides coordination. It trades off specialization and integration. It

decentralize and then recentralize” (Waterman et al., 1980, p.19).

A small organization often has less structure since the owner of the business often has

the main responsibility. Hence, there is no need for more structure. However, as an

organization becomes larger, the need for more structure increases. The need for

specialization increases as well, which results in a need for more structure. More

structure is also needed to make the responsibilities and roles more evident within an

organization (Weber, 1998).

Skills

Skills refer to the qualities, which make the company more attractive and unique than its

competitors (Weber, 1998). As a company grows larger, more skills might be available.

However, skills do not refer to how many skills the company has but rather how these

skills are combined together. Moreover, it shows how this combination of skills makes

the company unique and stands out from other competitors.

Staff

In the 7-S model, staff involves the people who work within the organization.

Waterman et al. (1980) argue top management and management sometimes ignore the

importance of developing their staff. There are two sides of the staff dimension: the

hard and the soft side. The soft side includes factors like behavior, motivation, attitude

and moral. The hard side includes factors such as pay scales, appraisal systems, formal

training programs and similar factors.

15

Strategy

Strategy refers to the plans a company undertakes in order to meet changes in the

external environment, e.g. customers and its competitors. The strategy is also a tool the

company uses to become better than their competitors. Examples of strategies are to

offer better value to the customer, reduce cost of production or strive to have sales

control (Waterman et al., 1980).

One type of strategy Weber (1998) discusses is the individual strategy. He argues

individual strategies are needed within every company since individuals create the

foundation of a company. Individual strategies put focus on the accomplishment of

personal goals. The employees should reflect upon what they bring to the company as a

competitive advantage. If the answer to this question is not clear the employees should

begin to reflect and reach an understanding of this question.

2.4 Theoretical emphasis

As we have presented theories regarding leadership, feedback and organizational

efficiency and change, we find it important to reflect upon why these specific theories

have been chosen.

The first section presents leadership theories: authentic and transformational theories.

Concerning the leadership theories the most interesting factors, for our purpose, is the

clarification in how leaders can behave in their leadership in order to be distinct in their

role and area of responsibility.

The second section of the theoretical framework presents different feedback strategies.

This section supports the importance of having a feedback strategy in order to further

develop employees and conduct performance reviews. The section also provides

different techniques for how to conduct performance reviews with employees. These are

feedforward and performance management.

The last section presents the 7-S model, which highlights the importance of having an

efficient company structure as a stable foundation as well as the value of individual

development. The dimensions presented are staff, strategy, structure and skills, where

all of these dimensions are relevant for our purpose.

This theoretical framework will provide us with the information we need in order to

analyze the empirical material.

16

3 Method

This chapter describes the qualitative method we used for our study of ICOM. We chose

semi-structured interviews as an information gathering technique. Sections describing

the pre-pilot study, the interviews, and the interviewees are included. One section also

presents how the information we collected were analyzed. We also illustrate the

weaknesses encountered during our process within one section. The chapter closes with

a discussion on the trustworthiness of our research.

3.1 Qualitative method

“Qualitative research is a research strategy that usually emphasizes words rather than

quantification in the collection and analysis of data.” (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p. 402).

This quote describes a qualitative method, which we decided to use for this thesis. This

method allow us to investigate the relationship between CL and PL and the distinct

leadership in the CL‟s role and area of responsibility. The main advantage of this

method is its openness towards information (Jacobsen, 2002) and the diversity in

information (Creswell, 2003). By receiving diversity in information we are able to

investigate how the feedback routine is structured between PL and CL and if the role

and area of responsibility of the CL is distinct in relation to the employees. Since a

qualitative method is open towards information, it allows individuals to reveal their

understanding of a stated issue (Jacobsen, 2002).

Another advantage is the flexibility of a qualitative method, meaning that the original

problem statement can be changed during a study. As we gained more knowledge along

the process we changed the problem of the study to refine it. Our first problem

statement focused only on the role of the CL while the present problem statement also

puts focus on the distinction of CL‟s area of responsibility and the feedback routine

employed by CLs and PLs. A qualitative method also allows us to be close to the people

who participate in the study (Jacobsen, 2002). Close involves meeting and interacting

with the people in person and listen to them. It is also important to state that this method

provides the opportunity to put focus on details (Bryman & Bell, 2007). It allows us to

put focus on all the respondents within the study and also investigate both the

relationship between CL and PL and how employees find the CL‟s role and

responsibility to be.

It is important to keep in mind that there are disadvantages with the qualitative method.

One disadvantage is the difficulties of fully replicate a study. This requires the

researcher to put more emphasizes on a specific area within a study while other areas

are left out (Bryman & Bell, 2007). We have tried to use all of the information provided

by the respondents. However, it is difficult to emphasize every detail given. Therefore,

we have encountered this difficulty along our process. When using a qualitative method

extensive information is gathered. All the information can be difficult to structure and

compile in order to be comprehensive for the authors. We came across this obstacle

when structuring the information we collected from the 13 interviews. Another obstacle

17

with this method is that the interviewees might find it difficult to give their true answer

to some questions (Jacobsen, 2002). During the interviews we asked questions which

interviewees might have found difficult to answer truthfully. One of these questions was

if they were satisfied with their leader or not.

As an alternative to qualitative method, researchers can use a quantitative method. A

quantitative method involves figures and quantification as a measure. This is the main

difference between quantitative and qualitative method (Bryman & Bell, 2007).

However, there are more differences between these two methods. According to

Jacobsen (2002) a quantitative method involves deciding, before conducting a research,

the measured category e.g. women or men. The data gathered during this method are

standardized which means that each unit, within the study, will be treated equally. An

example for techniques used within this method is questionnaires with e.g. yes or no

answers, or numerical answers. Since each unit is treated equally it is difficult to see the

uniqueness of each unit. This is one of the disadvantages with a quantitative method.

We find the qualitative method to be the most suitable method for our study. This

method enables us to investigate our purpose where we had the opportunity to put focus

on details and words (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The qualitative method also provides us

with the opportunity to gather extensive information from employees at ICOM. As an

information collection technique we used semi-structured interviews. This technique is

further presented in section 3.1.2. The following section presents the pre-pilot study we

conducted.

3.1.1 The (pre)-pilot study

We decided to make a pre-pilot study before we conducted the interviews. A pre-pilot

study involves asking a person, within the same reference group as the interviewees, to

give feedback on the intended questions. This allows for changes in focus and phrasing

of the questions and deleting questions, which are not relevant. The questions should

flow and there should be cohesion among the questions (Gillham, 2005). Please see

appendix 2, 3 and 4 for the Swedish version of the questions and appendix 5, 6 and 7 for

the English version.

Our pre-pilot study included a Senior HR Manager, who has been working within IKEA

for 33 years. Considering the manager‟s background he has broad knowledge and

insight in both IKEA and ICOM. Therefore, we believed this manager was an

appropriate person to involve.

Together with the manager we had a discussion regarding the interview questions. The

manager provided his recommendations. He believed we could change the phrasing and

the focus within some questions. We did not make any major changes but some

questions were reformulated to better suit our purpose. The recommendations we got

were very useful and we found it valuable to conduct a pre-pilot study. We also met

with another manager, outside of IKEA and ICOM, who has worked as a competence

leader for many years. The manager, M. Steinholtz, has therefore a lot of experience

18

from matrix organizations and we were able to discuss the concept of matrix

organization with him. The manager confirmed that feedback strategies are difficult to

manage in complex company structures (M, Steinholtz, personal communication, 8

March 2010). The informal meeting with the manager provided us with some additional

basic information about matrix organizations.

3.1.2 The interview

For the information collection technique we chose to conduct semi-structured

interviews. The technique is a mix between structured and open questions (Gillham,

2005). This enables the interviewer to ask additional questions if the answers are not

satisfying (Williamson, 2002). Some of the questions we asked were the same to all

interviewees while we created a couple of questions that were only asked to specific

respondents. These questions were specified in relation to a respondents work tasks and

position. Examples of interview questions are: “What is a good leadership for you?” and

“How do you experience the relationship and the communication between CL and PL?”

The question: “In what way does the CL and PL relationship affect the whole

organization, according to you?” was only asked to the CEO. This was done because the

CEO has the overall perspective of the organization.

The interviews were tape recorded in order for us to go back and listen to them. This

was done in order to be able to do a thorough analysis of the material. Another

advantage of using a tape recorder is that it gave us the respondents‟ exact statement

and not our interpretation of what the interviewees said. To tape record the interviews

also helped us to avoid distraction from the need to take notes (Williamson, 2002).

An advantage with semi-structured interviews is that it provides a combination of

structure and openness. With the help of prompts the interviewer can guide the

interviewees to get equivalent coverage in the field of interest (Gillham, 2005). We

were able to gather a lot of information from each interviewee since the questions we

asked were open but at the same time focused on our purpose.

It is important to keep in mind that the answers can vary in relation to what tone of

voice the question was asked. The answers can also be affected by how the interviewer

is interpreted by the interviewee and vice versa. Personal characteristics such as age,

sex, educational level and race can bias an interview (Williamson, 2002). Although a

bias is accepted in a qualitative method, we still want to highlight that sometimes the

questions might have been asked in a biased way.

