University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers

(USC Thesis Other)

An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 1

AN EVALUATIVE STUDY ON IMPLEMENTING CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE THROUGH THE PERSPECTIVE OF
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS
by
Christopher R. Crosby

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2019

Copyright 2019 Christopher R. Crosby

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 2
Dedication

To the love of my life, Crystal, your support, patience, and love is all that matters in this world.
To Ashley and Jakob, one day you will know. The wreckage of my childhood gave me purpose.
You gave me meaning.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 3

Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction to Problem of Practice ................................................................................................ 7
Field-Based Context and Mission ................................................................................................... 8
Importance of Addressing the Problem .......................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................................. 9
Global Performance Goal ............................................................................................................. 10
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal ...................................................................... 11
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................... 12
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Technology ....................................................... 13
First Level Managers ................................................................................................................ 15
General Change Management Theory ...................................................................................... 19
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................................................. 21
Knowledge Influences .............................................................................................................. 22
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................................... 26
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................................... 29
Interactive Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 33
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of study. ................................................................................... 34
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 34
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 37
Participant Data ............................................................................................................................. 38
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................................... 41
Knowledge Influence Findings ................................................................................................. 42
Motivation Influence Findings .................................................................................................. 49
Organizational Influence Findings ............................................................................................ 56
Recommendation for Practices to Address KMO Influences ....................................................... 62
Recommendations for Knowledge Influences .......................................................................... 63
Recommendations for Motivation Influences ........................................................................... 67
Recommendations for Organizational Influences ..................................................................... 69
Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 72
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................................ 73
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 73
References ..................................................................................................................................... 75
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 4

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria ................................................. 85
for Interview and Surveys ............................................................................................................. 85
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ..................................................................... 86
Interview (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................................................... 86
Appendix B: Survey Protocols and Questions .............................................................................. 87
Appendix C: Interview Protocols and Questions .......................................................................... 89
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness .............................................................................. 91
Appendix E: Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................... 92
Appendix F: Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 93
Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................... 95
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ................................................................................... 96
Level 3: Behavior ...................................................................................................................... 97
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................................................... 100
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................................... 102
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................................................... 103
Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................................................. 105

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 5

List of Tables

Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals ........12

Table 2. Krathwohl’s Four Dimensions of Knowledge .......................................................23

Table 3. Knowledge Types, Influences, and Assessments ..................................................26

Table 4. Motivational Influences and Assessments .............................................................29

Table 5. Organizational Influences and Assessments ..........................................................32

Table 6. FLM Years with Organization, Years Managing Team at Time of CRM
Implementation, and Total Years of Management Experience .............................40

Table 7. Interview Participant Demographics and Managerial Experience .........................41

Table 8. Quotes from Survey Question #15 on Perceived Value of CRM for Teams .........51

Table 9. Quotes from Interview Participants on their Confidence Level ............................55

Table 10. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .................................64

Table 11. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ..................................67

Table 12. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ...............................70

Table 13. The New World Kirkpatrick Model Four Levels of Evaluation ............................95

Table 14. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .................97

Table 15. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation........................98

Table 16. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ....................................................99

Table 17. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ...............................102

Table 18. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .............................................103

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 6

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of study .............................................................................34

Figure 2. Gender responses of survey participants................................................................39

Figure 3. Motivation survey results – expectancy value .......................................................50

Figure 4. Motivation survey results – self-efficacy ...............................................................54

Figure 5. Organizational influences survey results – mission, vision, and goals ..................59

Figure 6. Organizational influences survey results – FLM communication .........................60

Figure 7. Organizational influence survey results – FLM training on change management 61
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 7

Introduction to Problem of Practice
According to Forbes (2018), annual investments in customer relationship management
(CRM) software approached $40 billion globally in 2017. Multiple studies have concluded that
CRM projects fail to achieve a return on investment (ROI) between 55% to 75% of the time
(Awasthi & Sangle, 2012; Dimitradis & Stevens, 2008; Shum, Bove & Auh, 2008). This section
offers a brief introduction to CRM and begins to frame the more significant problem of
leadership during the implementation process.
Newby, Nguyen, and Waring (2014) describe CRM as a business intelligence tool
intended to improve a company's ability to retain customers, expand reach into untapped
customer markets, and develop a competitive advantage over competitors. Numerous studies
have concluded that organizations that invest in CRM report improved customer retention and
increased revenues (Maklan & Knox, 2009; Maklan, Knox, & Peppard, 2011; McGovern &
Parnaro, 2004). A growing body of empirical research suggests that for CRM implementations
to achieve the desired ROI for their corresponding organizations, the people part of the equation,
not the technology, is the most essential factor for success (McGovern & Parnaro, 2004; Newby
et al., 2014; Petouhoff, 2006; Pries & Stone, 2004). Within the plethora of research on CRM,
very little pertains to the role or influence the first level manager (FLM) has during the
implementation process and ultimately on user adoption.
Lussier (2009) defines an FLM as an end user’s immediate supervisor, such as the person
responsible for executing operational plans relating to implementation, participating in daily
work, and ensuring the goals of middle and upper management are met. Pries and Stone (2004)
report that FLMs play an integral part in the adoption of CRM due to their proximity to end
users, but the authors fall short in exploring the role further. As organizations pursue
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 8

investments in CRM, user adoption will inevitability position itself at the crossroads of success
and failure. The duties of an FLM, its influence during and post-implementation, as well as the
individual factors pertaining to success require further exploration.
Field-Based Context and Mission
A cross-sectional approach was applied to assess FLMs in organizations from different
industries that have integrated CRM. No limitations, such as industry, location, size, being
defined by revenue, or number of employees, were applied to select participating companies.
Organizational context and missions will vary, but the commonality of the sample will be the
reasons in which an investment was made in CRM. As noted earlier, Newby et al. (2014)
reported that companies invest in CRM to gain advantages. Pries and Stone (2004) add that
well-executed CRM can enhance customer satisfaction, incite revenue growth, and aid in
winning new customers. These corresponding motivations are presented as the basis of a unified
mission of the sample.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
This problem of not understanding the role and influence of the FLM was necessary to
address because CRM represents a significant investment to organizations (Newby et al., 2014),
and current literature on the stakeholder closest to the end user during implementation is
underdeveloped (Townsend & Loudoum, 2014). Maklan et al. (2011) epitomized the
significance of the problem in reporting that, between 2000 and 2005, total global investment in
CRM was more than $220 billion. Of that total, up to $150 billion in expenditures might not
have achieved an ROI when, according to research, 55% to 75% of CRM projects fail (Maklan et
al., 2011). A strong agreement in the literature indicates that poor end user adoption is the root
cause for failed CRM implementations (Fuchs, 2004; McGovern & Parnaro, 2004; Newby et al.,
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 9

2014; Petouhoff, 2006; Pries & Stone, 2004). An expanded investigation of the growing change
management literature suggests that leadership, or the absence of it, is the most significant
influence on poor adoption (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018; Gentry & Sparks, 2011; Higgs &
Rowland, 2005; Kotter, 1995, 2007; Shanley, 2006). In explaining the scientific reason for CRM
failures, Petouhoff (2006) suggests that companies fail to understand that they must alter the way
end users work. The individual leader who is most knowledgeable about end-user behaviors
relating to CRM and can affect the most influence is the FLM (van der Voet, 2016). Recent
studies have concluded that the FLM is ill-prepared to shepherd their teams through CRM
integrations (Gentry, Eckert, Munusamy, Stawiski, & Martin, 2013; McKnight, 2013; Shanley,
2006; Townsend & Loudoum, 2014). This study addresses the high failure rates for CRM by
adding to the literature concerned with the role of the FLM during and after implementation.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this evaluative study was to apply a modified Clark and Estes (2008)
knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences gap analysis to the role of an FLM
within the context of implementing a CRM. The fundamental question to be answered is how
well prepared is the FLM to guide their team through the implementation process to adopt a
CRM in their daily work activities. This study sought to address the following research
questions:
1. What are the stakeholder knowledge and motivation relating to leading their respective
teams’ adoption of a CRM?
2. What is the interaction between the organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation relating to leading adoption efforts with CRM?
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 10

3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that could improve the line managers’
leadership of the implementation of a CRM?
Global Performance Goal
As a cross-sectional study focusing on the FLM role in multiple organizations derived out
of several industries, there was not a unified performance goal that can be utilized or measured.
In duplicating the approach applied in the section on organizational context and mission
discussed, this study used a performance goal drawn from related literature. Fuchs (2004) points
out that while companies have a handful of different business-related reasons for choosing to
implement CRM, each should gauge success in terms of end user adoption and ROI. Due to time
restrictions and focus, ROI on the implementation of CRM is beyond the scope of this study.
Multiple studies have reported that user adoption is a leading cause of CRM implementation
failure. Awasthi and Sangle (2012) found that user adoption was the primary factor to
implement CRM successfully.
Further support was provided in a 2014 study on CRM adoption in the United States by
Newby et al., in which they agree end user adoption is a prevailing driver for successful CRM
implementations. Adoption, as defined by Jelinek, Ahearne, Mathieu, and Schillewaert (2006) is
the degree to which a person uses the system frequently, to its full capacity, and in such that it
becomes a regular part of their daily activities. In a study of 96 people over 12 weeks, Lally, van
Jarrsveld, Potts, and Wardle (2009) found that it takes, on average, 66 days for a new habit to
form. Lally et al. (2009) suggest that while just over two months is the average, it is wise to plan
for a longer habit-forming time horizon. Combining the definition of adoption by Jelinek et al.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 11

(2006) with the findings of Lally et al. (2009), the aspirational global performance goal will be
for organizations to achieve end-user adoption within three months of the implementation date.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
The stakeholder group of focus was FLMs at organizations that have implemented a
CRM within the last two years. This stakeholder group was chosen as this study's focus due to
their proximity to end users during the implementation process and, of the major stakeholder
groups (executives, end users, and CRM companies), the fact that the importance of FLMs role
and influence is underdeveloped in current literature.
The FLM is the direct supervisor for end users who have been asked to adopt CRM and
are usually represented by a title such as sales manager, service manager, or marketing manager.
Lussier (2009) describes the FLM as the most influential person to an end user during the
adoption of a change. Their position encompasses a plethora of responsibilities that include
communicator, supporter, trainer, manager, persuader, and listener (Higgs & Rowland, 2005;
Lussier, 2009). McKnight (2013) adds that the responsibility to build consensus for the change,
unite behind the common purpose, and sustain momentum for the change, while meeting current
business goals, increasingly falls to the role of the FLM.
The goal of the FLM will mirror the global performance goal. Table 1 outlines the
organizational mission, global goal, and stakeholder performance goals.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 12

Table 1

Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals

Organizational Mission
A cross-sectional study approach is being applied to assess FLM leadership in organizations
from different industries that have integrated a CRM within the last two years. A unified
mission, drawn from the literature, of improving customer retention and developing a
competitive advantage, will serve as the organizational mission.
Organizational Global Goal
Client organizations will implement and achieve end-user adoption of the CRM within three
months.

Stakeholder 1 Goal
First level managers will implement and
achieve the adoption of the CRM within their
teams within three months.

Stakeholder 2 Goal
The executive's or senior manager's
(secondary stakeholder) goal is to achieve an
ROI from the implementation of CRM as
defined by each organization.

Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the extent of the problem when organizations fail to fully
understand the role of the FLM during the implementation of CRM while also acknowledging
the historical perspective. Drawing from literature across CRM, the professional development of
FLMs, and change management theory, the section will serve to develop a thorough knowledge
of the profoundness of the problem. First, the researcher briefly introduces CRM and expands
on the current challenges facing organizations in successfully implementing it. Next, the
importance of the FLM in implementing CRM and an abbreviated analysis of the literature
relating to individual leadership development within the FLM role will be outlined. This review
will conclude with a historical analysis of the literature on change management theory and
application.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 13

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Technology
For the purposes of this study, CRM is defined by Newby et al. (2014) as a business
intelligence tool intended to achieve one or more of the following business outcomes: (1)
improve a company's ability to retain customers, (2) develop a competitive advantage over
competitors, and (3) increase employee engagement through a streamlined system experience.
Chao, Jen, Chi, and Lin (2007) assert that CRM is ranked among the most influential
technological contribution to organizations in the twenty-first century. A quick internet search,
using reputable business and industry monitoring sites, concluded that annual investments in
CRM approached $40 billion globally in 2017 (Forbes, 2018; statista, 2018). Investment in
CRM during 2017 represented an increase of 183% over investments made in 2010 (statista,
2018).
While organizations continue to invest heavily in CRM, multiple studies have shown that
between 55% to 75% of implementations fail to achieve an ROI (Awasthi & Sangle, 2012;
Dimitradis & Stevens, 2008; Shum et al., 2008). Rizzuto, Schwarz, and Schwarz (2014) found
that technology problems trigger only 5% of CRM failures. The primary cause for failure, as
reported by Awasthi and Sangle (2012), is user adoption. Of the multiple themes found in the
literature relating to change management and CRM, two emerged as being pertinent to this
study: (1) insufficient understanding of the more significant problem and (2) role clarity as it
relates to execution.
Insufficient understanding of the more significant problem. Maklan et al. (2011)
describe part of the greater challenge as the need of senior managers to achieve immediate
gratification in a rush to realize improvements in revenue and customer retention. They note that
CRM technology providers fuel a false sense of fulfillment in promising on-demand solutions
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 14

that can be implemented in as little as 90 days (Maklan et al., 2011). Kale (2004) agrees that
viewing CRM technology as a silver bullet to improve revenues and customer retention is short-
sighted and naïve on the part of senior managers approving investments. Regarding new
technology as the only solution, the mindset has also been identified as a cause of many CRM
failures (Kale, 2004).
To fully achieve success, Mazurencu-Marinescu, Minaescu, and Niculscu-Aron (2007)
suggest that organizations need to be better prepared by removing misconceptions about business
processes and user behaviors early in the implementation process and perhaps even before a
financial investment is made. Maklan and Knox (2009) argue that CRM technology is simply a
tool that is entirely dependent upon synergies between business units, processes, and people.
Before expending capital and human resources on massive CRM projects, Newby et al. (2014)
assert that companies should first apply resources to align business processes, understand the
capabilities of its employees, identify actual technology needs, and create a sound business plan
that incorporates goals.
Role clarity and execution. Along with poor end-user adoption and the silver bullet
mindset, a third potential contributor described in the literature that affects CRM project success
can occur immediately after a decision is made to invest in CRM. Senior managers remove
themselves from the implementation process by passing full authority and responsibility to their
Information Technology (IT) departments (Shum et al., 2008). While it is natural for IT to lead
the technology system integration, collaboration between business leaders, employees, and IT
improves the complementary business alignment to technology that might not occur if the
implementation is led by IT. Markus and Benjamin (1997) describe ITs role in technology-
focused projects as the tool builder and nothing more. As noted by Sherer, Kohli, and Baron
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 15

(2003), since so much of the focus is on implementing the technical solution, and not end user
adoption, the IT team can be forced to lead the company-wide effort. This approach in managing
CRM implementation has profound effects.
Kale (2004) puts forth that 55% of CRM adoption deficiencies can be attributed to
inadequate support from senior leaders. As support, BearingPoint (2003) conducted a study of
160 companies based in the United States and found that 70% of senior managers had not
established performance targets for their CRM projects before them starting. Managers, at all
levels, play a crucial role in the adoption process of new technology and without a unified vision
and clear goals from senior leaders, the FLM cannot coordinate daily user behaviors to achieve
the organizations CRM strategy (Montargot & Lahoeul, 2018). Montargot and Lahoeul (2018)
state that without the encouragement and guidance from the FLM, end users are less likely to
adopt new technology and the organization will not achieve the full benefits. These studies
suggest that IT departments, senior managers, and the FLM have important and distinguished
roles in the process of implementing a CRM; without all of these roles executing their parts well,
the overall success of the project is at risk.
First Level Managers
As previously noted, an FLM is an end user's immediate supervisor. Lussier (2009)
states that the FLM is the person responsible for executing operational plans relating to a change,
participating in daily work, and ensuring the goals of middle and upper management are met.
This stakeholder group was chosen as the focus of this study for two reasons: (1) the FLM's
proximity to the end users impacted by the implementation of a CRM and (2) the need to fill a
gap within the literature. This section discusses the FLM within the context of CRM
implementations and summarizes the current knowledge gaps highlighted in the literature.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 16

The first level manager within the context of implementing a CRM. In contrast to the
strategic function of the senior manager during implementation, the FLM is responsible for
executing tactical, localized change efforts and activities (Caldwell, 2003). Townsend and
Loudoum (2014) assert that the decentralization of management activities has contributed to
placing the FLM as the primary point of contact for employees during change. Carnall (2003)
reports that for FLMs to be successful, they need to be competent in four key leadership areas:
(1) decision making, (2) achieving action, (3) building a coalition around the change, and 4)
maintaining momentum. Adding to the competencies needed for FLMs, Townsend and
Loudoum (2014) reported that the immediate supervisor for those being impacted is responsible
for the dissemination of formal communications coming from senior managers or outside
influencers. They expand, asserting that the FLM is not only the preferred voice of change but
often the first that is heard (Townsend & Loudoum, 2014). Arif, Zahid, Kashif, and Singhu
(2016) suggest that the FLM has a leadership role in the implementation process, but is ill
prepared to do so.
Knowledge gap. While FLMs are often more knowledgeable than senior managers on
day-to-day operations, most generally have never undergone the training required to be
successful in guiding change (van der Voet, 2016). Shanley (2006) argues that many FLMs have
been put into their positions because they were strong performers as a direct contributor. He
adds that the majority of FLMs have not had the developmental experiences of being a manager
and were asked to be an FLM without any preparation or ongoing support (Shanley, 2006).
Through a quantitative study of 470 direct contributors, Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley (2009) found
that 74% of the respondents reported that their FLM was never, rarely, or only sometimes
effective in leading a change. Gilley et al. (2009) apply the traditional organizational pyramidal
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 17

shape in support of their assertion for the need to improve training for FLMs by illustrating that
the highest number of managers are on the frontline.
Agreement in the literature on the need for FLM development. Burnes (2004)
suggests that the two most prominent challenges facing organizations are leadership and change.
The most pressing is the development of managers to effectively lead organizational change
(Burnes, 2004). A quantitative study conducted by Gentry and Sparks (2011) of 9,942
international managers showed that 72.8% endorsed change management as a competency
needed for managers to be successful. Business colleges, at both the baccalaureate and graduate
levels, have been slow to embrace change management curriculum; thus, they may not be
preparing graduates for the immediate challenges of guiding change as managers once in the
workforce (Christian, 2011). Once in the workforce, Burnes (2004) points out that the majority
of FLMs often do not receive training on change management because organizations tend to treat
leadership development and change leadership as disconnected issues. Doyle (2000) reported
that for the few managers who undergo change management training, many of the programs are
too focused on technical and functional skills and lack the cultural, emotional intelligence, and
psychological competencies needed to enact change. A recent empirical study on the effects of
emotional intelligence during organizational change found a strong correlation between
successful change and FLMs who possessed higher levels of emotional intelligence (Arif et al.,
2016). Multiple studies suggest that until an FLM receives formal training on change
management and change leadership practices, their self-efficacy when guiding their teams
through change will remain low (Carnall, 2003; Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007; McKnight,
2013; Shanley, 2006).
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 18

Available self-guided tutorials. To support implementation and end-user adoption,
CRM companies have incorporated online, out of the box, generic, self-guided tutorials that are
readily available to customers by embedding their costs into licensing fees (Mallin, Jones, &
Cordell, 2010). After conducting a study using 70 end users, Rodriguez and Honeycutt (2011)
note that adoption is directly correlated to learning the new CRM. They note that this has
implicit implications for the FLM who should be coaching and encouraging a team to leverage
available self-guided tutorials to rapidly learn the new system (Rodriquez & Honeycutt, 2011).
Mallin et al. (2010) suggest that a potential drawback for online tutorials offered by CRM
companies is that they can lack authenticity for new users because they are task oriented and
generic in content. Scenario-based training, which follows a specific users sales process or
workflow, is found to be more effective in the knowledge development needed for a user to
adopt a CRM (Mallin et al., 2010). After an extensive search, this researcher found that there
was little empirical evidence to support that the online self-guided tutorials being offered by
CRM companies improved adoption.
For the FLM guiding the CRM implementation, out of the box tutorials not focused on
training scenarios are limited in their usefulness. Ahearne, Jelinek, and Rapp (2004) assert that
the system-facing procedural knowledge gained through tutorials can aide the FLM in coaching
their teams through simple tasks, such as keystrokes or navigation. However, they do little in
assisting them in garnering buy-in, momentum, and adoption of the CRM because tutorials are
system focused and adoption issues are rarely related to system performance (Ahearne et al.,
2004). To be successful, the FLM requires a keen understanding of the implementation process
(Ahearne et al., 2004) and the end user behavioral responses to change (Gentry & Sparks, 2011).
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 19

General Change Management Theory
In defining change management, popular literature contains several variants. At its core,
there is an agreement in that change management consists of the process, leadership, and tools
needed to manage the behavioral change of people within an organization (Beer & Nohria, 2000;
Kotter, 1995; Torppa & Smith, 2011). Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, and Welbourne (1999) note that
early research on the subject has been dominated by macro or a system-oriented emphasis, with
very little attention being given to the individual or micro view. In support, Herold et al.,(2007)
put forth that the focus of both researchers and practitioners have been on the change
implementation process used to mold employee attitudes and behaviors towards change. This
approach to research has produced an ideology in which the linear application of change
management has become popular. Discussed in the following sections are the origins of change
management theory, noted criticism of the linear approach, and the well-documented ineffective
record of the discipline as a whole.
John Kotter’s influence on change management. Undoubtedly, the seminal work for
change management was Kurt Lewin’s 1952 book Field Theory in Social Science (Burnes, 2004;
Cummings, Bridgman & Brown, 2016). In it, Lewin introduced a three-step process for which
organizations unfreeze, change, and then refreeze to achieve a new state of being that is different
and ideally improved (Cummings et al., 2016). Change management gained mainstream
notoriety and popularity when, in 1995, Harvard Business professor John Kotter published his 8-
step model in the book, Leading Change: Why Transformational Efforts Fail. Appelbaum,
Habashy, Malo, and Shafiq (2012) suggest that while Lewin created the approach to change
management as a process, Kotter's model brought it to life and the forefront of both research and
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 20

practice. A search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office website (2018) showed that
28 change models had been patented since 1996.
A linear approach to change. Armenakis and Bedian (1999) assert that change
management research focuses on two themes: (1) the content or "what" is changing and (2) the
process or "how" the change should occur. The second theme is the basis for Kotter's 8-step
model and the many that have followed. Common undertones among the throng of change
models include a prescribed, step-by-step process which often summarizes the importance and
need for the crafting of a future vision, improved communication, and an active, engaged leader
(Dumas & Beinecke, 2018; Kotter, 1995, 2007; Torppa & Smith, 2011). Agreement in popular
change management literature suggests that change models simplify the process of managing
change, illustrate best practices, and improve the odds of a successful outcome (Beer & Nohria,
2000; Kotter, 1995, 2007; Torppa & Smith, 2011). Higgs and Rowland (2005) conclude that
managers approach change as a systematic problem that can be resolved using a linear or
sequential process. This linear approach to change, though, is not without its critics.
Several studies have determined that the employment of change models fail to address
the behavioral needs of individuals adequately. Herold et al. (2007) argue that step-by-step
change models are not closely aligned with the realities of change within organizational context
and culture. In a study examining individual attitudes towards change management, Herold et
al., (2007) found that prescriptive approaches to change might yield unsatisfactory results. They
summarize their findings by stating that "context and people matter, beyond the what and how of
organizational change" (Herold et al., 2007, p. 948). Dumas and Beinecke (2018) suggests that
one size fits all modeled approaches to change management are insufficient in dealing with the
velocity, complexity, and constant state of change. Dumas and Beinecke (2018) described top-
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 21

down, hierarchical leadership, typical in change models, as "anachronism" (p. 868) and presented
an argument that leadership should evolve to more personal, participative, and collaborative
style. Issues relating to people are central to change management, and ultimately, it is individual
behaviors that dictate the success or failure of change, not a prescribed model (Dumas &
Beinecke, 2018; Herold et al., 2007).
Effectiveness of the linear process to change management. Kotter (1995) made the
argument that the need for a structured change management model derived from an astronomical
failure rate of up to 70% among change initiatives. Within change management literature, there
is convincing agreement that between 50% to 70% of all change initiatives fail to achieve their
desired outcomes (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Gilley et al., 2009; Kotter, 1995, 2007; Rafferty &
Restubog, 2016). After two decades of convincing research, and, as previously noted, a growing
number of patented models, Rafferty and Restubog (2016) suggest it is time to acknowledge that
structured or linear models have not improved the rate of success. An argument from Gill (2003)
indicates that the absence of success is more closely correlated to the lack of effective leadership
than comprehensive modeled approaches.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This study applies a modified version of Clark and Estes' (2008) knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences gap analysis as a conceptual framework. Clark and Estes (2008)
state that to achieve desired performance levels, gaps in knowledge, motivation, and the
influencers within the organization on individuals need to be better understood. As a cross-
sectional study focused on the role of the FLM, the objective was to collect rich data concerning
this schema from surveys and interviews, then analyze the data to determine if generalizable best
practices can be drawn.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 22