It is also important to keep in mind that when conducting a semi-structured interview

each interview should have the same time disposition (Gillham, 2005). The interviewees

were allotted the same amount of time, which was around 20 minutes. The time span

was set in order to not take too much time from the interviewees but at the same time

give us as much information as possible. The interviews were performed in Swedish.

Therefore, the quotations and empirical findings have been translated into English.

19

3.1.3 The interviewees

It was decided we were to interview 13 employees within the production department. In

order to investigate the relationship between CL and PL in terms of feedback, and the

CL‟s role and area of responsibility we decided to interview different employees within

different positions. From the beginning the intention was to interview eight employees,

mostly in the CL position. However, this was changed because we wanted to receive a

broader insight of the situation, e.g. how different respondents are affected by the

CL/PL relation.

CL, PL, PDL and other employees were chosen with the help of our contact person at

ICOM. The process of selecting interviewees went overall smoothly. Without the help

from our contact person we would have experienced more difficulties finding the

appropriate interviewees. We want to highlight that we will not state the roles of the

interviewees within the empirical chapter. We find this information to be irrelevant for

our purpose.

To be able to compile all information gathered during the interviews, we used an

information analysis described in the next section.

3.2 Information analysis

According to Jacobsen (2002), information analysis consists of three steps. These are

description, categorization and combining. The first step involves creating a short

description of the information gathered. The description should be as detailed as

possible. The second step is categorization which helps to provide an overview of the

information gathered. This step involves creating categories in order to simplify the

data. It is difficult to use all the information provided and some information was

deselected. The last step, combining, involves analyzing the information and relating

answers to each other in order to find a connection. This will provide an understanding

of the information gathered.

We started by transcribing all the information we had recorded in order to get an

overview of the interviews. Having the interviews on paper enabled us to make notes

and comments in the margin (Jacobsen, 2002) and easier grasp and create a description

of all the information collected. One negative aspect of transcription is the loss of

information in terms of how the words are pronounced, in what pace and in what tone

(Gillham, 2005). The transcribing material is available if requested.

The step of categorizing has been to categorize the interviewees‟ answers according to

questions. By doing so we got an indication of which questions were of interest to our

purpose. Jacobsen (2002) argues that a category must be relevant in terms of concepts

or how theory is applicable to the categories. Since our purpose is twofold, we decided

to make a rough classification in leadership related answers and feedback related

answers.

20

When the material was categorized, we began to look for similarities and differences

between the answers (Jacobsen, 2002). Some questions had homogenous answers while

other questions had varied answers. The process of finding connections between the

categories has helped us to see relationships between the respondents‟ answers and the

current situation at ICOM.

During the process of conducting a pre-pilot to the end of the information analysis stage

we encountered some weaknesses. These weaknesses will be explained in the following

section.

3.3 Weaknesses encountered

From the beginning we were asked to put focus on the assignment department at ICOM.

However, this was later changed to the production department. Due to a change in the

department our intended purpose also changed. However, we believe this did not have a

negative effect on the result of the thesis since this was done very early in our process.

To find out if the selected employees were interested to participate in this study we sent

an email to all of them. This email briefly introduced who we were and gave

information about our thesis. We asked if they wanted to participate and what day

would be appropriate for them. We suggested two different days in order to provide

options. We sent this email to 14 potential interviewees where 12 of them could meet us

one of these two days. One of them did not reply, while another respondent did not have

time to meet us during one of these two days but was interested to participate. This was

the production manager who is an essential person to interview since she has an overall

perspective of the situation. We were able to conduct a telephone interview with her a

couple of weeks later, receiving important information. We have not experienced this to

negatively affect the result of this thesis since we were able to interview her before we

began to structure our empirical findings.

For the result of this study it would have been good if we had interviewed one more CL

and one more PL. This would have provided us with yet other perspectives of the

situation. However, due to time limit we were not able to visit ICOM a third time in

order to conduct further interviews. This hinder might have affected the result. The

trustworthiness of the result and the given answers would be increased if we had

interviewed one more CL and PL. Hence, the trustworthiness of this thesis will be

discussed and explained in the following section.

3.4 Trustworthiness

Validity describes the connection between what is measured and what it intends to

measure (Svenning, 2003). Silverman (2000, p. 175) uses Hammersley‟s (1990)

definition of validity: “the truth, interpreted as the extent to which an account accurately

represents the social phenomena to which it refers”. Results should not only be valid,

they need to be reliable as well. Svenning (2003) describes reliability as that if nothing

21

has changed within a sample, two studies with the same purpose and method should

provide the same results.

The concepts of validity and reliability are important in quantitative research but the

relevance of using these terms in qualitative research has been debated (Bryman, 2001).

Adjustments to the concepts have been made by several researchers to be able to adopt

validity and reliability in qualitative research. Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue for four

criteria to be fulfilled in order for a qualitative study to be trustworthy.

Credibility

Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that credibility of a study can be made through

member checks or member validation. It involves letting one or more people, who are

involved in the study, confirm that the findings made by the researchers are correctly

interpreted and understood (Bryman, 2001). Our contact person at ICOM has read our

thesis and given her confirmation. She was not included in the interviews but she has an

overview perspective of the organization. Therefore, we believe she was suitable to

review our study to see if we had understood the situation correctly.

For a study to be credible it should also have been ensured that it follows the standards

of good practice (Bryman, 2001). The tutoring meetings and seminars throughout the

process of this thesis have provided us with guidelines on how to write a thesis and how

to do it in accordance to good practice. We argue this further increases the credibility of

our thesis.

Transferability

Qualitative research often, as in our case, concerns deep studies on a small group

(Bryman, 2001). To know if the results are useful in another context is difficult (Lincoln

& Guba, 1985). The researchers can only provide a thick description which will give the

reader ability to know whether or not this research is applicable to other studies. The

description should be good enough so that the reader can decide if the information can

be transferred (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998).

In section 3.1.2 we provided detailed information on where and how the interviews

were conducted. It is also stated with whom the interviews were held. The thesis

includes a company description, which provides the possibility to know how ICOM is

structured. We argue that the information in this thesis is enough for potential

researchers to decide if the study is applicable, hence transferrable, to their study or not.

Merriam (1998, p. 211) refer to this practice of letting the reader decide transferability

as “reader or user generalization”.

Dependability

Dependability is the qualitative equivalent to reliability in quantitative research

(Bryman, 2001). To reach dependability, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest an „auditing‟

approach should be adopted by the researchers (cited in Bryman, 2001). This implies

22

that someone, other than the researchers, should examine the material. The person could

then verify the accuracy of the study (Bryman, 2001). We stress that our tutor has been

involved in the process of this thesis. The students in our seminar group have also

scrutinized the progress of the thesis. We also refer to the confirmation by our contact

person at ICOM for further dependability. Hence we argue that our study has achieved

some dependability.

Confirmability

Confirmability deals with ensuring the researchers‟ personal values are not included

within a study. A qualitative research can never be fully objective and the theoretical

framework should never be biased in a way that affects the results (Bryman, 2001).

We argue our personal believes have not affected our study. The questions asked to the

interviewees were thoroughly worked through in order to be as open-minded as

possible. Before conducting the interviews we sent the interview guide to our tutor who

read them through. Additionally, we conducted a pre-pilot study where the questions

were discussed with a Senior HR Manager with 33 years of experience within IKEA.

We put a lot of effort in the questions in order to collect the respondents‟ own answers

and not expected answers.

Going through these four criteria for trustworthiness we come to the conclusion that our

study is trustworthy.

The interviews at ICOM have provided us with interesting materials and the next

chapter presents the empirical materials based on the interviews.

23

4 Empirical presentation

The chapter starts with a short review of the structure of the production unit at ICOM

and the challenges the company is facing in terms of responsibility distribution and

feedback routines. The empirical material is presented question by question since we

believe this enhances readability and creates a better understanding of the information

gathered. We gained a lot interesting material from the interviews. However, some

answers fell outside our purpose. The material presented is a selection of the interview

questions we find most useful for our purpose.

4.1 Empirical material

IKEA is a global home furnishing company founded in Sweden. This company offers

home furnishing products to customers with a low price (IKEA, 2010b). This company

has its own culture, which is spread throughout the company and its co-workers. IKEA

values diversity among their employees in terms of ethnicity and background. IKEA

believe diversity among co-workers increases the creativity and flexibility within the

company. IKEA also believe they can always improve and find better ways to perform

in the future. The culture also involves simplicity where equal opportunities are

provided to all of their co-workers. The latter refers to the opportunity to grow and

develop individual and professional skills (IKEA, 2010c).

ICOM is a unit within the IKEA corporation. ICOM is a company with a complex

matrix structure. As of 2008 ICOM is competence and assignment based (see section

1.1). This has made ICOM more flexible but at the same time more complex. The CL is

a traditional leader with responsibility regarding employees, salaries, employee

performance reviews, and rehabilitation sessions. The CLs also have jobs chats with

their employees. These are held every other month where one hour is devoted. During

this meeting the CLs and employees can interact and briefly discuss work and follow up

on job tasks etc. The CLs also conduct performance reviews once a year.