The following sections introduce literature-supported influences within each of the three
framework pillars. To begin, Krathwohl’s (2002) four dimensions of knowledge will be overlaid
to classify gaps and discuss their impact on FLM performance. Next, the motivation section
outlines the need to understand and develop self-efficacy among FLMs. Finally, organizational
influences and their effect on the knowledge and motivation on the FLM is examined.
Knowledge Influences
Krathwohl (2002), in revising Blooms taxonomy, asserts there are four dimensions of
knowledge: (a) factual, (b) conceptual, (c) procedural, and (d) metacognitive. Of the four types,
current literature on the problem suggests there may be three knowledge-specific performance
gaps among FLMs. The first is the procedural knowledge relating to the linear processes and
tools found in popular change management best practices. The second procedural knowledge
influence to be examined during this study will be the FLM's ability to effectively communicate
with their respected teams. The final knowledge gap will be the metacognitive knowledge found
in personal self-awareness through reflection on how their knowledge in the area of change
management needs to evolve. A brief review of the literature on each of these potential
performance gaps will be detailed in the following sections. Table 2 defines each of Krathwohl's
Four Dimensions of Knowledge.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 23

Table 2
Krathwohl’s Four Dimensions of Knowledge

Knowledge Type Definition
Factual (Declarative) Knowledge of specific details, terminology, events, or dates
Conceptual (Declarative) Knowledge about principles, theories, categories, and models
Procedural Knowledge of a particular subjects' methods, processes, and
when/how to use them

Metacognitive Knowledge about cognitive learning, tasks, and self-knowledge

The FLM needs to know how to lead the CRM implementation. Kotter (2007) asserts
that structured change management models create a common language around change, present
best practices, and provide managers with a step-by-step process to help guide their teams
through change. In an international study with 763 managers, Gentry et al. (2013) noted that
participants ranked change management the third most crucial competency area (out of 16)
believed to be vital for a manager to be successful. The two competency areas that ranked higher
than change management were leading employees and resourcefulness (Gentry et al., 2013). As
previously noted, there is a plethora of research that suggests that the linear approach to change
has not yielded better performance. However, as indicated by Herold et al. (2007), a reason for
poor performance in utilizing a linear approach could be the breakdown of execution on the part
of the manager. Expanding on this, Herold et al. (2007) asserts that managers are “not creating
or communicating a change vision, involving others, celebrating small wins, or being attentive to
matters of procedural justice” (p. 942). Procedural justice, as described by Herold et al. (2007),
is to apply a strict framework to follow the prescribed linear process. Ford (2005) advocates that
by providing training on procedural skills of change management to managers, they will be more
effective influencing the actions of their teams to adopt the change. Magsaysay and Hechanova
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 24

(2016) agree that successful change management training interventions help to prepare the FLM
for improving team commitment.
The FLM needs to know how to communicate the organization’s vision, goals, and
value of CRM with their team. Van der Voet (2016) suggests that successful communication
about a change initiative helps to create favorable attitudes among recipients and reduces
anxiety. Townsend and Loudoum (2014) suggest that to be successful, the FLM will need to
develop a sense of urgency and establish the criteria for success. The literature agrees that the
essential components of a successful change communication plan include a detailed description
of the current state, the desired future state after the change is adopted, a roadmap of actions that
will be undertaken to achieve the future state, and when and how success will be measured
(Kotter, 2007; Rafferty & Restubog, 2010; van der Voet, 2016).
Shanley (2006) argues that the missing link in building effective change communications
is not the construction of a vision, but the interpersonal skills needed by managers to understand
how, when, and where to communicate with their team. The FLM is central in the
communications process, states Dumas and Beinecke (2018), by first having to form a personal
opinion about the change, then by diffusing the message to their team, and finally by maintaining
a steady cadence of positivity towards the change. Dumas and Beinecke (2018) also asserts that
the personal anxiety, negative thoughts, or resistance of the FLM to the change can be reflected
in their informal communications.
The FLM needs to be reflective and self-aware of how their actions within the
context of the CRM implementation affect their team. Mayer (2011) defines metacognitive
knowledge as "one's cognitive processing and control of one's cognitive processing" (p. 42).
Metacognitive strategies are a person's ability to identify how to improve their learning. This is
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 25

suggestive of a high degree of individual self-awareness in being able to self-identify knowledge
and performance gaps and act to close them through learning (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011;
Rueda, 2011). Higgs and Rowland (2005) assert that for managers to be successful in handling
the velocity of change, they need to develop the self-reflective skills necessary to assess and, if
needed, improve their approach to guiding their teams through change. In a recent qualitative
study, Smollan and Parry (2011) found that reflective managers are more adept in leading
change. The ability to self-identify performance gaps, and take proactive steps to learn from past
failures is the preeminent competence that sets high achievers apart from low performers in
dealing with change (Bligh, Kohles, & Yan, 2018). Table 3 describes the FLM knowledge types,
influences, and assessments.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 26

Table 3

Knowledge Types, Influences, and Assessments

Motivation Influences
Motivation is described by Mayer (2011) as being the driving force behind how an
individual engages and sees a task through to completion or the desired outcome. Clark and
Estes (2008) state that an individual's motivation to accomplish a goal involves them deciding to
assert effort and see it through to successful completion. Understanding an FLM's motivational
level in leading their team to adopt CRM is important in aligning change strategy and potential
incentives. While the body of research on motivational theory is vast, there is little found within
popular change management literature that relates to the role of the FLM. Thus, this section will
Organizational Mission
A cross-sectional approach is being applied to assess FLM in organizations from different
industries that have integrated a CRM within the last two years. A unified mission, drawn
from the literature, of improving customer retention and developing a competitive
advantage, will serve as the organizational mission.
Organizational Global Goal
Client organizations will implement and achieve end-user adoption of the CRM within three
months.
Stakeholder Goal
First level managers will implement and achieve the adoption of the CRM within their team
in three months.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
The FLM needs to know how to
lead CRM implementation using
change management.
Declarative
(Procedural)
Interviews
The FLM needs to know how to
communicate their organization’s
vision, goals, and value of CRM
with their team.
Declarative
(Procedural)
Interviews
The FLM needs to be reflective
and self-aware of how their actions
within the context of the CRM
implementation affect their teams.
Metacognitive Interviews
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 27

draw up the motivational influences most cited for all levels of management and apply it to the
problem studied. The FLM motivational influences examined were expectancy-value theory and
self-efficacy.
The FLM needs to see the value of CRM. Kopelman and Thompson (1976) synthesize
expectancy-value theory as:
a person's motivation to work is a positive multiplicative function of (a) the
perceived relationship between effort and work-related rewards— a link which is
often separated into effort-performance (El) and performance-reward (E2)
components—and (b) the value or valence of these anticipated work-related
rewards (p. 238).
When end users perceive positivity between a change and personalized gains or benefits, they are
more likely to undertake the effort needed to change (Rogers, Stone, & Foss, 2008). Van der
Voet (2016) asserts that at the very core of effective change is value creation for the
organization. Sherer et al. (2003) support this in stating that many IT initiatives fail because too
much focus is placed on the implementation process rather than the business value being created.
Goodman and Loh (2011) explain that end users want to know not only ‘why' change is
occurring, but also ‘how' and ‘when'. Clarity, specification, and consistent review of
performance goals aides change efforts by continually informing those impacted by the change
where they stand concerning achieving the organization's aim (Saka, 2003). Poor value
communication by senior managers creates vulnerability in the message as potential breakdowns
ensue when middle and FLMs unconsciously or consciously create alternative narratives
(Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010). This vulnerability and the possible creation of alternative
narratives can negatively impact the FLM ability to successfully implement CRM (Rogers et al.,
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 28

2008). Rogers et al. (2008) assert that the single most crucial talking point for the FLM to
communicate to their team is the value to be added within their jobs as a result of adopting the
CRM.
The FLM needs to be confident in their ability to implement CRM within their
team. Bandura (1991) asserts that self-efficacy is the basis of motivation and must be present
for an individual to achieve desired outcomes. When motivation is needed to start, continue, and
finish a task, Bandura (1991) suggest that a person with a high degree of self-efficacy is more
likely to engage and complete it when the task is believed to be achievable. The need to develop
self-efficacy when guiding teams through change is decisively repeated within the literature (Arif
et al., 2016; Weiner, 2009; Xu, Payne, Horner, & Alexander, 2016).
Weiner (2009) suggests that a manager's self-efficacy is directly influenced by the end-
user commitment and the overall success of adopting the change. In a study of 185 employees,
Arif et al. (2016) found that direct supervisors' self-efficacy related to change management was
directly correlated to having a positive relationship with employees and performance during the
adoption period. As discretionary power continues to be pushed to lower levels of management,
FLM self-efficacy is vital to improving adoption success (Arif et al., 2016). Fitzgerald and
Schutte (2009) concluded, after examining 118 managers, that designed interventions or training
had been shown to improve the self-efficacy of the study participants and enhanced
transformational leadership behaviors. Table 4 describes the FLM motivational types and
influences.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 29

Table 4

Motivational Influences and Assessments

Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) define organizational influences as operations, procedures, or
resources that create or contribute to a performance gap. In discussing organizational influences,
Clark and Estes (2008) assert that for an individual to be successful in closing performance gaps,
it is not sufficient enough for them to be motivated and knowledgeable, but they also need to be
in an organizational environment that provides the right tools, training, and culture. At the core
Organizational Mission
A cross-sectional approach is being applied to assess FLM in organizations from different
industries that have integrated a CRM within the last two years. A unified mission, drawn
from the literature, of improving customer retention and developing a competitive
advantage, will serve as the organizational mission Newby et al. (2014).
Organizational Global Goal
Client organizations will implement and achieve end-user adoption of the CRM within three
months.
Stakeholder Goal
First level managers will implement and achieve the adoption of the CRM within their
departments/divisions/units within three months.
Motivational Indicator(s)
N/A
Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Expectancy-Value Theory – The FLM needs to
see the value of implementing CRM within their
teams.

Survey Instrument and Interviews:
Example survey prompt – What was most
beneficial to your team in implementing
CRM? (open text response)
Self-Efficacy Theory– The FLM needs to be
confident in their ability to implement CRM
within their teams.
Survey Instrument and Interviews:
Example interview prompt – At the
beginning of your CRM implementation,
how confident were you that you were
going to be able to lead your team to
adopt the new software? Please explain
your response.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 30

of general change management literature are major organizational influences that are suggested
as best practices.
The first, as stated by Kotter (1995), is the creation and communication of the vision that
includes the value to be gained by the organization and end user from the change. A vast body
of research conducted since Kotter made this assertation suggests that senior leaders may not be
fully describing the value to be created (Gilley et al., 2009; Griffin et al., 2010; Kotter, 2007;
Proctor & Doukakis, 2003). A second organizational deficiency common in the literature is the
failure to provide the FLM the training needed to develop a basic understanding of change
management principles, thus stripping them of the ability to gain self-efficacy (Gentry & Sparks,
2011; Herold et al., 2007).
The organization needs to provide change management training for the FLM before
CRM implementation. Burnes (2004) suggests that a current challenge found in leadership
development within organizations is how they treat it as a separate issue from change
management. As specified earlier, organizations cannot rely on traditional higher education to
develop the skills necessary for their graduates to guide teams through change once in the
workforce (Christian, 2011). Nor can they assume that managers will organically obtain the
knowledge (Shanley, 2006). Magsaysay and Hechanova (2016) suggest that organizations need
to be proactive in creating training on change management for FLMs that encompasses the
cultural, political, and contextual characteristics of their company. Doyle (2000) claimed that
change management skills are transferable and could yield enormous benefits to both the
individual and the organization over time.
The organization needs to provide a vision, deployment plan, and clear expectations
of what defines success. After Kotter (1995) presented his 8-step model for change, almost
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 31

every linear process that has followed has agreed on the importance for senior leaders to craft
and communicate a healthy future state vision of the corresponding change (Griffin et al., 2010).
Proctor and Doukakis (2003) expanded on this, stating that communicating the vision is the
spearhead of guaranteeing effective change. Poor vision communication by senior managers
creates vulnerability in the message as potential breakdowns ensue when middle and front-line
managers unconsciously or consciously create alternative narratives (Griffin et al., 2010).
Organizational leaders should have not only an inspiring vision but also present a roadmap for
success and what metrics (such as the calculation of ROI) will be used. Table 5 describes the
organizational influences and assessments on the FLM.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 32

Table 5
Organizational Influences and Assessments
Organizational Mission
A cross-sectional approach is being applied to assess FLM in organizations from different
industries that have integrated a CRM within the last two years. A unified mission, drawn
from the literature, of improving customer retention and developing a competitive advantage,
will serve as the organizational mission Newby et al. (2014).
Organizational Global Goal
Client organizations will implement and achieve end-user adoption of the CRM within three
months.
Stakeholder Goal
First level managers will implement and achieve the adoption of the CRM within their
departments/divisions/units within three months.
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
The organization needs to provide FLMs who
is leading the implementation of CRM a
vision, deployment plan, and clear
expectations of what defines successful
adoption for their teams.