The PL is responsible for the project and the communication within the project as well

as with the customers. A PL can be responsible for more than one project and therefore,

lead more than one team. As opposed to the CL, PL meets the employees on a daily

basis (C. Stenberg, personal communication, 18 May 2010). Hence, the employees

report to different leaders depending on the matter. This creates confusion among the

employees and the leaders regarding whom to report to. One interviewee discusses the

complication: “Sometimes it is not clear if it is the CL, the PL or the PDL who has the

main responsibility”. A PDL is responsible when the project enters the production

mode. In December 2009, ICOM implemented a feedback routine for the CLs and PLs

to use. Therefore, we investigate the relationship between CLs and PLs in terms of

feedback on employees‟ performance. We also investigate the CL‟s leadership in terms

of role clarification and area of responsibility. These areas are the main focus for the

interviews conducted.

24

To view the complete interview guide please see appendix 2, 3 and 4 for the Swedish

version and appendix 5, 6 and 7 for the English version.

4.1.1 For how long have you been working at ICOM and within IKEA?

The question was asked to all respondents to gain background information about the

interviewees. The result showed that the respondents length of employment at ICOM

varied from 2 years to 36 years. The employment length was the same for IKEA as

well. All CL have worked in other positions within ICOM before they became CLs.

They have prior experience from being PLs and PDLs. This show the CLs has prior

work experience within ICOM, and IKEA, before they entered the position as a CL.

The leaders, CL, PL, PDL and CEO have worked in other positions before they became

leaders. Most of the employees have worked within ICOM and IKEA for a long period

of time, which gives them knowledge about IKEA‟s company culture as well as

experience. Two of the respondents had also worked for IKEA abroad.

4.1.2 What characterize a good leadership for you? Does your leader meet your expectations?

This question was asked to all of the interviewees. The answers indicate what leadership

characteristics the employees found to be important. This answers also showed what a

good leadership is at ICOM. There were mainly four characteristics of good leadership

that continually returned during the interviews. These were: distinct leadership,

presence, individual development and involvement. There were other characteristics

mentioned during the interviews as well. Examples of these are: genuine interest for

humans, goal-oriented, challenge in order to motivate and reliance. One of the

respondents also highlighted the importance of being able to stand for your beliefs and

values.

The second question we asked was if the respondents‟ leaders fulfilled their

expectations. The respondents thought they received what they defined as good

leadership from their leaders. Most respondents believed they received distinct

leadership, presence, individual development and involvement from their leader and

was satisfied with the leadership.

4.1.3 Do you feel you receive the right conditions to perform a good job?

All interviewees believed they got the right conditions to perform their job well. Several

of the interviewees referred to IKEA‟s human resource idea where it is important for

each employee to take their own responsibility. This means if the employees do not

experience to receive the right conditions it is important they take their own

responsibility and ask for help. Some respondents thought prior work experiences are

beneficial to be able to better create work conditions for themselves. PLs and CLs with

25

a couple of years experience have good prerequisites to create positive results for

themselves.

4.1.4 How do you experience the relationship and the communication between CL and PL?

Most of the interviewees experienced CLs and PLs to not have direct contact with each

other. They experienced the contact and the relationship to sometimes be non-existent

but also not as distinct as favorable. One of the respondents said that it is not clear

between the CLs and PLs who should talk to whom and when they should contact each

other. Another respondent believed the communication between CLs and PLs is not

clearly stated within the organization and how it should be treated. One respondent said

that if the relationship between CLs and PLs do not work, the roles have to be more

distinct.

The interviews also showed CLs and PLs do not share understanding for each other‟s

positions and situations. The interviews indicated the PLs ask for an improved contact

with the CLs. However, the CLs do not require this to the same extent. In addition the

empirical findings showed there is no need for daily contact between CLs and PLs but a

routine for communication was wanted.

There is a job description for how the CL‟s and PL‟s role and responsibility are

distributed within the organization. As one respondent explained, the CL‟s role is good

in theory but not as clear as it should be in practice. One respondent said that this could

be due to the CL‟s being unclear with his or her own role and area of responsibility. The

interviewees pointed out there is a lack in communication, and there is no strategy when

it comes to feedback on employee performance and individual development between

CLs and PLs. None of the interviewees mentioned that ICOM had in December 2009

implemented a feedback strategy for CLs to use.

4.1.5 How does this relationship affect you in your daily work?

The study indicates most of the respondents are not directly affected in the sense of not

being able to perform their everyday tasks. However, they are indirectly affected by the

fact that there is no clear feedback strategy and a lack of distinction in the CL‟s role.

The interviews showed that a daily communication between CLs and PLs is not

necessary but at the beginning and after a project, a stronger communication between

CLs and PLs is preferable. However, the PLs believed they need a closer

communication with the CLs since they feel the CL is an invisible person. They also

experienced their relationship to be invisible. The CLs are not directly affected by this

relationship since they do not depend on deadlines to the same extent as PLs are.

However, the CLs also believed the PLs are invisible. Two employees believed they are

affected since they were asked questions which CLs and PLs could have solved among

each other.

26

The result of not having a feedback model is the risk of not getting proper individual

development. When the PLs and CLs are not clear about their roles, areas of

responsibility and communication, the situation becomes indistinct for the employees.

Another issue is the confusion and time aspects, which occur when employees do not

know whom to turn to in different matters. This was pointed out by several of the

interviewees.

4.1.6 In what way does the CL and PL relationship affect the whole organization, according to you?

This question was asked only to the CEO. The CEO believed the individual could

sometimes be caught in the middle of this relationship, especially when the CL and PL

are not precise in why they choose a specific person for a project. The individual might

feel as an object instead of a person. However, the CEO believes this will become better

with time when the PLs and CLs begins to understand each other more in terms of

work. The CEO also believes the individual employee has the responsibility to change a

situation where they might feel as an object and if they experience they get caught in

between.

From this answer we found the CEOs observations are in accordance to the

respondents‟ answers in the previous question. This relationship between CL and PL

indirectly affects each individual in terms of not having a structured way for feedback

on individual development and employee performance review.

4.1.7 Do you have any ideas on how the relationship and responsibility can be further developed between CL and PL?

The interviewees all agreed the responsibility division of having CLs and PLs is good.

Several respondents said the areas of responsibility are clear in theory but in practice the

roles become vague. Since the company is competence-based it is important to have

leaders responsible for the different competencies but PLs as well as CLs highlighted

the ambiguity regarding responsibility distribution. Many of them believed role

clarification is important since they work in a matrix organization. The interviewees

also indicated the overall feedback strategies must improve between the CLs and PLs.

One of the respondents said: “We must have a proper way of handling the feedback

process, a forum of some kind where we (CL and PL) can meet in person and not just in

writing”. One respondent believed a communication forum for CLs and PLs to interact

would be beneficial.

From the interviews we also found that the feedback on employees is handled

differently depending on the PL and CL in charge. In some cases the PL is proactive

while in other the CLs must struggle to receive the feedback information from the PLs.

One respondent highlighted and recommended that the CL sometimes needs to be better

on searching for information to be able to give sufficient feedback to their employees.

27

The interviewees have many suggestions on how to improve and develop the

relationship between CLs and PLs. One of the suggestions was to increase the

knowledge about the role and area of responsibility for both CLs and PLs. Another

suggestion was to find a better way to communicate, a more efficient communication

and way of planning in the beginning of a project. Respondents highlighted the

communication to be the biggest potential for improvements. The empirical findings

also showed PL could demand more from CL. Interviewees also suggested increasing

the knowledge of who has what kind of responsibility between CLs and PLs.

Respondents recommended that the CLs could improve their way of communicating

and sharing information in order to increase the understanding among the PLs.

4.1.8 How distinct is the responsibility distribution between CLs and PLs for the employees?

This question was asked only to the CL and the CEO where all of them said it is not

always evident to the employees whom to contact in different questions. The employees

have been and still are confused over whom to contact. This leads the employees to ask

the same question twice, to both the CL and PL. This is supported by an employee‟s

statement: “I do not think it is easy to know, but I think employees mostly talk to both

the CL and the PL”. One of the CLs proposed more communication between CLs and

PLs as well as with the employees to make the different responsibilities more evident

among the employees.

Several interviewees expressed a concern for the consequences of the indistinct areas of

responsibility and the role of CLs. They believed there is a lack of feedback on

employee performances and future development because of the unclear responsibility

distribution.

During the interviews, we realized that the overall responsibility distribution between

CL and PL, and a feedback strategy are not distinct enough. This has led to confusion

among the employees and they do not know whom to turn to in different situations. The

CLs and PLs interviewed were aware of the confusion. Improvements have been made

but further development is needed. Confusion regarding the leadership is most common

during longer projects where the responsibility distribution between CL and PL is less

distinct.

4.1.9 What expectations do you believe your employees have on you?

This question was asked to CLs, PLs and PDLs. All interviewees pointed out one

important characteristic. They all believed their employees expected them to be distinct.

With distinct they meant distinct in terms of feedback, guidelines and clear goals.

Distinct also refers to be able to be distinct in their leadership.

Other characteristics pointed out were the importance of listening to the employees,

make decisions and support the employees when they need help. Another characteristic

the leaders believe the employees expected from them was to be present in their daily

28

work and to be a problem solver. One of the respondents highlighted the importance of

being human in their leadership and to acknowledge that although you are a leader you

do not always have the right answers.