Surveys and interviews to determine the
degree of support executive and senior
managers are providing the FLM in the form
of a clear vision of the future state, post-CRM
implementation, and an expectation for
successful adoption.
The organization needs to provide change
management training for its FLMs before
CRM implementation.

Survey and interviews to determine the efforts
made by the organization to train the FLM to
lead the implementation. Specifically, if there
was formal training, what was the focus, and
did it have a positive influence on user
adoption.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 33

Interactive Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is designed to explain the relationships between
variables described in Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences gap analysis. Maxwell (2013) explains that a study's conceptual framework serves as
an illustrated model that depicts how a researcher believes the variables of the study are
interconnected. An adept conceptual framework, as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
will act as a theoretical scaffolding for the researcher to draw upon previous research, while also
advancing the understanding and knowledge of the particular topic being studied. While this
was a cross-sectional study, current literature and the researcher's own experiences have aided in
the creation of the framework shown in Figure 1.
In this framework, the knowledge of the FLM (stakeholder) is drawn using a green circle
and is firmly placed within the organizational hierarchy and cultural influences of their
respective companies, shown as the larger blue circle. Motivation, in the form of a common
goal, for the stakeholder group is drawn outside the organization in an orange box.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 34

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of study.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data collection for this evaluative study was broken into two phases. The first phase of
the mixed methods approach utilized a survey instrument to evaluate the motivational and
organizational influences affecting the FLM during the implementation of CRM. Surveys were
essential to this study in capturing a larger sample of data on which to employ statistical analysis
to gain a greater understanding of the influences affecting the FLM (Creswell, 2014). The
second phase of the study used interviews to collect rich qualitative data on the knowledge
influences of the FLM. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) point out that qualitative research falls into
two categories: basic or applied. Applied research is intended to improve the practice or
application of a particular discipline (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thus, the data collected from
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 35

the qualitative portion of this study is indented to broaden the understanding of the relevant
knowledge of the FLM during the implementation of CRM.
Survey instrument. During the first phase of data collection, an online survey, using
Survey Monkey, was administered and open to four organizations for a total of three weeks. By
leveraging surveys to evaluate two of the three influences, the researcher was able to develop a
comprehensive understanding of what motivates the FLM to implement the CRM and how their
organization has supported, or not supported, those efforts.
The survey consisted of 21 questions: 14 five-point Likert scale questions, three open-
ended questions, and four multiple choice questions. A list of the questions is included in
Appendix B. The five-point Likert scale followed the order of 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 –
Disagree, 3- Neither agree or disagree, 4 – Agree, and 5 – Strongly Agree. Likert scale questions
were chosen to provide respondents a continuum of responses to increase the consistency of the
data being collected (Stafford, 2011). Stafford (2011) notes that the five-point Likert scale is
used to assign a numerical value to the responses and provide two anchors on each end. Each of
the Likert scale questions were written and administered in the past tense because they was
drawing from the sample population’s past experiences in implementing CRM. The ordinal data
from the Likert scale questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Creswell (2014)
describes ordinal data as following a natural order. Measures of central tendency and frequency
were used to evaluate this data set and to draw conclusions. The three open-ended questions
allowed survey participants to respond to questions using their own words (Stafford, 2011). This
provides the researcher with additional insight into the motivations and organizational influences
that might not have been considered during the development of the survey questions. The four
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 36

multiple-choice questions were a mix of categorical data, used to establish the gender of the
participants, and interval data to describe a duration of time in years.
Interviews. Due to having limited access to the FLM population, purposeful convivence
sampling was chosen as the strategy used for this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To identify
potential interviewees, FLMs were asked if they would like to participate in a brief interview
during the survey phase. A financial incentive in the form of a $10 gift card was used to
encourage interview participation. See Appendix C for the full interview protocols. The limited
access to the sample also played a substantial role in the interview procedures.
As a consequence of the vast geography of the population, online interviews were the
only method used to collect data. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) praise the internet's ability to
allow parties the opportunity for synchronous meetings through the leveraging of computer-
mediated communications (CMC) tools such as Skype, WebEx, or Adobe Connect. The CMC
medium used for this study was WebEx. While CMCs create an artificial environment that is as
close to face-to-face as possible, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) point out drawbacks to CMCs
including missing visual cues during the exchange and problems with the connection or audio.
Among the advantages CMCs offer are: (1) they are a widely accepted form of communication,
(2) they have no geographical constraints as long as each participant has an internet connection,
and (3) they are easily recorded for future review (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This last
advantage was an important feature that weighed heavily on the decision to utilize a CMC.
A total of eight survey participants volunteered to share their experiences in
implementing CRM in an interview openly. The eight participants met the sampling criteria
established for the study described in Appendix A, and they provided representation of all four of
the participating organizations. In this phase, each interviewee was asked between 12 to 15
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 37

open-ended questions, and the interviews ranged from 22 to 41 minutes in length. See Appendix
C for the list of interview questions.
Following each interview, the qualitative data was analyzed, coded using a deductive
process, and categorized according to themes. As previously mentioned, the goal of using a
semi-structured protocol is so that rhythm is developed, and rich data is drawn out of the hour-
long interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Analysis
To evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of the FLM, a
pragmatic mixed methods approach was utilized. The study followed the explanatory sequence
in first applying a quantitative survey followed by performing qualitative interviews (Creswell,
2014). Creswell (2014) puts forth that the mixed methods approach can present a researcher
with a plethora of both analytical and descriptive data that may present a complete understanding
of the problem. Through leveraging a mixed methods approach, this study yielded a full
descriptive analysis of the roles of the FLM, their influence on adoption, and the individual
factors for success.
This approach was selected due to the type of data needed to be collected and interpreted
in applying a modified knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences gap analysis (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Creswell (2014) asserts that a mixed method approach provides triangulation by
using two data collection methods for the same research question. During the closed-ended,
quantitative survey, the study evaluated the motivational and organizational influences being
applied to the FLM in the implementation of CRM. This provided the researcher the opportunity
to analyze what the FLM level of motivation was during implementation, as well as what the
organization did to influence the FLM (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During the second phase, the
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 38

open-ended, qualitative work enabled the researcher to analyze how the knowledge of the FLM
influenced the implementation of CRM (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). With both phases combined,
Creswell (2014) suggests that it strengthens the researcher's ability to draw more accurate
interpretations of the research problem. The results of both phases allowed the researcher to
interpret the level of preparedness FLMs had to guide their team through the implementation
process and successfully adopt a CRM in their daily work activities.
Participant Data
A total of four organizations agreed to take part in the study by distributing the survey
link to their FLMs and agreeing to allow FLMs to volunteer for an interview. Each organization
met the criteria outlined in Appendix A as they had implemented a CRM within the last 24
months and had not been a client of the researcher.
Of the four participating organizations, three reported implementing CRM to improve
sales team performance. A fourth organization implemented CRM to enhance customer service
call center functionality and performance. Organization A is a national manufacturer that goes to
market through a direct business-to-business sales model. The survey was distributed to 21
FLMs at Organization A. Organization B is a regional insurance broker and the smallest of the
four participating organizations. They implemented CRM in their customer service call center,
and seven FLMs were sent the survey. Organization C is an international telecom company
focused on pre-paid services to lower income individuals. A total of 56 FLMs were asked to
participate in the survey from Organization C. The last organization, D, is an international
manufacturer with a global distribution model and operates in over 100 countries. Due to the
organization's constraints, a total of 29 FLMs from Organization D were asked to take the
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 39

survey. All four organizations were represented in both the survey and interview phases of this
study.
In total, the survey was distributed to 113 FLMs at four organizations. Of these, 57
FLMs completed it for a participation rate of 50.4%. Due to confidentiality, the mix of survey
participants at each organization is unknown.
The FLMs, who participated in the survey phase, were asked their gender, number of
years they had been with the organization, the number of years they had managing direct reports,
and the number of years they had managed their teams at the time of the CRM implementation.
Of the 57 participants, 34 (60%) identified themselves as male, 20 (35%) as females, and 3 (5%)
selected the option "Prefer not to answer." See Figure 2 for the gender breakdown among survey
participants.

Figure 2. Gender responses of survey participants.
The FLM tenure distribution illustrated in Table 6 shows that 68.4% of survey participants
reported being with their team for less than five years at the time of the CRM implementation.

Male
60%
Female
35%
Prefer not to
answer
5%
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 40

Table 6
FLM Years with Organization, Years Managing Team at Time of CRM Implementation, and
Total Years of Management Experience

Years With Organization With Team at Time
of CRM
Implementation
Total # Managing
People
Less than 2 years 11 (19.3%) 21 (36.8%) 7 (12.3%)
2 to 5 years 12 (21.1%) 18 (31.6%) 17 (29.8%)
5 to 10 years 17 (29.8%) 16 (28.1%) 15 (26.3%)
10 to 15 years 13 (22.8%) 1 (1.8%) 11 (19.3%)
More than 15 Years 4 (7.0%) 1 (1.8%) 7 (12.3%)
57 – Total 57 – Total 57 - Total
For the second phase of the study, eight FLMs volunteered to be interviewed. Each of
the four organizations who participated in the study had at least one interview participant. Table
7 shows the gender, amount of time an interview participant had been with their organization at
the time of the CRM implementation, and their managerial experience.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 41

Table 7
Interview Participant Demographics and Managerial Experience
Interview
Participant
Gender Org. # of Years with
Organization
# of Years
Managing Team
at Time of
CRM
Implementation
Total of Years
# Managing
People
1 Male A 10 to 15 years 5 – 10 years More than 15
years
2 Female A 2 – 5 years Less than 2
years
5 – 10 years
3 Female B 2 – 5 years Less than 2
years
Less than 2
years
4 Male C Less than 2
years
Less than 2
years
5 – 10 years
5 Male C 10 – 15 years 5 – 10 years 5 – 10 years
6 Male D Less than 2
years
Less than 2
years
Less than 2
years
7 Female D 5 – 10 years 5 – 10 years More than 15
years
8 Male D Less than 2
years
Less than 2
years
5 – 10 years

Results and Findings
This study applied a modified version of the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO gap analysis to
better understand the influences on FLMs during the implementation of CRM, as described in
the applied conceptual framework. The findings outlined in this section are summarized from a
two-month data collection period and include 57 (N) online surveys and eight interviews. These
surveys and interviews present a comprehensive data analysis in understanding the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences affecting the FLM during the implementation of
CRM.
Four common themes emerged from the study. First, FLMs are ill-prepared to lead their
teams through the complexity of implementing CRM. Second, the execution of change
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 42

management activities during the implementation, including communications and end-user
training on the new CRM, were acutely viewed as someone else's responsibility. The third
theme to emerge related to challenges in the communication process because of the reliance of
emails as primary medium to reach user. Finally, self-reflection was not considered a valuable
use of time by those interviewed. One interviewee described self-reflection as "futile and a
waste of time" during his team's implementation of CRM because he didn't know what to do
when he realized alternative actions were needed to improve his team's adoption. The findings
are outlined in the next several sections by the influences being examined.
Knowledge Influence Findings
Table 3 described three knowledge influences that were deemed critical for the FLM to
embrace how to successfully lead their team during a CRM implementation. The first was the
procedural knowledge on how to implement CRM using change management. The second
knowledge type presented was also procedural in that the FLM needed to know how to
communicate their organization's vision, goals, and the value of CRM with their teams. The
ability of FLMs being able to apply these two procedural knowledges during the implementation
would have a substantial impact on the success of their teams adopting the new CRM. The last
knowledge type was metacognitive as the FLM would need to be reflective and self-aware
during the implementation process. FLM knowledge influences were assessed during the
interview phase, and the following knowledge findings are categorized by the three influences
described in Table 3.
Procedural knowledge of using change management to lead CRM implementation.
In assessing the interviewees' ability to lead their teams’ CRM implementation using change
management best practices, the eight interview participants were asked several questions relating
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 43