4.1.10 What do you think of the reorganization made in 2008 where ICOM became both assignment and competence based?

Overall, the interviewees are satisfied with the reorganization. Several respondents

express satisfaction with the competencies sitting together. It enables the organization to

fully take advantage of, and develop, its competencies. The different competencies can

also learn and help each other to a greater extent than before. It becomes easier to

communicate within the different competence groups but one respondent highlighted

that it can lead to information loss in the project teams. The interviewees agreed there

are both pros and cons with the new organization. One respondent said the

reorganization has taken more time than expected. Another interviewee pointed out that

the most important thing is to find a functioning way of communicating.

These are the respondents‟ views and opinions of the situation at the company. All of

respondents agree there is room for improvements regarding the clarification of

responsibility distribution. Due to the unclear roles and the reorganization the feedback

strategy for employee performances becomes inefficient and competence development

might be suffering. The empirical material gave us information to analyze. The next

chapter provides a thorough analysis of using the leadership, feedback and structure

theories presented in chapter 2.

29

5 Analysis

This chapter presents the analysis of the empirical findings. The analysis is divided in

two sections, leadership and feedback, mainly following the structure of the theoretical

framework. The first section presents an analysis on the leadership theories. The second

section provides an analysis on the feedback theories. The 7-S model is incorporated

throughout the chapter.

5.1 Leadership theories

The first section presents the analysis on CL‟s leadership in terms of their role and area

of responsibility among their employees. The empirical material indicates that the CL

has to be more distinct in their leadership to clarify their role and area of responsibility.

5.1.1 Role clarification

Interviewees pointed out that to be a good leader you need to have a genuine interest in

people. This was one of the characteristics highlighted as good leadership during the

interviews. It creates focus on the employees and implies a high commitment level from

the CLs. George (2003) argues one characteristic for an authentic leader is to understand

ones purpose of becoming a leader. The purpose is identified through knowing one self

and one‟s motivation for performing leadership. Theory on authentic leaders also

stresses the importance of leading with heart. This involves leaders to have a passion

and interest in leading people (George & Sims, 2007). It is interesting to note that the

respondents believe having a genuine interest in people is important for good

leadership. This implies that leaders at ICOM want to be recognized as authentic

leaders.

One of the findings we made during the interviews was that all the respondents said

they received what they defined as good leadership. Overall, they were satisfied with

their leader. It is clear the employees have faith in their CL. This is a positive discovery

and a good starting point for the CLs to further develop their role and area of

responsibility. Bass and Riggio (2006) as well as Ladkin and Taylor (2010) state that a

leader must be perceived and accepted by the followers as a leader in order to be

successful. Two characteristics of good leadership the respondents highlighted were

presence and distinct leadership. One interviewee said: “For me a good leader is very

distinct, goal oriented, sees possibilities and is positive”. An underlying assumption of

transformational leadership is that presence and distinct leadership are two important

elements for performing leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). We argue it is of relevance

for the CLs to incorporate these characteristics in their leadership to fulfill the

requirements the respondents have on distinct leadership. Although the respondents are

satisfied with the leadership, it is evident the distinction of leadership among the CLs

are not as distinct as favorable. Respondents express the concern that sometimes the

CLs role is indistinct. This happens mainly during longer projects and when the CLs

themselves are unclear with their own role and therefore also with their area of

30

responsibility. Therefore, we can identify a need for further development to make the

role more evident among the employees.

Due to the indistinct leadership the employees ask the same questions to both their CL

and PL, which takes more time than needed. It also creates confusion among

employees. Theory of transformational leadership stresses the importance of distinct

leadership in terms of clearly communicating visions and goals to the employees (Bass

& Riggio, 2006). In order to be distinc, an important tool to use is communication. Each

CL has to be clear in their communication towards their employees of what his or her

role involves and this might reduce the confusion among the employees. According to

George (2003), it is important to have good communication with your employees. From

to the empirical materials we can identify a need for a more distinct role for the CL.

Many respondents support this and state the role of the CLs is described as unclear.

This can be linked to the CLs being unclear with their own role. Transformational

leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006) states it is important leaders fulfill employees‟ needs.

We can assume if communication becomes more evident the employees will gain a

better understanding of CL‟s role in different questions and the present confusion

among employees will be less. By achieving this, the CLs will be able to fulfill the

needs of their employees.

One question asked during the interviews regarded what the leaders think the employees

expect from them in terms of leadership. One interviewee answered: “I think being

distinct, determined and listen is important. I do not think there is need for much more”.

Another respondent said: “They expect me to be very distinct, that I am able to give

feedback and that I am clear in what direction we are going”. These quotes indicate that

the respondents understand the importance of distinct leadership. It is interesting to note

that although there is a lack in role clarification the leaders believe their employees

expect them to perform distinct leadership in terms of feedback, clear goals and

guidelines. The theory of authentic (Shamir & Eilam, 2005) as well as transformational

leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006) discusses the concept of being a role model as a

leader. This means the leaders should behave in accordance to their own beliefs. We

identified the CLs are not completely fulfilling the requirements for being a role model

since they understand and value the importance of distinct leadership but do not practice

it at all times. Therefore, it is a gap between expectations of a distinct leader and what is

actually received. One reason for why the role clarification is not distinct can be due to

the reorganization where the role of the CL, and where the final structure, is not yet

fully settled.

5.1.2 Organizational support

One of the questions asked during the interviews concerned if the respondents believed

they received the right conditions to perform their job well. Every interviewee said they

believed they receive the right conditions. The answers to this question imply

employees experience the organization and the top management to support them. This

suggests that the employees have faith in the organization. Bass and Riggio (2006) point

31

out that one main task for a transformational leader is to help and support his or her

followers. Authentic leadership also emphasizes the importance of top management

support. Therefore, we have identified the empirical materials and the theories to be

consistent. The theories highlight the importance to receive organizational support and

the empirical findings show the employees feel they have the support from the

organization they need.

We find it interesting to note that while the interviewees believe they receive proper

conditions to perform a good job we have also identified a lack of distinction in the

leadership/role clarification. As Bass & Riggio (2006) point out, transformational

leaders should be able to clearly express vision and goals to its followers. We assume

that if this is not done properly it creates confusion among the employees. This is

supported by several of the interviewees where one of the respondents said: “Sometimes

it is not clear whom to turn to”.

If the interviewees felt they did not receive the right conditions to perform a good job,

we assume the issue to be on an organizational level. However, since the leaders felt

they received the right conditions, we can assume the responsibility lies on each

individual. This puts pressure on the individual to take their responsibility in how to be

more precise in their leadership. One interviewee states that one of the cornerstones of

IKEA‟s human resource idea is to take own responsibility and own initiatives.

However, this can sometimes be neglected. According to Russell and Russell (2010), it

is important the organization supports the employees to reach positive outcomes and

high performance. Avolio et al. (2004) state that authentic leaders should be well aware

of their strengths and should always develop their own ability (Luthans & Avolio,

2003). Hence, as an authentic leader it is important to know one self and also be true to

one self (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Therefore, if the CLs know

their own weaknesses it is easier to eliminate these and become more precise in their

leadership.

5.1.3 Work experience

All CLs have prior work experiences as PLs and as a specific competence e.g. PDL. All

of them have also worked for a long time within IKEA and ICOM. The time span is

between 2 to 36 years. This shows they have experience before they entered a

leadership position and they might find it easier to relate to employees perspective and

different situations. We find it important the CLs take advantage of their experiences.

Several interviewees‟ supports this since they believe it contributes to easier relate and

understand co-workers problems. Since the CLs have worked as a competence

(employee) before they can easier understand the work tasks of the employees, which

enables the CLs to perform a better job. Experience also gives a person confidence to

make own decisions create better conditions for him or herself. It is illustrated by the

quote: “I have been working here for such a long time. It is not often I have a problem

that I cannot solve myself”. Experience can create a common understanding among the

co-workers where tensions and unnecessary arguments can be avoided. Shamir et al.

32

(2005) cited in Shamir and Eilam (2005) state that a leader can find it easier to relate to

a situation if he or she has experienced the same thing.

The CLs have prior work experience, which implies they feel more confident in their

role and can easier create better conditions for themselves as leaders. One interviewee

said: “Employees that have been on a project for a couple of years can create better

conditions for themselves”. Shamir and Eilam (2005) support this statement and argue

authentic leaders use prior experiences as a foundation to perform leadership. Past work

experiences also imply the CLs have the ability to relate to different employees‟

situations. However, this is not always done and the CLs can use their prior experience

better to increase the distinction and decrease the confusion among their employees. As

pointed out by one interviewee: “The CLs could be better on communicating their

responsibilities to increase the understanding for the work they perform.”

Shamir and Eilam (2005) discuss the concept of authentic leadership where prior work

experience is highlighted. An authentic leader should be genuine and not fake and the

leader should base its leadership on prior experience and knowledge. A respondent

supports this: “To be a good leader you must know what you think is right and wrong.

And you must be able to stand for it through thick and thin”. The interviewee is

referring to the importance of being clear in directions and consistent in leadership style.

The same respondent added: “I think that as a leader you have great use of your own

experiences in life”. At IKEA it is common that you work your way up in the

organization (IKEA, 2010c). Both CLs and PLs have prior work experience within

ICOM and IKEA before entering their current positions. One of the respondents said:

“The human resource idea at IKEA is that every person creates his or her own

conditions”. Weber (1998) supports the concept of individual responsibility and

believes each employee should consider how he or she contributes to the company and

how they create competitive advantage.

5.1.4 Area of responsibility

From the interviews we indentified the area of responsibility of CLs to be clear in

theory but not in practice. A respondent supported this statement: “I do not think that

the responsibility distribution (between CL and PL) is unclear. Rather, I think that they

(CL and PL) are unclear about their own responsibility”. The empirical materials

indicate the respondents find it difficult to always know whom of the CL and PL to

speak with. This was especially encountered during long projects where the area of

responsibility between CL and PL fades. One respondent said: “It must be more clear

who has the responsibility”. The interviews clearly show that the lack of distinction of

responsibility is time consuming because the employees ask PL, CL and other leaders

the same questions. In the words of one respondent: “I find CLs to ask me questions the

PLs could have answered and also given them the information earlier”.

The confusion in the area of responsibility among CLs might be due to different

interpretations. It can be interpreted differently because of prior work experience,

33

background and possible effects of the reorganization. IKEA is a company that

encourages diversity in terms of background (IKEA, 2010c). This contributes to

different perspectives, which is good since it provides the opportunity to find the best

solution. However, there must be a foundation for all CLs in order to create cohesion

within the organization. In some situations it would be beneficial if the CLs behaved in

a more homogenous way. According to one respondent: “The CLs could work more

together than what they are doing today”.

Today there is a common foundation, e.g. job description for the CLs, but it is important

to make this foundation more clear. As stated before, an underlying assumption of

transformational leadership argues that distinct leadership is important (Bass & Riggio,

2006). By practicing distinct leadership, the CLs area of responsibility can be clearer

and employees might be less confused. George (2003) describes a characteristic of

authentic leaders as being able to work through teams and not alone where establishing

relationships with the employees as well as the other CLs are important. The theory also

highlights the importance of working together. We can therefore identify a need for CLs

to work together as a team to interpret their job description the same.

Another reason for different interpretations of the responsibility distribution might be

due to the reorganization ICOM made during the fiscal year of 2008. The company

became assignment and competence based. When an organization changes the structure,

almost everything changes. Waterman et al. (1980) argue that factors such as staff and

skills are affected by each other. If one factor is changed then the other factors will

change as well. Prior to the reorganization, the employees and the leaders were located

close to their project team and their PL. Today, they are sitting together with their

competence group and their CL. The staff and skills Waterman et al. (1980) refer to

were therefore affected by this change. The reorganization is fairly new and the mangers

involved still struggles to find proper ways to distribute responsibility in practice. One

interviewee said: “The reorganization was made two years ago but I believe it is just

now that we have realized how the organization actually works”.

5.2 Feedback

The second part of the analysis concerns feedback in terms of employee development

and performance review between CLs and PLs. The interviews indicated a lack of

feedback routine on employees‟ performance in projects between the CLs and PLs.

5.2.1 Feedback model

The main factor we found of interest within this area was that ICOM does not have a

functioning structure for how feedback should be managed between CLs and PLs in

terms of employees‟ performance review after a project. We noticed this during the

interviews where many of the interviewees agreed there is no direct communication

between CLs and PLs. Some of the interviewees did not know how or if CLs and PLs

communicate this information or use a feedback routine. We can therefore see that the

34

communication does not always exist. According to one interviewee: “I believe they

communicate too little and unclear with each other”.

The development of competencies is one of the many responsibilities a CLs has.

Therefore, being able to provide feedback on performance reviews to employees is

important. Nilsson and Waldermarson (2005) support this by stating feedback is often

used in performance evaluation. While the CLs are not part of the different projects,

where their employee‟s works, the PLs are the operative leader and meet the employees

in their daily work. This situation indicates a need for the PL and CL to communicate

and have a structured feedback channel. A communication forum could be a channel

where the CLs and PLs exchange information about the employees‟ performance and

future development. This is supported by one of the interviewees who said: “I am more

of the operative leader while the CL has a more strategic role. So, it is very interesting,

should not these two meet? Today they do not, not more than in writing”.

Communication forum

The respondents experience there is not an effective communication between CL and

PL and there is a lack of a proper way of providing information on the employees‟

performance. A respondent supports this: “My impression is that there is not an

effective communication”. The reason for why the communication is not effective can

be due to lack of a communication forum between the CL and PL. One theory of

feedback discusses a basic communication model. This model consists of a sender

where a message is delivered through a channel to a specific receiver. This model also

includes the concept of feedback, which indicates the receiver answers the message

from the sender (Larsson 2002). In order to have the most efficient communication it is

important to have a two-way communication. This feedback model discusses how the

feedback could be treated between the CLs and the PLs. It provides a basic

understanding of how feedback is communicated. Based on the interviews we can

identify a need for a communication forum where the PL and CL can interact, exchange

information, and provide reviews on employees‟ performance. Transformational

leadership theory also highlights the importance of a two-way communication (Bass &

Riggio, 2006). One respondent emphasized: “There must be a more distinct forum

where we (PL and CL) can meet”.

The effect, from the lack of feedback routine, is that the individual employee might

suffer. A respondent supports this statement: “I believe the individual sometimes might

be caught in between”. However, during the interviews we noted that some employees

experience that this does not directly affect them. They are not directly affected in their

daily work, which is positive since the communication should only include the CLs and

PLs. Based on the above quotation we can assume the employees are indirectly affected

since the feedback information is not fully communicated between the CL and PL.

35

Mutual understanding

It was also evident from the interviews that a daily communication between CLs and

PLs is not necessary. However, some kind of forum is important and needed. This is

supported by an interviewees answer: “I wished we could communicate more with each

other”. A co-operation between the groups of CLs and PLs might improve the

communication and the comfortableness in communicating with each other. This could

also contribute to a better understanding for the different roles, CL and PL. One of the

respondents said: “I assume the understanding for each other‟s roles is one of the

obstacles”. Increasing the understanding of each other might contribute to an increased

communication where employees‟ performance feedback can be given. One

characteristic of an authentic leader implies that common goals and good

communication among coworkers is important (George, 2003). If this is not fulfilled the

role of the leader is undermined. Hence, this theory of leadership argues for the value of

having a good communication among co-workers e.g. CLs and PLs.

One way of creating mutual understanding is by educating the CL and PL in terms of

their different roles and areas of responsibility. One respondent stated: “To educate and

develop and to see new areas than what you do today”. Since all CLs interviewed have

prior work experience, this should not be necessary. However, it is clear that the current

situation is not good. This is why we propose more education in order to increase the

understanding.

5.2.2 Feedforward

The need for a feedback model between CLs and PLs at ICOM is growing. One of the

respondents said: “I believe they should have a closer communication”. We can

therefore identify a need for a communication forum and a feedback model. Our

empirical materials indicate there is no structured way for how to communicate

feedback between CL and PL. This is interesting since feedback is an important task for

the CL. One respondent said: “No structured way of doing feedback that I know of. I

am convinced the PL spontaneously gives feedback to the CL but I do not think that it is

to the same extent as the CL would have wanted”. This implies a structured way of

doing feedback is needed in order for the CLs to perform their job more effectively.

Feedback is regularly used to evaluate performance (Nilsson & Waldermarson, 2005).

The theory of feedforward, explains the importance of focusing on the future instead of

on the past. This theory involves providing employees with recommendations for future

development rather than providing feedback on previous behavior. By using

feedforward, Goldsmith (2003) believes this contributes to a positive experience. A

feedforward meeting also helps to develop employees further.

Goldsmith (2003) also described how a feedforward meeting can look like. We believe

feedforward can be used at ICOM and by the CLs during performance reviews. This

meeting is developed to be a two-way communication where there are two participants,

36

e.g. the employee and the CL at ICOM. The meaning of a two-way communication is

that both parties should participate, and give and receive feedforward. As of today CL

has job chats with their employees on a regular basis where they briefly discuss how the

employee feels, following up on job tasks etc. This enables the CL and the employees to

have a good communication with each other. This is supported by the theory of

authentic leaders where one characteristic implies that good communication among

employees is important (George, 2003). The feedforward model can be incorporated in

these job chats. According to the 7-S model, where structure is one dimension, task has

to be provided first and then coordination must follow (Waterman et al., 1980). As

organizations become larger, the need for more structure to make the responsibilities

more evident becomes important (Weber, 1998). However, ICOM does not have any

formal structure for how the feedback should be treated between CL and PL.

The reason for why there is no structured way of providing feedback between the CLs

and PLs can be due to the re-organization ICOM did 2008. It takes time to settle

important components when conducting a great organizational change. One of the

interviewees supported this: “It (the reorganization) takes considerably more time than

expected”. Nilsson and Waldermarson (2005) point out that it is important to understand

that when an organization changes the communication model, as well as the feedback

routine, also changes. When the reorganization is fully settled, the feedback strategy

might be working. However, it is essential ICOM grasps this opportunity and puts effort

in establishing a well functioning feedback routine as soon as possible.

5.2.3 Performance management

If employee performance feedback was to be provided in a structured way between the

CL and the PL, it might be easier for the CLs to give their employees feedback and

develop a plan for further development. However, it is important to state that some CLs

seek and provide this information on their own, even though there is no structured

routine for this. This is a good sign and a good starting point. It is in accordance to

IKEA‟s human resource idea where individual employees ought to take their own

responsibility. One of the respondents said: “I try to contact when I feel I need to

present things”. However, not all CLs are good at this. One respondent said: “I believe

the CLs must be better at searching for information to be able to give adequate feedback

(employee performance)”. Since performance feedback is not provided in a structured

way, and in some cases not at all, between the CL and the PL it is clear that ICOM

needs a more structured way of providing this information.