to applying knowledge from any training that they had received and their experiences during the
implementation process. This line of questioning was to establish if the interview sample had the
procedural knowledge to be successful in leading their respected teams in implementing CRM.
This study concluded that FLMs do not have the procedural knowledge needed to lead their
teams to implement CRM successfully. The qualitative findings suggest the FLMs did not have
adequate knowledge on the subject and this elongated adoption.
For those interviewees that received some form of training, they indicated it had not
prepared them to use change management practices to adopt the CRM with their teams
successfully. Of the eight interview participants, only two, participants #4 and #5, indicated that
they had received training on change management. Both participants were from Organization C,
and this led the researcher to conclude that only one of the four organizations had provided their
FLMs training on change management. After both participants acknowledged they had received
training on change management, further questioning on the depth and quality of that training
program found that it was an online tutorial that was part of the organization’s general
management training. It was noted that the particular tutorial for change management was
voluntary and was not specific to their CRM implementation. Participant #4 described the
training as “a 45-minute online course that had a few questions at the end for a quiz that I had to
pass with an 80%.” When participant #5 was asked if he was able to apply that knowledge to the
implementation of CRM, he shared the following:
To be brutally honest, it was so long ago, and I really have never taken advantage
of it. We have a group in HR that are focused on personal development and
leadership development, and I know they have created new content that is
available to all employees around how to manage change and things along those
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 44

lines. My guess is it's fairly low utilization, and certainly nothing specific to
software or any kind of technical sort of solution. Very generic, very all-
encompassing.
When asked if he had benefited from using the change management training he had received,
Participant #4 stated, “I didn’t use any of it.”
The most common response given by the interviewees when asked if they had received
change management training from their organizations was "no." Participant #1 stated, "We don't
have training on it (change management), but it would have been nice." In agreement,
Participant #6 said, "I would have liked to been trained." Participant #8 expressed that training
"could have helped me a lot." Participant #7 explained, "There was no need for her to receive
training; the (CRM) project had change resources that did everything." When asked how she felt
her team's adoption of the new CRM was going, she replied, "It's been a long six months."
Agreeing with this sentiment, Participant #3 explained, "My job was to make sure my team was
informed. Nothing more." She was asked to elaborate, so she added, "I understand the need for
change management, but it is nothing I would use. We hire people to do it." Without receiving
training on change management, FLMs did not have access to the procedural knowledge on how
to utilize change management best practices and communications to aid in their implementation
process.
Procedural knowledge communicating the organization’s vision, goals, and value of
CRM. The interviews focused on the FLM’s ability to translate broader organizational
communications to their teams and inspire action. In each, the participants were asked about
their specific role in the communication process during the implementation, their team’s
reactions to communications, and the holistic experience each interviewee had with
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 45

communications. The overarching theme was that each of the FLMs self-described themselves
as not having any involvement with the creation and execution of communication anything about
the CRM implementation. For example, Participants #1, #4, and #6 all mentioned that they
answered any questions their teams had but had no more substantial role in disseminating the
company message to their teams. Explicitly, Participant #1 stated that his team "had a lot of
questions, but he just forwarded those to the project team." Participant #4 said he emailed a
prebuilt frequently asked question (FAQ) document and used it to answer any questions his team
had and "relied heavily on the email communications being sent out by the project team."
Participant #6 noted that he was told that he "had no responsibility in communicating anything to
his team and that all communications would come from the CRM project team." He could not
recall or preferred not to mention who told him he had no responsibility in communications.
When the researcher examined this statement further by asking Participant #6 if he considers
communications from the CRM team to be effective, he responded, "No. I should have been
more involved by talking to my team at meetings and not relying so much on emails from Dan
(the main communicator from his CRM project team).”
Similarities on the communications process emerged from participants with
Organizations A, C, and D. The common pattern among the three organizations was that all
communication materials were built and distributed by a core project team using the messages
that they considered appropriate for the end user audience. Participant #1 stated, "All
communications came from the CRM team." When questioned about his role in the
communications process, Participant #1 said, "I really didn't have much to do." He added, "I
mean, I had to follow-up with my team to make sure they were reading the emails, but other than
that, I didn't do anything." Likewise, Participants #4 and #7 also expressed that the IT project
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 46

team created all messages. Participant #7 admitted that she "should have been much more
proactive" in communicating to her team and relied "heavily on emails from the IT project
team." When asked about the communication process for his CRM implementation, Participant
#5 recalled that his organization "does a really good job with sending out emails, but we fail in
making sure anyone reads them." In response to the researcher’s follow-up question on how
effective this was for this team, he admitted:
It’s a double-edged sword. We can reach our entire company with an email, but no one
reads them because they are getting between 50 to 75 emails a day. The other issue I take
with IT sending emails to my teams is that I get the information at the same time as they
do. So, if Leslie, or anyone else on my team, reads it before I do and has a question, I
can't answer it. That makes me look like I don't know what I am doing.
Participant #3, the sole representative for Organization B, had a slightly different response to her
role in the communications process. "I am the main point of contact for my team, and
ultimately, that makes me responsible for communicating with my guys." When asked what it
meant to be the main point on contact, she explained, "I had to keep my team up to date with all
the new information coming from our project team."
When probed about the communication mediums and message creation relating to the
CRM, the consensus was that emails were the primary medium and someone on the project team
created them. Participant #5 expressed that he "was kept at kind of an arm lengths away during
the written communication." When probed further about that comment, he stated, "We have
OCM (organizational change management) people to write the emails." Participant #8 echoed
this, reporting that he just went over the talking points that "were emailed to him" and ensured
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 47

that his team read all the emails. "I just needed to send the emails, not to write them. That was
done by someone on the CRM team," said Participant #2.
A sub-theme identified during the coding process related to communications was the
similarities in the messages or content being disbursed by the different project teams. Not a
single interviewee mentioned that they had received any written communication about the
organization's vision for the CRM. Only two participants, #4 and #5 from the same organization,
said they had received a notification on goals. Participant #4 remarked that he had a brief
conversation with his immediate manager and that after that conversation, a follow-up email was
sent. "Shelly and I met once, at the beginning of the project, to talk goals. But it wasn't anything
special. We talked for just a few minutes about my team's objectives, and then we moved on.
After a few days, she sent me a summary email of our goals," said Participant #4. He noted that
was the only verbal or written communication he received about goals for the CRM
implementation. Participant #5 remarked, "Early on, I was told my team's goals, but nothing was
ever done with them." In synthesizing the interview data to this line of questioning, the main
theme was that the CRM implementation team controlled the communication message and
process and that the role of the FLM during the implementation of CRM was not an integral part.
Metacognitive knowledge of being self-reflective and aware. The study evaluated the
need for the FLM to be reflective and self-aware of how their actions could affect their teams
during the implementation of CRM through interviews. The FLMs attempts to apply
metacognitive knowledge in the form of self-reflection on action were ineffective. The findings
in this section will describe that this ineffectiveness was not due to the FLMs metacognitive
knowledge; rather, it was due to the lack of declarative knowledge on how to address issues
identified during self-reflection.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 48

The emerging pattern from the eight interviews was that self-reflection on the part of the
FLM was not considered a valuable use of time. Participant #1 described his self-reflection as
"futile and a waste of time." He elaborated, "I could tell a lot was going wrong with my team
during the early weeks of our move to Salesforce, but I was never quite sure what to do about it."
Participants #3, #6, and #8 all spoke about how they realized, during reflection, that the age or
experience of a particular team member played a part in that individual's motivation in training
for the new CRM. Participant #8 stated that the training "program was not suitable" for his older
team members. This was significant because all three interviewees concluded that they
recognized the age of a team member factored into the implementation process, but were
uncertain on how to approach those direct reports with more tenure. Participant #6 pointed out
that after their first training, he reflected and knew half of his team was going to be resistance to
the new CRM because “technology did not come easy to them.” An important similarity
between those three interviewees, as shown in Table 6, is they are among the least experienced
of the eight FLMs interviewed.
When the participants were asked to describe how often they engaged in self-reflection,
Participant #3 stated:
I’ll be honest, not as often as I should. I try to do it in a little bit kind of a
monthly checkpoint with myself during the project, especially as we started with
training. But I can probably say I did it at least twice during the project. Kind of
once at the midway point, and then certainly once at the end.
Several of the interviewees admitted that they needed more self-reflection during the CRM
implementation process with their teams. Participant #8 expressed, "I knew my team expected
more from me, but we had so much going on at the time, I didn't make this a priority."
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 49

Participant #5 asserted that he "was too busy" to do a reflection. Participant #8 made similar
comments, noting, "We had too much going on and so many different changes, I didn't want to
waste time thinking about what else needed to change." Both Participants #1 and #4 used the
phrase "lacked the time" when asked if they used self-reflection.
Motivation Influence Findings
The researcher identified two motivational influences affecting the FLM during the
implementation of CRM (Table 4). The first, expectancy-value theory, suggests that the FLM
needs to see the value of implementing CRM with their teams. Questions assessing expectancy-
value focused on the CRM tool and if the FLM perceived that it would add value to the way
work was performed. The other FLM motivational influence being examined was self-efficacy
theory. To evaluate self-efficacy, the study focused on the FLMs confidence in leading their
team to adopt CRM. The findings of the study reveal that FLMs believed the CRM tool would
add value to the work they and their teams performed, but they expressed a low degree of self-
efficacy in relation to leading their teams to adopt the new CRM. This section describes the
findings for both motivational influences.
Expectancy-value was high for the CRM tool. FLMs were asked if they believed the
implementation of CRM would improve the work they do as managers. A second question asked
if they thought the CRM would improve the work their teams performed. The results of both
questions suggest that FLMs see value in implementing CRM. When asked about CRM adding
value to the work they do as managers, 31 (54%) responded favorably. Three open text answers
to Question #15 were favorable towards CRM adding value to the work the FLM does as a
manager. For example, one survey participant wrote, "The reporting features alone are worth the
investment by our company." A second response described the value of CRM, recalling, "I am
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 50

very excited about being able to identify new business opportunities and increase revenues."
When Participant #2 was asked about her perception of value being added to her role as an FLM,
she remarked, "It took me a few weeks to get it, but when it clicked, my job got easier."
Through the surveys, 18 (32%) of the respondents could neither agree nor disagree with the
statement. The remaining 8 participants, just 14% of the sample, selected that they disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the statement asking if the new CRM tool would add value to the work
they do as a manager. Participants #3 and #7 both expressed that despite wanting to believe in
the value of the new CRM, neither had yet experienced any gains to the work they do as
managers as a result of its implementation. These statements and the corresponding rating on the
survey question lead the researcher to conclude that the organization(s) might have poorly
defined the value of CRM.

Figure 3. Motivation survey results concerning expectancy-value.
The second question linking FLM motivation to expectancy-value theory was conclusive
in showing that the sample of FLMs believed that the CRM implementation would add value to
6
9
25
28
18
13
5
4
3 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
I beleived the new CRM tool would add value to the
work I do as a manager.
I believed the CRM tool would add value to the way my
team works.
# of Responses
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 51

the way their teams worked. Of the participants, 37 (65%) agreed/strongly agreed that the CRM
tool would add value to their team's work. Six open text responses to Question #15 included
themes around improving the way teams and end users perform their jobs. Table 8 shows the six
quotations relating to CRM improving the way teams work. A total of 7 (12%) respondents
indicated that they did not believe the new CRM tool would add value. Figure 4 illustrates the
survey findings relating to expectancy-value influences. The results from the interviews
indicated all eight participating FLMs believed that the new CRM would improve the way their
teams worked. Six of the eight participants stated that they could relate the purpose of
implementing the CRM back to the broader organizational mission. Participant #6, the self-
reported most junior of the interviewees, noted, "I could see how my team's work affected our
company's sales pipeline and I wanted them to realize how much their work mattered, too." Two
other participants, #2 and #7, also spoke of a desire for their teams to better understand that their
work as individual contributors' matters in the organization achieving financial goals.
Table 8
Quotes from Survey Question #15 on Perceived Value of CRM for Teams
Survey
Participant
Direct Quotes
9
“Salesforce (new CRM tool) will change the way my team works for the
better.”
11 “I love how my team will be able to plan their days and then work that plan.”
17 “Salesforce was a great upgrade for my team and will help them.”
23
"Our move to Salesforce was really good because it gives us a lot of new
features and functionality that we didn't have before."
38
“My team struggled through the first couple of months, but now we are seeing
the benefits to using it.”
51
“there are a lot of benefits to Salesforce, such as opportunities and sales
pipeline information that we never had before. I am glad we choose to
upgrade.”