In December 2009, ICOM implemented a feedback strategy for CLs and PLs to use (C.

Stenberg, personal communication, 18 May 2010). However, the implementation has

not been successful since many of the respondents were not aware of the existence of

the feedback strategy. This is in accordance with the quote: “We have no structured way

of following up on projects”. We can assume more leaders would use a feedback routine

if there were a developed and structured routine for how to share employees‟

performance information between the CLs and PLs. To use a feedback routine will help

37

the CL to give feedback and develop their employees further. According to feedback

theory, it is a very important task, as a leader, to be able to provide employees with

feedback (Goldsmith, 2003). This would enable CLs to secure that the competencies are

well developed. It would allow the organization to increase its level of performance. A

better developed feedback routine is in line with IKEA‟s beliefs; where they believe

they can always perform better (IKEA, 2010c).

As of today there is no feedback strategy at ICOM but the empirical material show a

need for it. After a project it is important the PLs provide the CLs with feedback on the

employees‟ performance. When this feedback is given, the CLs can incorporate it into

their performance review meeting. The performance management cycle (GPM), which

is developed by Russell and Russell (2010), is a model partly used for performance

review meetings. This model consists of five steps where first the leader and the

employee together define what is great performance. The next step is to develop

strategies and actions for how to achieve this. The leader and the organization then

support the employees in their work. After this, the leader and the employee has a

performance coaching conversation where they evaluate the employee‟s performance.

Last, the leader and the employee decide upon elements the employees can improve in

the future. The CLs might also find the GPM model to be useful when developing their

employees further.

Individual development

Within the performance management cycle, individual development is an important

part. One of the main responsibilities a CL has is to develop each individual‟s

competencies. The CLs have this responsibility because they have the overall employee

responsibility. The respondents highlighted the importance of individual development

as a characteristic of good leadership. One of the respondents said: “A major task for me

as a leader is to make sure the employees are constantly developing (their

competencies)”.

Individual development is an important characteristic described in the theory of

authentic leadership. According to this theory, leaders should be able to develop their

employees (Avolio et al., 2004; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Theory of transformational

leadership also describes the importance of individual development. A transformational

leader should function as a mentor and pay attention to individual employees needs.

Another important task for the leader is to challenge the employees and allow them to

be creative and think in new ways (Bass & Riggio, 2006). One of the respondents

concludes: “(The leader should) try to challenge in order to create a stimulating task”.

The 7-S model discusses the aspect of individual development in several references

(Waterman et al., 1980). The concept skill refers to qualities that create competitive

advantage for the company against others (Weber, 1998). One of the components in the

7-S model is staff. The theory points at leaders that sometimes do not understand the

relevance of the employees‟ individual development (Waterman et al., 1980). ICOM is

38

partly competence based so it is important the CLs provide their employees with the

right conditions to further develop their competencies. The fact that the organization is

divided based on competencies enables the CLs to put more focus on individual

development. However, since the CLs do not meet their employees in daily operations it

puts a lot of pressure on proper communication between the CL and the operative PL.

Since ICOM‟s competitive advantage is competencies, it must put a lot of effort into

employee development. Both theory as well as respondents highlight individual

development as important. Hence, we can identify individual development to be

important within theory and practice. This implies that the CL‟s responsibility is

important and that ICOM is focusing on an important factor. Therefore, we can also

state that the feedback between CLs and PLs is crucial. The information PLs will

provide the CLs with is important in order for the CLs to be able to develop their

employees. Since it is essential that the feedback between CLs and PLs works, we want

to stress the importance of using performance management reviews where the GPM

cycle and feedforward are very useful.

39

6 Results and concluding discussion

The first section of this chapter presents the main results of the analysis. The second

section provides a concluding discussion. The following section describes a further

research area we have identified during the process. The chapter closes with a section

of recommendations for further improvements concerning the distinction of role and

area of responsibility for CL as well as the feedback between CL and PL.

6.1 Results

The purpose for this thesis is to investigate the CL‟s leadership in terms of the role and

area of responsibility. It also includes investigating the relationship between the CLs

and PLs in terms of feedback on employee‟s performance, as well as how the CL can

conduct employee performance review meetings. Our purpose also states that

recommendations for further improvements should be provided. The analysis provides

interesting results. Primarily we have found the twofold purpose to be two areas of

development for ICOM.

6.1.1 Area of responsibility and role clarification

The first area of development regards increasing the distinction of CL‟s role and area of

responsibility in relation to their employees. The analysis indicates that employees

could sometimes be confused about CLs‟ role and area of responsibility. The analysis

shows there is a gap between what the leaders think their employees expect from them

and what the employees actually receive. We can draw the conclusion that sometimes

the CLs are indistinct in their leadership regarding their role and area of responsibility.

The confusion could be reduced through more communication between the CLs and

their employees. We believe the CLs can be more distinct in their leadership if they use

more communication among their employees.

Based on the analysis we argue that previous work experiences helps CLs to be more

distinct. If the CLs have earlier experience they find it easier to create better conditions

for themselves. We believe if all CLs could act in a homogenous way, are distinct, and

consequent in their way of acting, the confusion among employees will decrease.

The analysis shows that presence and distinct leadership are two important qualities for

a good leader. So, if the CLs incorporate and use these two qualities more in their

leadership we believe employees would find it easier to understand the role and the area

of responsibility of the CL. Another conclusion is that ICOM provides the support

employees need in terms of being provided with the right conditions to perform their

job well.

The analysis further shows the CLs have many characteristics of authentic and

transformational leadership theories, which we believe is a good thing. The parts where

the CLs do not show characteristics of authentic and transformational leadership are

40

when they are indistinct in their role and area of responsibility and when they are not

able to fulfill their employees‟ needs.

6.1.2 Feedback

The second development area is to create a structured feedback routine for CLs and PLs

where employees‟ performance on projects is provided. Based on the analysis we could

identify ICOM does not use a functioning routine for how feedback on employees‟

performance. We propose that development should be treated between the CL and the

PL after a project is finished. Sometimes it could also be good if it was discussed during

a project.

Based on the analysis we were able to identify a need for a structured communication

forum where CLs and PLs can interact in order to easier provide each other with

information. From the analysis we can identify a lack of understanding of the roles of

PL and CL. We believe a co-operation between the groups can improve the

communication between the PL and CL. If the communication is improved, it can be

argued the understanding for each other increases and that employee performance

feedback would benefit from this development.

The analysis shows the GPM model and the feedforward model are two concepts the

CLs can use when providing their employees with performance reviews. These models

have a positive approach towards employee performances and we can conclude these

two concepts would be beneficial for ICOM to use. The GPM model is comprehensive

and we found it important to find a concrete model. This model not only highlights the

relevance of conducting performance evaluation meetings but also the importance of

other steps, e.g. the support from the organization and to develop actions to reach a

certain outcome. The concept of feedforward was interesting since it focuses on future

improvements rather than on past behavior.

ICOM‟s competitive advantage is competencies and the CLs must put a lot of effort into

employee development. The analysis illustrates that individual development is

important. We stress the importance of proper communication between PL and CL to

provide the best feedback and individual development for the employees at ICOM.

One reason for the lack of a structured feedback routine and CLs indistinct role and area

of responsibility can be due to the re-organization ICOM made. It takes time to get new

routines settled after a major change. We believe the reorganization has great impact of

on the two development areas at ICOM and we conclude by stress the importance of

ICOM dealing with this implication.

6.2 Concluding discussion

Transformational leadership and theory on authentic leaders and leadership are well in

line with the leadership style that IKEA and ICOM emphasize. The most interesting

41

aspects in relation to our purpose is how these theories discuss how a leader can behave

in order to distribute a distinction in its roles and area of responsibility.

The feedback theories express the importance of having a structured way of performing

feedback. They provide a communication model for feedback as well as models on how

to perform employee performance evaluations. ICOM has not a structured routine for

feedback. The feedback theories emphasize the value of having a feedback strategy as

well as providing ideas on how to conduct performance review meeting. The 7-S model

has functioned as support and we have gained understanding for the complexity of

organizational change.

Although we believe our theoretical framework has provided us with appropriate

analytical tools, some additional theory could have been useful. How the responsibility

is distributed has become vague partly due to company reorganization. Theory on

structural change could have helped us in our analysis but structural change is not part

of our purpose.

It can be argued that more communication theory should have been included in the

thesis. We believe this could have helped us deepen our analysis. However,

communication is a very wide concept and our purpose deal with communication in

terms of feedback such as employee performance reviews and individual development.

Therefore, we decided to delimit our theoretical framework to include communication

theories that focuses on feedback.

It has become evident that ICOM‟s structure is a main reason for the development areas

we have investigated. If the structure is clear to the people affected by it we believe the

situation would be less confused. Hence, we can draw a conclusion that it is important

to clearly communicate the structure of an organization. We believe our empirical

material could have been analyzed with the help of theory on organizational structure

with an interesting outcome.