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 52

An important distinction that arose in the interviews was the perception of value between
the implementation of the new version of CRM versus a net new system that was retiring an
older legacy system. Of the four participating organizations, one was upgrading their existing
CRM to a later version, while the other three were retiring legacy systems and implementing an
entirely new CRM. Participants #4 and #5 had implemented a new version of their existing
CRM platform with their teams, and their responses to questions relating to value were
significantly different than the other six participants. For example, when asked what about the
biggest benefits of the new system, Participants #4 and #5 were less robust in their responses.
Participant #5 simply noted, "The new version will improve reporting for senior managers, but
nothing much will change for my team except the screen layout." Participant #4 stated, "The
only difference is that it looks different."
In contrast, the responses to the same question by the other six participants, all of whom
were implementing an entirely new CRM, were much more detailed in their perceived benefits
of the new CRM. Participant #1 suggested that the new CRM his team had implemented "has
changed the way we do our everyday work and that has improved our sales results by 6% just in
the last four months." Participant #7 agreed, "We saw tremendous financial benefits after just a
couple months." Participant #2 thought the biggest benefits to her team were that "we finally
had just one system to use instead of three and that really save a lot of time." In agreement,
Participant #3 mentioned the "time savings" and "single source of information" as a benefit to
her team. Participant #8 stated, "I think the biggest benefit to our team is going to be the
improvement in customer data and the analytics that will help us in finding new sales
opportunities."
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 53

Self-efficacy was low among FLMs implementing CRM. The study evaluated FLM
self-efficacy in two critical areas: (1) the FLMs confidence in their ability to guide their team to
adopt CRM successfully and (2) their confidence in supporting their team after the CRM goes
live for their team. The findings of this study showed that FLMs lacked the self-efficacy needed
to implement CRM with their teams successfully. The results concluded that FLMs were less
likely to engage in change management activities with their teams due to a lack of self-efficacy.
This section presents the data of both the survey and interview phases.
When the sample of FLMs was asked if they were confident in guiding their teams to
adopt the new CRM successfully, it was an even disbursement among the sample. Forty-nine
percent of the sample said they were confident, and 51% indicated that they were either not
confident or could not agree that they were confident. In response to having the self-efficacy
needed for supporting their teams post CRM go-live, 32 (56%) of the respondents indicated that
they have a neutral or negative agreement with the statement about having the confidence to
support their teams. FLMs self-efficacy pertaining to the implementation of CRM warrants
further investigation and research. Figure 4 presents the survey results for self-efficacy.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 54

Figure 4. Motivation survey results concerning self-efficacy.
The findings of the interviews were more conclusive in finding that the participating
FLMs had a low degree of self-efficacy in their ability to guide their team’s implementation of
CRM. All eight interview participants expressed reservations towards their confidence levels on
being able to lead their teams to adopt the new CRM in the timeframe put forth by their
organizations. Evidence on the FLMs confidence level is presented in Table 9.

8
7
20
18
17
13
9
14
3
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
I was confident in my ability to guide my team to
successfully adopt the CRM.
I was confident that I could support my team after the
CRM went live for my team.
# of Responses
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 55

Table 9
Quotes from Interview Participants on their Confidence Level
Interview
Participant
Direct Quote
1 I have a lot of older guys on my team, I doubt they will use it.
2 I found out quickly that I was ready, but my team wasn’t. That really slowed us
down and there was nothing I could do to improve adoption.
3 The software wasn’t the problem, it was how quickly the company wanted us to
learn it and start using it. I couldn’t keep anyone happy.
4 I could tell by the way three of my older guys were looking at me in training that
they were not going to use the it.
5 We started out great, and then all kinda problems started to occur and I didn’t
know what to do.
6 I just wasn’t sure that I could get my team to use it.
7 I know of two people of my team that wasn’t going to be an issue, but for the
other seven, I was not confident that I was going to be able to get them to use the
new system as quickly as we needed to.
8 I have three reports with more than twenty years of experience, no way they are
going to change they way they do business because I asked them too.

A second theme relating to the FLMs’ self-efficacy was the notion of change
management responsibility. The findings of the interviews established that the overwhelming
sense from the FLMs was that the responsibility for change management activities was not
theirs. Six of the eight participants made references to the responsibility falling to someone on
the project teams, usually a change management person, and that individual was supposed to
help the FLM’s team adopt the new CRM. Participant #1 and #8 both responded that “it not my
job.” Participant #7 said her role “was just to make sure her team read the emails being sent
from the project team.” This particular notion of responsibility belonging to someone else was
also supported by Participant #2 when she reported, “If our change management team would
have done a better job, my team would have started using it sooner.” Going a step further,
Participant #4 expressed that he felt, “We hire change management people for this exact purpose.
They should be held accountable for how we do, not me.”
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 56

Organizational Influence Findings
After an extensive literature review, two organizational influences were identified as
having the most considerable influence on the FLM. The first is the need for the organization to
provide the FLM with a vision, deployment plan, and clear goals for the implementation. The
second is that the organization needed to provide the FLM with training on change management
before implementation. The following two sections discuss the findings for these organizational
influences.
Organizations did not provide a vision, plan, and set of goals during the CRM
implementation. This section evaluates the second of this study’s two research questions:
“What is the interaction between the organizational culture and context and FLM knowledge and
motivation relating to leading adoption efforts with CRM?” The findings conclude that the four
organizations included this study poorly circulated a vision and failed to establish adoption and
business goals to motivate their FLMs to successfully guide their teams to adopt the new CRM.
The results of the qualitative phase suggest that the FLMs implemented CRM without the use of
goals, and this had a negative effect. Both phases of the study were used to understand if the
FLM understood why the CRM implementation was occurring and how it fits into the broader
organizational mission and goals. To know if the organization had set team goals, the survey
asked the FLM if they knew what their team goals were at the beginning of the implementation
process. Finally, FLMs were asked if their manager took the time to explain the importance of
CRM and how it would affect the way the FLMs team's future success.
In evaluating if the sample of FLMs understood why it was important for their
organization to implement CRM, the results were mostly neutral or negative. Of the responses,
37 (65%) indicated that they were either unsure or did not understand why the CRM
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 57

implementation was necessary. Of the 41 responses to Question #16, 7 (17%) participants
expressed not knowing why the CRM was being implemented and that this was something they
would have like to have seen done differently. One response, from a male with less than two
years of managerial experience, noted, "I was just getting used to our old system and now had to
learn a new system and teach it to my guys without really knowing why." When asked if they
understood how the new CRM fit into their organization's mission and goals, 30 (53%)
responded favorably. The results to these two survey questions advocate for more
communication from organizations on why CRM is being implemented and how it relates to the
organizational mission and goals.
When the interviewees were asked if their organization provided a clear vision for the
CRM, only half of the responses from the eight participants indicated that a vision was provided
and they understood that vision. When asked if their organization provided adoption and
business goals for the CRM, only two of the eight participants answered in the affirmative.
Participant #5 expressed, "Yea, we had goals because I had to create them for my team."
Similarly, Participant #3 stated, "Our goals were known from the beginning, and we worked hard
to achieve them." The remaining six interview participants indicated that they did not have goals
related to the implementation of CRM. Both Participants #1 and #7 noted that they "did not have
goals." Participant #2 mentioned that "the project team had goals, but I didn't, and neither did
my team." Participant #8 remarked, "Having goals would have been nice." When that comment
was further explored, Participant #8 concluded:
We ended up having individual goals that we established as a team, but they
really didn't help because we didn't meet them. In hindsight, they were way too
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 58

big and ambitious. I think it would have been beneficial for our project team, or if
someone would have helped us make realistic goals.
The survey results shown in Figure 7 show that a vast majority of FLMs did not know
what their team goals were at the beginning of the implementation. Seventy percent of the
respondents selected either a neutral or negative response when asked if they knew what their
team goals were. In the open text responses, "goals" was mentioned 21 times when participants
were asked what they would have done differently (Question #16) and what information they
wished their organization had considered before the implementation (Question #17). The
emerging pattern among the eight interviewees was that the four organizations represented could
have done a better job establishing and communicating goals for the implementation of CRM.
Participant #3 shared, "I think my team just wanted to know what we had to do."
The last question exploring organizational influences concluded that 42 (74%) of the
FLMs either responded they couldn't agree or disagree with the statement asking if their senior
manager agreed with the importance of CRM or disagreed with it completely. Figure 5
illustrates the questions relating to organizational influences.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 59

Figure 5. Organizational influences survey results concerning mission, vision, and goals.
Through the survey instrument, FLMs were also asked if they felt their organization had
done an excellent job in communicating the value of implementing CRM. Only 24 (42%) of the
survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Five participants included
remarks concerning how well their organization did in communicating the value of CRM in
response to Question #15. Of the 57 respondents, 33 (58%) made a selection which suggests
they did not feel their organization did a good job in communicating value. The findings of the
survey also assert that once the CRM implementation process had started, only 15 (26%) of the
respondents knew where to find the information needed to be communicated to their teams. The
FLMs response to having all the information required to successfully implement CRM at the
beginning of their team's deployment was evenly split. The data illustrated in Figure 6 suggests
that the four participating organizations still have room for improvement regarding
communication of their vision, goals, and value of implementing CRM to FLMs.
4
15
3
5
16
15
14
9
18
17
9
15
14
10
15 15
4
0
16
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
I understood why it was
important for my
organization to implement
CRM.
I understood how CRM fit
into my organizations
mission and goals.
At the start of the CRM
implementation process, I
knew what my team’s
goals were in order to be
successful.
My immediate manager
took the time to explain
the importance of the CRM
and how it would effect
the my team's future
success.
# of Responses
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 60

Figure 6. Organizational influences survey results concerning FLM communication.
Organizations did not provide change management training for their FLMs before
CRM implementation. As previously mentioned, a key finding for this study is that FLMs do
not possess the knowledge to lead their teams to implement CRM successfully. As further
evidenced, the study revealed that only 14 (25%) of the 57 survey respondents reported that they
had undergone change management training provided by their organization. Additionally, only
30% of FLMs surveyed believed that the regular training for managers they received had
prepared them to lead the teams through the CRM implementation. Using an open text response
question, participants were asked what they would have done differently to implement the CRM
(Question #16). Seventeen (41%) of the 41 participants who responded to that particular question
included the word "training." One participant stated, "I have no idea what change management
is, and it would have been nice to have training." That participant indicated that she had between
five to ten years of management experience (Question #19) and had been managing her team
between two to five years at the time of the CRM implementation (Question #20).
3
5
2
21
19
13
12
11
21
18
8
14
3
13
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
I had all the information I needed to
successfully implement the CRM at
the beginning of my team’s
deployment.
My organization did a good job in
communicating the value of
implementing CRM.
During the CRM implementation
process, I knew where to find the
information that I needed to
communicate to my team so they
could adopt the changes.
# of Responses
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 61

An opportunity for improvement was discovered when only 20 (35%) of the respondents
believed they could solve a CRM related adoption problem if confronted. A response to the
aforementioned Question #16 remarked, "We had this big lead up to the release date and then
everyone disappeared after that. Everything was totally on my shoulders, and I needed help."
These findings suggest that organizations are not providing FLMs training on change
management, and that is having a direct impact on the FLMs ability to problem solve during the
implementation of CRM. Figure 7 shows how the 57 survey participants responded to the three
questions related to this organizational influence.

Figure 7. Organizational influence survey results on FLM training on change management.
Interviews confirmed the finding of the survey instrument regarding whether
organizations provide change management training to their FLMs before the implementation of
CRM. Only Participants #4 and #5, from the same organization, had received such training. The
training provided to them was a voluntary online tutorial consisting of 45 minutes of
generalizable content and a short quiz which served as a knowledge check. When the
participants were asked if they had received training on change management, the resounding
6
1
4
14
13 13
21
8
4
9
19 19
7
16
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
When confronted with a problem
relating to my team’s adoption of
CRM, I was able to easily find
solutions to solve it.
My organization has provided me
training on change management.
The training my organization
provided helped me to successfully
lead my team during the
implementation of CRM.
# of Responses
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 62

answer was "no." Participant #1 added, "In my 15 years managing people, I have never received
training on change management. It would have been nice." Similarly, both Participants #2 and
#6 agreed that training on change management should be included in their organization's
managerial training programs and not just specific to a particular change occurring.
When the sample was asked if they believed formal training on change management
would have improved their ability to implement CRM, all eight participants provided agreeable
responses. Participant #4, who had completed the 45-minute online tutorial offered by his
organization, expressed, "I needed to know more on how to communicate with the different
members of my team and how to get them to buy-in to the new system." Participant #5, who had
also completed the online training tutorial from Organization C, posited, "I think face to face
training using role plays and case studies would have been much better than what I received
years ago." Participant #8 concluded that "just learning how to deal with resistance would have
helped me a lot." Likeminded comments on dealing with resistance were made by Participants
#1, #3, and #6. Participant #1 stated, "I had two individuals that just wouldn't use the system,
and I didn't know what to do because I had never been trained." Participant #3 added that her
biggest opportunity was "identifying people on my team that was negative about it and stopping
them from spreading that negativity." Finally, Participant #6 agreed with the need for formal
training, saying, "I have never done this before, so any sort of training would have been helpful."
Recommendation for Practices to Address KMO Influences
This evaluative study concludes with answering the third research question: “What are
the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation and
organizational resources that could improve the line managers’ leadership of the implementation
of a CRM?” Applying an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, this researcher
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 63

analyzed a total of 57 surveys and eight interviews to evaluate seven knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting the FLM during the implementation of CRM. After a
thorough analysis, the results were placed into themes that were reported in the previous results
and findings section. The findings were then used to prepare the following section. Starting
with the recommendations for practice for the knowledge influences, the researcher puts forth a
set of improved practices to close the identified procedural and metacognitive knowledge gaps of
the FLMs during the implementation of CRM. Next, recommendations for improving the
motivational influences, specifically increasing FLM self-efficacy in leading their team to adopt
the CRM, are discussed. The recommendations section concludes with how to improve the two
organizational influences outlined as part of the conceptual framework for this study. These
recommendations are applied to the integrated implementation and evaluation plan found in
Appendix G.
Recommendations for Knowledge Influences
Revisiting Krathwohl (2002), in revising Blooms taxonomy, he asserts there are four
dimensions of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Of the four types,
this study evaluated two procedural and one metacognitive knowledge types identified through a
literature review. The first procedural knowledge gap reviewed and validated by this study
related to the FLM’s ability to apply the linear processes and tools found in common change
management best practices. The second procedural knowledge influence examined and also
validated by the study to be a gap concerned the FLM's ability to communicate with their
respective teams effectively. The last of the knowledge types this study examined was the
metacognitive knowledge found in the FLM’s personal self-awareness through reflection. As
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 64

with the two procedural knowledge types, this third was also confirmed as a gap. Table 10
summarizes knowledge influences and recommendations.
Table 10
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
The FLM needs to know how to lead CRM
implementation using change management.
(Procedural)
Procedural
knowledge is
knowledge to
complete a task
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Provide FLMs the
training needed in the
form of a workshop
focused on
implementing CRM
using change
management best
practices.
The FLM needs to know how to
communicate their organization’s vision
for CRM and the benefits of implementing
CRM with their team. (Procedural).
Procedural
knowledge is
knowledge to
complete a task
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Provide FLMs the
training needed in the
form of a workshop
focused on
communicating the
vision of
implementing CRM
using communication
best practices.
The FLM needs to be reflective and self-
aware of how their actions within the
context of the CRM implementation affect
their team. (Metacognitive).
Knowledge about
cognitive learning,
tasks, and self-
awareness
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Provide training in
which emotional
intelligence (EI) and
how to conduct self-
reflection in & on
action increases
metacognitive
knowledge to be used
during the CRM
implementation.

The FLM needs to know how to lead CRM implementation using change
management. The findings presented in this study illustrate that first level managers (FLM)
have not been exposed to change management procedures and this lack of procedural training
has impaired their ability to implement CRM with their teams successfully. To address this
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 65

procedural gap, a recommendation from the Cognitive Load Theory should be applied. Pass,
Renkl, and Sweller (2004) state that germane cognitive load is best supported when instruction is
broken into scenarios. Table 10 present a potential recommendation to conduct a workshop
focused on best practices. To support FLM learning, training on change management best
practices should incorporate organizational culture and context to ensure knowledge transfer. An
example of this would be to provide FLMs training using role-playing exercises. Kotter (2007)
recommends applying an 8-step structured process to create a common language, build
momentum, and give managers a step-by-step guide to implementing a change. Magsaysay and
Hechanova (2016) agree that successful change management training interventions help to
prepare managers for improving team commitment.
The FLM needs to know how to communicate their organization’s vision for CRM
and the benefits of implementing CRM with their team. The findings of this study have
shown that FLMs lack the knowledge needed to communicate their organization's vision to their
teams effectively. A recommendation from the principles of Information Processing has been
selected to narrow the current gap related to the FLMs ability to communicate the organizational
vision. This theory describes how building off of prior knowledge can improve learning. Table
10 provides a recommendation of using a workshop to enhance FLM communication knowledge.
An additional consideration is to combine both the workshop for change management and
communication into a single event for the FLM. A key area of focus in training FLMs to be
better communicators is how to disseminate a vast organizational goal into manageable team
goals. The recommendation then is to conduct a workshop focused on disseminating executive
vision into localized goals and impacts.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 66

Van der Voet (2016) suggests that successful communication about a change initiative
helps to create favorable attitudes among recipients and reduces anxiety. Townsend and
Loudoum (2014) add that to be successful, the FLM will also need to create a sense of urgency
and establish the criteria for success. To learn how to be better communicators, Van der Voet
(2016) suggests that stakeholders must be put through a series of exercises that demonstrate
poor, good, and better examples of how to approach a single scenario.
Provide training on how to conduct self-reflection in and on action can increase
metacognitive knowledge to be used during the CRM implementation. The findings of this
study show that FLMs do not have the metacognitive knowledge to conduct effective reflection
exercises that alter their approach to implementation. A recommendation from Cognitive Load
Theory has been selected to improve FLM metacognitive knowledge. Teaching metacognitive
strategies enables learners the opportunity to improve self-practices (Baker, 2006). By learning
said metacognitive practices, FLMs can improve CRM implementation through consistent self-
reflection in action. Table 10 puts forth that a training strategy is developed to introduce and
support FLM learning on self-reflection.
Mayer (2011) defines metacognitive knowledge as "one's cognitive processing and control
of one's cognitive processing" (p. 42). Metacognitive strategies are a person's ability to identify
how to improve their learning. This is suggestive of a high degree of individual self-awareness
in being able to self-identify knowledge and performance gaps and act to close them through
learning (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Higgs and Rowland (2005) assert that
for managers to be successful in handling the velocity of change, they will need to develop the
self-reflective skills necessary to assess and, if needed, improve their approach to guiding their
teams through change.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 67

Recommendations for Motivation Influences
Mayer (2011) described motivation as being the force behind if an individual begins and
completes a task through to the desired outcome. The FLM motivational influences examined in
this study were expectancy-value theory and self-efficacy theory. The findings of this study
concluded that FLMs believed there was great value in implementing CRM, but had a low
degree of self-efficacy in leading their teams to adopt the new tool successfully. Table 11
summarizes the motivational influences and recommendations.
Table 11
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation Influence

Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Expectancy-Value - The FLM needs to see the value in
implementing CRM within their teams.
A person’s motivation is
due to a perceived
relationship between
effort and work-related
rewards (Kopelman &
Thompson, 1976).
Create and deliver
training materials and
activities that are
relevant and useful to
the learners. Connected
to their interests, and
based on real-world
tasks (Pintrich, 2003).
Self-Efficacy - The FLM needs to be confident in their
ability to implement CRM within their teams.
Self-efficacy is the basis
of motivation and must
be present for an
individual to achieve the
desired outcome
(Bandura, 1991).
Provide clear and
accurate feedback in a
timely manner. Create
early tasks in the
implementation
process which allow
for the FLM to be
successful.

The FLM needs to see the value in implementing CRM within their teams. The
finding of this study show that 65% of FLMs surveyed believed the CRM would add value to the
way their teams work. While this was a positive result, a recommendation from Expectancy-
Value Theory has been selected to improve the FLM perceived value of implementing CRM. By
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 68

increasing utility value for learned tasks, Eccles (2006) asserts that FLM motivation is increased
and newly learned tasks are more likely to become positive business results. Pintrich (2003)
suggests that training activities should be real-world tasks that are relevant to the learner. This
supports the development of utility value for the learner (Pintrich, 2003).
For example, Montargot and Lahoeul (2018) state that senior managers often fail to
create a unified vision and clear goals. Thus, the FLM cannot coordinate daily user behaviors to
achieve the organizations CRM strategy. Van der Voet (2016) asserts that at the very core of
effective change is value creation for the organization. Goodman and Loh (2011) explain that
end users want to know not only ‘why' change is occurring, but also ‘how' and ‘when'.. Clarity,
specification, and consistent review of performance goals aides change efforts by continually
informing those impacted by the change where they stand with achieving the organization's goal
(Saka, 2003).
The FLM needs to be confident in their ability to implement CRM within their
teams. The results of the study indicate that FLMs lack the confidence required to implement
CRM with their teams successfully. A recommendation from Self-Efficacy Theory has been
selected to improve FLM confidence in implementing CRM. Pajares (2006) asserts that
motivation is improved when individuals expect a successful outcome to a newly learned task.
Through the modeling of correct or ideal behaviors, a learner can imitate the proper behaviors
until they become norms (Pajares, 2006). Once an FLM develops self-efficacy in leading their
teams to adopt change, they will no longer hold the belief that change management is the
responsibility of someone else. Table 11 recommends that a training strategy is developed to
introduce and support FLM learning on self-efficacy.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 69

In a study of 185 employees, Arif et al. (2016) found that direct supervisors' self-efficacy
related to change management was directly correlated with a positive relationship with
employees and performance during the adoption period. Weiner (2009) suggests that a
manager's self-efficacy is directly associated to the end-user commitment and the overall success
of adopting the change. The need to develop self-efficacy when guiding teams through change is
decisively repeated within the literature (Arif et al., 2016; Weiner, 2009; Xu et al., 2016).
Recommendations for Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) defined organizational influences as operations, procedures, or
resources that create or contribute to a performance gap. This study evaluated two influences
placed on the FLM by organizations. The first was the degree to which the organization
provided the FLM support in the form of a clear vision, implementation plan, and set of goals.
The second influence was that the organization should provide change management training for
the FLM before implementing CRM. Table 12 summarizes the organizational influences and
recommendations.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 70

Table 12
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization Influence

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization needs to provide FLMs
who is leading the implementation of
CRM a vision, deployment plan, and clear
expectations of what defines successful
adoption for their teams.
Proctor & Doukakis
(2003) state that
organization leaders must
be clear on their intended
future state vision and
how they plan to achieve
it.
Provide clear, timely,
and reoccurring
communication on
vision, goals, and
implementation plan.
Use modeling and teach
backs to gauge
comprehension.
The organization needs to provide change
management training for its FLMs before
CRM implementation.
FLMs are ill-prepared to
lead change, and most
have never undergone any
training relating to change
management principles
and practices (Christian,
2011)
Provide timely training
on change management
that connects current
knowledge to new
knowledge and model
the proper behaviors in
leading a team through
change.

The organization needs to provide FLMs with a vision, deployment plan, and clear
goals of what defines successful adoption for their teams. According to the results of this
study, only 25% of the respondents agreed that they knew, understood, and could restate the
organization's vision and goals related to the CRM implementation. A recommendation from
Information Processing Theory has been selected to improve the organization's ability to
communicate and create a shared vision. Mayer (2011) argues that learning is achieved when the
learner can facilitate the transfer of knowledge. For example, an FLM who can transfer the
shared vision, deployment plan, and stated goals of the organization to their team has learned
them. Table 12 suggests that a playback, or readout, of the vision by the FLM to their team is a
way to ensure the organization's vision is being correctly understood and spread throughout the
organization.
As stated earlier, Montargot and Lahoeul (2018) note that senior managers often fail to
create a unified vision and clear goals. Kotter's (1995) Eight Step Model for change
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 71

management includes vision setting as an early step that an organization must do to create a
sense of urgency and enact change. To ensure the vision is shared correctly, Mayer (2011)
suggests that learner facilitating training is an effective method for ensuring knowledge transfer.
The organization needs to provide change management training for its FLMs before
CRM implementation. Of the 57 survey participants, 43 (75%) indicated that they had not had
any formal training on change management theory and best practices. A recommendation from
the behavioral theories of learning has been selected to improve the organization’s ability to train
the FLM on change management theory and best practices. Daly (2006) asserts that for
knowledge to be transferred, the learner needs to be shown or taught with specific behavioral
objectives in mind. Townsend and Loudoum (2014) suggest that teaching change management
theory alone is not enough, and that helping prepare leaders to have critical discussions regarding
said change is far more valuable. Applying Townsend and Loudoum’s approach creates a
specific behavioral objective that the FLM can learn and apply when leading their teams through
the CRM implementation. Table 12 suggests that the organization should provide timely training
for the FLM and that modeling should be used to check the FLMs learning.
Christian (2011) states that most line managers are ill-prepared to lead change, and most
have never undergone any training relating to change management principles and practices. This
is an organizational deficiency that noted repeatedly in the literature. Failure to provide the
FLM the training needed to develop a basic understanding of change management principles
stripes them of the ability to gain self-efficacy and successfully leading change (Gentry &
Sparks, 2011). Gentry and Sparks (2011) add that for organizations to be successful with
change, they must invest in providing their line managers training on how to guide change.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 72