6.3 Further research

We found one topic in particular to be extra interesting and of importance for ICOM.

This topic is the resource allocation process. The empirical material indicated that the

resource allocation process at ICOM could be further developed in order to be more

efficient and reach the goal of its function. Today, the process is a bit complicated and

does not always provide the most efficient solutions when resources are allocated.

Resources involve the different competencies at ICOM, e.g. graphic artists,

photographers.

The process of resource allocation includes the CL, PL and PDL. In simple terms the

PDL asks the CL for resources, a specific competence, for a coming project. Then the

CL either accepts or changes the number of resources requested by the PDL. There are

many variables included in this process: what type of project it is, what competences are

42

needed and how big the project is. Within this process there are sometimes

misunderstandings between the CL, PL and PDL and the communication is not always

distinct. The CL, PL and PDL do not always agree and understand the outcome of this

process, e.g. why a PL was given only two competencies when asked for three. As of

today the PL is not fully included in this process which creates confusion.

The process is not a part of our purpose and therefore we have neither investigated nor

analyzed it further. If the resource allocation process could be simplified, more

structured, and have a more clear communication we believe ICOM could benefit from

this. We therefore suggest ICOM or researchers to conduct future studies within this

area.

6.4 Recommendations

This section provides a set of recommendations we believe ICOM can benefit from. The

recommendations are based on the results of the analysis. The recommendations focus

on responsibility distribution and the role clarification of CLs and feedback.

6.4.1 Responsibility distribution and role clarification

Responsibility distribution and role clarification for CLs are potential development

areas at ICOM. Today, employees have difficulties identifying the role and the area of

responsibility of the CL in practice.

Recommendation 1

We believe it is important ICOM uses a process-oriented way of working where they

have a systematic way of structuring their work and communication among the

employees. Since ICOM is a production company, producing communication for IKEA,

the employees need to understand the process of production. We believe ICOM could

be more distinct in these terms.

We want to stress the relevance of more structure and communication, among

employees, in order for the distinction to increase. To develop the process of more

distinction should be handled mainly by the process developer and the planning

responsible together with the top management at ICOM. These routines should include

who talk to whom in what situation, where does the CL‟s responsibility begin and end,

what kind of information is important to communicate to the employees. The employees

should be included in the different processes in order to increase the distinction and

decrease the current confusion among employees. We believe structured routines and

ways of working are one solution to this issue.

When structured routines and processes are created these should be communicated to

the CLs and then put into actions. The top management should be responsible for

communicating this to the employees in order to for them to understand the new ways

of working. In order for the employees to understand, at all times, the CL‟s role and

responsibility we argue that they need to structure the process of routines among CLs.

43

They need to be more distinct in terms of their expectations from their employees, their

own communication of their role and area of responsibility. The CLs need to use

structured routines and provide necessary information. If this is done we believe the

CLs will be more distinct in their leadership.

Recommendation 2

We believe it is important the CLs act consistently in some situations. Since many of

the CLs have prior work experience at ICOM and IKEA, we believe they can learn a lot

from each other. The areas of responsibility are clear in the job description but not

always in practice.

We propose a workshop where all of the CLs together with their leader, the production

manager, within the production department meet. During this workshop they discuss

their interpretation of the CL‟s job description. This discussion would enable them to

share their thoughts and together conclude on the foundation. Further, this meeting

could enable a discussion of how to make their area of responsibility and role more

distinct among the employees and how they should communicate this more.

A workshop would provide the opportunity to share and learn from each other. It would

also enable the CLs to act based on the same foundation. This workshop could also

include CLs from other departments which could contribute to a multi-perspective of

how to work and how to communicate etc. After the workshop, it is important that

decisions are made by ICOM‟s top management and then implemented by the CLs.

Recommendation 3

Since the CLs have the employee responsibility, the employees report to them also in

minor personal matters, e.g. dentist appointments. They also have to inform their PL if

they will be absent from work. In order to decrease the time used by an employee to

contact both their PL and CL in this matter we suggest giving the PL/PDL some

authority in minor personal matters. This would ease the burden for CLs. The PL/PDL

might find it easier to grant minor personal matters since they meet the employees daily.

The PL or the employee could provide the CL with this information afterwards. If this

recommendation is implemented at ICOM, proper routines are established. The routines

should include guidelines for whom to talk to in what matters. It should also include

whose responsibility it is to inform the CL. If this is not done correctly, the confusion

only increases.

6.4.2 Feedback

Our analysis shows that there is a lack of use of a feedback routine between the CLs and

PLs. It is clear a feedback routine needs to be developed and used in order for the CLs

to be able to communicate employees‟ performance and provide the employees with

recommendations for further development.

44

Recommendation 1

We suggest a feedback session between the PL and the CL where they can exchange

information on employee‟s performance and future development. The session will

provide the CLs with a short description of how each of their employees performed

during the project. This information will serve as the main foundation and help the CLs

when they conduct employee performance reviews. Since it is the PL who meets the

employees daily and can easily observe their performance, it is important this

information is given to the CLs. Such feedback should take place right after a project

has ended and where the PL and CL meet in person. If there are longer projects it might

also be beneficial to have meetings more often instead of only one time after the project

is ended. By meeting in person CLs and PLs will co-operate and assumable

communicate more and better.

Since the organization, as it looks like today, is fairly young we believe a standardized

way of transferring employee information between CLs and PLs is beneficial. How the

information on employee performance is provided varies a lot between different CLs

and PLs today and most times it does not exist. By using a standardized feedback

routine between CLs and PLs information loss might be prevented.

Recommendation 2

Today, the CL has performance review meetings with their employees. A

recommendation would be for ICOM to implement a basic model of GPM (the great

performance management model) when conducting performance review meetings with

their employees. Using this type of model will help the employee to understand the

company‟s expectations on them and create goals and actions to reach these

expectations.

The concept of feedforward could be incorporated in the performance reviews. It would

put a positive approach to the meeting since it focuses on positive development for

future use. This way of conducting performance review meetings would also provide

support for the employees and evaluate how they performed.

Recommendations 3

The problem of role clarification and responsibility distribution is closely related to the

issue of feedback. Therefore, we believe workshops could be useful to increase the

cooperation of feedback information between CL and PL as well. Workshops

concerning this matter should discuss how to communicate better employee

performance.

We believe the CLs and PLs should meet each other and have a discussion concerning

where their area of responsibility begins and ends. We believe this would be beneficial

in order to decrease some of the confusion among the employees. They can take

45

advantage from the valuable experience both CL and PL has and they can learn from

each other.

Another advantage from having the workshops is to increase the understanding for both

the CLs and PLs roles. It would be beneficial if they have a greater understanding for

each other‟s positions. Gaining this understanding would make it easier for them to be

more distinct among their employees regarding responsibility distribution. This will also

contribute to less confusion among the employees and their way of reporting to their

managers.

The workshop can be scheduled right after the launch of the catalogue to avoid tension

and stress related to the peak periods. As we stated in the recommendation 2 in section

6.4.1, it is important the top management makes decisions after the workshop, which

should be followed. We believe this is important in order for the workshop to be

helpful.

6.4.3 Other recommendations

The following section presents recommendations that are not of direct relevance for our

purpose. However, we believe these are important for ICOM to consider.

Recommendation 1

We suggest more time should be given to planning in the early stage of a project. We

know time is a scarce resource but we believe the time can be spent more efficient in the

beginning of a project. It has become clear during the interviews that better planning is

asked for in order to find structured ways to communicate throughout the project. It

would also facilitate the resource allocation process. If the CL and PL meet and discuss

the background to the project, which type of resources they need etc, it makes the

projects more flexible as well as make the employees feel secure. With flexibility we

refer to the ability to move resources (competencies) if needed and allocate more

resources during a project, if needed. Today, the CL and PL are not having a dialogue

and are not able to state what they need during the project. Putting more time on

planning in the beginning of a project can make it easier. Both the CL and the PL will

have more information about the project and a better understanding for why a specific

competence is need to be placed in a specific project.

Recommendation 2

Due to the reorganization made during fiscal year 2008 the employees are located

according to their competence. This provides them the opportunity to help each other

and learn from each other‟s experiences and knowledge. This is a great advantage.

However, since the projects are no longer located together this creates pressure on the

PL to create cohesion among the team members of a project. The daily contact and

communication with all employees in the project group might be less today than it was

46

before. Therefore, we would recommend introducing a type of meeting for the project

groups where they all can have a chance to meet each other on a regular basis.

We believe these meetings will contribute to a better cohesion among the team, prevent

information loss and in the long run provide a satisfying outcome of the project. We

argue the outcome of the project will be satisfying since the team will cooperate better if

there is consistency in the organization. The meetings, how often they should take place

and how long they should be, should be scheduled depending on the length and

complexity of the project.

47

List of references

Appelbaum, S. H., Nadeau, D., & Cyr, M. (2008). Performance evaluation in a matrix

organization: a case study (Part One). Industrial and commercial Training, 40

(5), 236-241.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwam F. O. (2005). Preface. In B. J. Avolio, W.

L. Gardner & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds). Authentic leadership theory and practice:

Origins, effects and development (p. xxi-xxix). London: Elsevier.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May D. R. (2004).

Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact

follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18 (3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership 2nd

ed. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Bath: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods 2nd

ed. New York: Oxford

University Press Inc.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row: New York.

Creswell, W. J. (2003). Research design qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches 2nd

ed. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Forsyth, P. & Madden, D. (2005). ICSA Certificate in Business Practice Business

Communication. London: ICSA Publishing Ltd.

George, B., & Sims, P. (2007). True North: Discover your authentic leadership. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership, Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting

Value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gillham, B. (2005). Research Interviewing: The Range of Techniques. New York:

McGraw- Hill Education.

Goldsmith, M. (2003). Try Feedforward Instead of Feedback. Journal for Quality &

Participation, 26 (3), 38-40.

48

IKEA (2010) a, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (1999-2010). Fakta & siffror. Retrieved

February 10, 2010, from

www.ikea.com/ms/sv_SE/about_ikea/facts_and_figures/index.html

IKEA (2010) b, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (1999-2010). Our business idea. Retrieved

April 19, 2010,

from www.ikea.com/ms/sv_SE/about_ikea/the_ikea_way/our_business_idea/in

dex.html

IKEA (2010) c, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (1999-2010). Social & Environmental

Sustainability Responsibility Report 2005. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from

www.ikea.com/ms/sv_SE/about_ikea/pdf/substainability_05.pdf

Jacobsen, D-I. (2002). Vad, hur och varför? Om metodval i företagsekonomi och andra

samhällsvetenskapliga ämnen. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.

Kotter, P. J. (2001). What Leaders Really Do. Breakthrough leadership, 85-96.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A

constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12 (4),

648-657.

Larsson, L. (2002). Tillämpad kommunikationsvetenskap 2:a uppl. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010). Enacting the „true self‟: Towards a theory of

embodied authentic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1), 64-74.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: SAGE

Publications Inc.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership Development. In K. S.

Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship

(p. 241–258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Maltén, A. (1998). Kommunikation och konflikthantering – en introduktion. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Martin, G., & Vine. K. (2010). Books on leadership and change. Training and

Development in Australia., 37 (2), 26.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in

Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

McQuail, D. (2000). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory 4th

ed. Oxford: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

49

Nationalencyklopedin. (2000). Feedback. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from

www.ne.se.bibl.proxy.hj.se/lang/feedback

Nilsson, B., & Waldermarson, A-K. (2005). Kommunikation för ledare. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Russell, J., & Russell, L. (2010). The next level of performance management. T + D, 64

(4), 42-48.

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What is your story?” A life-stories approach to

authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417.

Smartibiz (2010) Organisationsstrutkur. Retrieved May 24, 2010, from

http://smartbiz.nu/pages.asp?PageID=179&Base=1&MenuID=228

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research – A Practical Handbook. London:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Svenning, C. (2003). Metodboken 5:e uppl. Eslöv: Lorentz Förlag.

Waterman, R., H., Peters, T., J. & Phillips, J., P. (1980). Structure is not organization.

Business Horizons, 14-26.

Weber, J. (1998). A leaders guide to understanding complex organizations: An

expanded ”7- S” perspective. Darden Business Publishing University of Virginia,

1-21.

Williamson, K. (2002). Research methods for students, academics and professionals:

information management and systems 2nd

ed. Wagga Wagga: Centre for

Information Studies.

Winston, E. B. & Patterson, K. (2006). An Intergrative Definition of Leadership.

International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1 (2), p.6-66.

50

Appendix

Appendix 1 – Basic Matrix Structure

(Smartbiz, 2010)

51

Appendix 2 - The interview guide in Swedish to the employees

Vad heter du?

Hur länge har du jobbat på ICOM respektive IKEA?

Beskriv dina arbetsuppgifter i form av ansvar, dagliga kontakter, arbetsuppgifter.

a. Vem är din matrischef och rent formellt/juridiska chef?

b. Vilken skillnad ser du mellan dessa två chefer?

c. Om du stöter på ett problem i ditt arbete, rent jobb mässigt, vem

kontaktar du då?

Vad innebär ett bra ledarskap för dig?

Vad har du för förväntningar på din ledare?

a. Lever din ledare upp till dina förväntningar?

Hur ser ni på relationen/kommunikationen mellan CL och PL?

a. Hur påverkas du av denna relation i ditt dagliga arbete?

Har du några idéer på hur CL/PL relationen/ansvaret kan utvecklas vidare?

Vad tycker du om omorganisationen 2008, som innebar att ICOM både är

assignment och competence based?

52

Appendix 3 - The interview guide in Swedish to the CL/PL/PDL/Production Manager

1. Vad heter du?

2. Hur länge har du jobbat på ICOM respektive IKEA?

3. Beskriv dina arbetsuppgifter i form av ansvar, dagliga kontakter, arbetsuppgifter.

a. Vem är din matrischef och rent formellt/juridiska chef?

b. Vilken skillnad ser du mellan dessa två chefer?

c. Om du stöter på ett problem i ditt arbete, rent jobb mässigt, vem

kontaktar du då?

4. Vad innebär ett bra ledarskap för dig?

5. Hur ser ni på relationen/kommunikationen mellan CL och PL?

a. Hur påverkas du av denna relation i ditt dagliga arbete?

6. Har du några idéer på hur CL/PL relationen/ansvaret kan utvecklas vidare?

7. Vad tycker du om omorganisationen 2008, som innebar att ICOM både är

assignment och competence based?

8. Känner du att du får de förutsättningar som krävs för att göra ett bra jobb?

9. Hur tydligt är det för medarbetaren vem (CL och PL) som ansvarar för vad?

10. Vad tror du dina medarbetare har för förväntningar på dig som ledare?

53

Appendix 4 - The interview guide in Swedish to the CEO

1. Vad heter du?

2. Hur länge har du jobbat på ICOM respektive IKEA?

3. Beskriv dina arbetsuppgifter i form av ansvar, dagliga kontakter, arbetsuppgifter.

a. Vem är din matrischef och rent formellt/juridiska chef?

b. Vilken skillnad ser du mellan dessa två chefer?

c. Om du stöter på ett problem i ditt arbete, rent jobb mässigt, vem

kontaktar du då?

4. Vad innebär ett bra ledarskap för dig?

5. Hur ser ni på relationen/kommunikationen mellan CL och PL?

a. Hur påverkas du av denna relation i ditt dagliga arbete?

b. Hur ser du att CL/PL relationen påverkar hela organisationen?

6. Har du några idéer på hur CL/PL relationen/ansvaret kan utvecklas vidare?

7. Vad tycker du om omorganisationen 2008, som innebar att ICOM både är

assignment och competence based?

54

Appendix 5 - The interview guide in English to the employees

1. What is your name?

2. For how long have you been working at ICOM and within IKEA?

3. Describe your daily work tasks in terms of responsibility, daily contacts and

tasks.

a. Who is your matrix manager and legal/formal manager?

b. What differences do you see between these two managers?

c. If you encounter a problem in your work, whom do you contact?

4. What characterize a good leadership for you?

5. What expectations do you have on your leader?

a. Does your leader meet your expectations?

6. How do you experience the relationship and the communication between CL and

PL?

a. How does this relationship affect you in your daily work?

7. Do you have any ideas on how the relationship and responsibility can be further

developed between CL and PL?

8. What do you think of the reorganization made in 2008, where ICOM became

both assignment and competence based?

55

Appendix 6 - The interview guide in English to the

CL/PL/PDL/Production Manager

1. What is your name?

2. For how long have you been working at ICOM and within IKEA?

3. Describe your daily work tasks in terms of responsibility, daily contacts and

tasks.

a. Who is your matrix manager and legal/formal manager?

b. What differences do you see between these two managers?

c. If you encounter a problem in your work, whom do you contact?

4. What characterize a good leadership for you?

5. How do you experience the relationship and the communication between CL and

PL?

a. How does this relationship affect you in your daily work?

6. Do you have any ideas on how the relationship and responsibility can be further

developed between CL and PL?

7. What do you think of the reorganization made in 2008, which meant ICOM

became both assignment and competence based?

8. Do you feel you receive the right conditions to perform a good job?

9. How distinct is the responsibility distribution between CLs and PLs for the

employees?

10. What expectations do you believe your employees have on you?

56

Appendix 7 - The interview guide in English to the CEO

1. What is your name?

2. For how long have you been working at ICOM and within IKEA?

3. Describe your daily work tasks in terms of responsibility, daily contacts and

tasks.

a. Who is your matrix manager and legal/formal manager?

b. What differences do you see between these two managers?

c. If you encounter a problem in your work, whom do you contact?

4. What characterize a good leadership for you?

5. How do you experience the relationship and the communication between CL and

PL?

a. How does this relationship affect you in your daily work?

b. In what way does the CL and PL relationship affect the whole

organization, according to you?

6. Do you have any ideas on how the relationship and responsibility can be further

developed between CL and PL?

7. What do you think of the reorganization made in 2008, where ICOM became

both assignment and competence based?

57

Appendix 8 – The GPM cycle

(Russell & Russell, 2010, p. 48)

The Great Performance Cycle

The organization´s vision Leadership and a

felt need for change

The voice of the customer

Work unit or department vision and mission

Define great performance

outcomes

Develop goals and Strategies, and take action

To achieve outcomes

Provide support (training, resources, tools, information,

feedback, etc.)

Evaluating performance

Make improvements

Provide logical consequences For performance outcomes