Appendix G detailed an integrated implementation and evaluation plan for these
recommendations.
Limitations
This study had some noted limitations. The first limitation was access to participants due
to positionality and the researcher's role as a change management consultant for CRM
implementations. Several organizations expressed a desire to participate in the study but had to
be rejected because they failed to meet the sampling criteria outlined in Appendix A. These
limitations decreased the sample size available for the study. Another limitation was defining
the first level manager or FLM. With some participating organizations, this proved more
difficult than expected due to organizational structure, global business models, and the
commonality of the word "manager" in job titles despite no responsibility for direct reports.
This, too, negatively impacted the available sample size.
A third limitation was time. To increase participation rates for the survey instrument and
the size of the sample of FLMs being interviewed, the researcher had to make concessions on the
number and types of questions used. There was also the consideration on the amount of time it
would take to complete data collection, analysis, coding, and report out on the results and
findings while meeting the rigors of this doctorate program. The last limitation of the study is
the lack of internal validity. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe internal validity as the degree
to which a study's findings can capture reality. Due to the limited size of the sample and the
constraints on the questions FLMs were asked, this study fails in establishing the meaning of
reality, and therefore, is not generalizable.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 73

Recommendations for Future Research
Several future research options were identified between the literature review and study
findings. Through the literature review, there was a significant gap identified in an
understanding of the role of the FLM during the implementation of any organizational change.
This first line of management is considered critical in the successful operations of organizations
(Gentry & Sparks, 2011), but there is still a vast discrepancy in organizations or educational
institutions preparing them to be successful change leaders (Christian, 2011). The role of the
first level manager should be explored further. A second recommendation for future research is
to evaluate organizations that are training their FLMs on change management and determine if
they realize improved performance versus organizations that are not training FLMs on change
management. A third recommendation is to evaluate the ROI of CRM in a blind study where
part of the sample has received FLM training and the other has not.
Conclusion
This study examined the role of the FLM during the implementation of CRM by applying
a modified Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences gap
analysis. Through an explanatory mixed methods approach, 57 FLMs were surveyed and eight
were interviewed. The results concluded that FLMs are not prepared to lead their teams to adopt
CRM successfully. The findings showed that organizations are failing to provide their first level
managers the training needed to develop the procedural knowledge on change management and
the metacognitive skills crucial to leading their teams through the implementation of CRM. A
second finding identified a gap in how organizations are not adequately communicating the
vision and goals of the CRM implementation with FLMs. As a result of both gaps, FLMs
exhibit low levels of self-efficacy in being able to lead their teams to adoption. Without
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 74

addressing the FLM knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence gaps identified through
this study, organizations implementing CRM might not be able to improve on the 55% to 70%
failure rates found by Maklan et al. (2011). Accordingly, this study recommends providing
training to FLMs on change management best practices and has included a training
implementation and evaluation plan (see Appendix G).

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 75

References
Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: Revisiting
Kotter's 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782.
doi:10.1108/02621711211253231
Ahearne, M., Jelinek, R., & Rapp, A. (2004). Moving beyond the direct effort of SFA adoption
on salesperson performance: Training and support as key moderating factors. Industrial
Marketing Management, 34(2005), 379-388. doi:10.2108/026217422132562761
Arif, M., Zahid, S., Kashif, U., & Sindhu, M. I. (2016). Role of leader-member exchange
relationship in organizational change management: Mediating role of organizational
culture. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 6(1), 32-41.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and
research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293–315.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/14417156841232773
Awasthi, P., & Sangle, P. S. (2012). Adoption of CRM technology in multichannel environment:
A review (2006-2010). Business Process Management Journal, 18(3), 445-471.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/14637151211232641
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/ reference/article/
metacognition/
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
BearingPoint. (2003). BearingPoint mastering the moving target: CRM business market sensing
findings in customer relationship management. McLean, VA: BearingPoint.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 76

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000, May–June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78(3), 133–141.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Yan, Q. (2018). Leading and learning to change: The role of
leadership style and mindset in error learning and organizational change. Journal of Change
Management, 18(2), 116-141. doi:10.1080/14697017.2018.1446693
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. The Journal
of Management Studies, 41(6), 977-1002.
Caldwell, R. (2003). Change leaders and change managers: Different or
complementary? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6), 285-293.
Carnall, C. A. (2003). Managing change in organizations (4th ed.). Location: Pearson.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Chao, C.-C., Jen, W.-Y., Chi, Y.-P., & Lin, B. (2007). Determining technology trends and
forecasts of CRM through a historical review and bibliometric analysis of data from 1991 to
2005. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 4(4), 415-427.
Christian, N. J. (2011). Leadership during times of crisis --the case for an organizational change
management curriculum. Proceedings of the Northeast Business & Economics Association,
497-500. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5
6100901&authtype=sso&custid=s8983984
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 77

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps:
Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33-60.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/0018726715577707
Daly, E. (2006) Behaviorism. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
behaviorism/.
Dimitriadis, S., & Stevens, E. (2008). Integrated customer relationship management for service
activities: An internal/external gap model. Managing Service Quality, 18(5), 496-511.
Doyle, M. (2000). Selecting managers for transformational change. Human Resource
Management Journal, 12(1), 3-16. =
Dumas, C., & Beinecke, R. H. (2018). Change leadership in the 21st century. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 31(4), 867-876. doi:10.1108/JOCM-02-2017-0042
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
https://www.education.com
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Fitzgerald, S., & Schutte, N. S. (2009). Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing
self-efficacy. The Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 495-505.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/02621711011039240
Forbes.com. (2018, March 3). CRM annual investment. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com
Ford, R. (2005). Stakeholder leadership: Organizational change and power. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 616-638.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 78

Fuchs, G. (2004). Change management- An underestimated key to SUCCESS? DM
Review, 14(12), 26-29.
Gentry, W., & Sparks, T. (2011). A convergence/divergence perspective of leadership
competencies managers believe are most important for success in organizations: A cross-
cultural multilevel analysis of 40 countries.Journal of Business & Psychology, 27(1), 15-30.
doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9212-y
Gentry, W., Eckert, R., Munusamy, V., Stawiski, S., & Martin, J. (2013). The needs of
participants in leadership development programs: A qualitative and quantitative cross-
country investigation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 83-101.
Gill, R. (2003). Change management or change leadership? Journal of Change
Management, 3(4), 307-318. doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/714023845
Gilley, A., McMillan, H., & Gilley, J. (2009). Organizational change and characteristics of
leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 3(1), 38-47.
Goodman, E., & Loh, L. (2011). Organizational change: A critical challenge for team
effectiveness. Business Information Review, 28(4), 242-250.
doi:10.1177/0266382111427087
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of
adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(1), 174-182.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 79

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change management: A
multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees' commitment to
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 942-951.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change
and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121-151.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/14697010500082902
Jelinek, R., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Schillewaert, N. (2006). A longitudinal examination of
individual, organizational, and contextual factors on sales technology adoption and job
performance. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 14(1), 7-23.
Judge, T., Thoresen, C., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1),
107-122.
Kale, S. H. (2004). CRM failure and the seven deadly sins. Marketing Management, 13(5), 42-
46.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kopelman, R. E., & Thompson, P. H. (1976). Boundary conditions for expectancy theory
predictions of work motivation and job performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 19(2), 237-258. doi:10.2307/255775
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73, 59.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 80

Kotter, J. P. (2007, January). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review, 85(1), 96–103.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2009). How are habits formed:
Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6),
998-1009. doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1002/ejsp.674
Lussier, R. N. (2009). Management fundamentals (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Magsaysay, J. F., & Hechanova, M. R. M. (2016). Building an implicit change leadership
theory. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(6), 834-848.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/LODJ-05-2016-0114
Maklan, S., & Knox, S. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: The missing link in CRM
investments. European Journal of Marketing, 43(11), 1392-1410.
doi:10.1108/03090560910989957
Maklan, S., Knox, S., & Peppard, J. (2011). Why CRM fails -- and how to fix it. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 52(4), 77-85.
Mallin, M. L., Jones, D. E., & Cordell, J. L. (2010). The impact of learning context on intent to
use marketing and sales technology: A comparison of scenario-based and task-based
approaches. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(2), 214-223.
doi:10.1177/0273475309360163
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 81

Markus, M. L., & Benjamin, R. I. (1997). The magic bullet theory in IT-enabled
transformation. Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 55-68.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mazurencu-Marinescu, M., Mihaescu, C., & Niculescu-Aron, G. I. (2007). Why should SME
adopt IT enabled CRM strategy? Informatica Economica˘, 41(1), 109-112.
McGovern, T., & Panaro, J. (2004). The human side of customer
relationshipmanagement. Benefits Quarterly, 20(3), 26-33.
McKnight, L. L. (2013). Transformational leadership in the context of punctuated
change. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(2), 103-112.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Montargot, N., & Béchir, B. L. (2018). The acceptance of technological change in the hospitality
industry from the perspective of front-line employees. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 31(3), 637-655. doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/JOCM-10-2016-
0192
Newby, M., Nguyen, T. H., & Waring, T. S. (2014). Understanding customer relationship
management technology adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises: An empirical
study in the USA. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(5), 1-37.
Parajes, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 82

Pass, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the
interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional
Science, 32(1-2), 1-8.
Petouhoff, N. (2006). The scientific reason for CRM failure. CRM Magazine, 10(3), 48.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pries, C., & Stone, M. (2004). Managing CRM implementation with consultants--CRM or
change management? Journal of Change Management, 4(4), 351-370.
doi:10.1080/1469701042000328445
Proctor, T., & Doukakis, I. (2003). Change management: The role of internal communication
and employee development. Corporate Communications, 8(4), 268-277.
Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2016). Why do employees' perceptions of their
organization's change history matter? The role of change appraisals. Human Resource
Management. doi:10.1002/hrm.21782
Rizzuto, T. E., Schwarz, A., & Schwarz, C. (2014). Toward a deeper understanding of IT
adoption: A multilevel analysis. Information & Management, 51(4), 479.
Rodriguez, M., & Honeycutt, E. D. (2011). Customer relationship management (CRM)'s impact
on B to B sales professionals' collaboration and sales performance. Journal of Business-to-
Business Marketing, 18(4), 335-356. doi:10.1080/1051712X.2011.574252
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 83

Rogers, B., Stone, M., & Foss, B. (2008). Integrating the value of salespeople and systems:
Adapting the benefits dependency network. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer
Strategy Management, 15(4), 221-232. doi:10.1057/dbm.2008.19
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Saka, A. (2003). Internal change agents' view of the management of change problem. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 16(5), 480-496.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Using Microsoft
Excel. (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Sherer, S. A., Kohli, R., & Baron, A. (2003). Complementary investment in change management
and IT investment payoff. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(3), 321.
Shum, P., Bove, L., & Auh, S. (2008). Employees' affective commitment to change the key to
successful CRM implementation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(11), 1346-1371.
doi:10.1108/03090560810903709
Smollan, R., & Parry, K. (2011). Follower perceptions of the emotional intelligence of change
leaders: A qualitative study. Leadership, 7(4), 435-462.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/1742715011416890
Stafford, M. (2011). Central tendencies and dispersion coming together or growing apart. Sage
Research Methods. Sage Publications, Ltd., 47-70. doi:10.4135/9781412986106
Statista. (2018, March 3). Annual investments in CRM.. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 84

Torppa, C. B., & Smith, K. L. (2011). Organizational change management: A test of the
effectiveness of a communication plan. Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 62-73.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.541364
Townsend, K., & Loudoun, R. (2014). The front-line manager’s role in informal voice
pathways. Employee Relations, 37(4), 475-486.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/ER-06-2014-0060
United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2017, November 20). Name of webpage visited.
Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/
van der Voet, J. (2016). Change leadership and public sector organizational change: Examining
the interactions of transformational leadership style and red tape. The American Review of
Public Administration, 46(6), 660-682.
doi://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/0275074015574769
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Science, 4(1),
67–75.
Xu, X., Payne, S. C., Horner, M. T., & Alexander, A. L. (2016). Individual difference predictors
of perceived organizational change fairness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 420-
433. doi:10.1108/JMP-02-2014-0061

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 85

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
for Interview and Surveys

Survey Sampling Criteria
Criterion 1. Must be a First Level Manager (FLM) as defined by having direct
supervisory duties over a team or unit of end users responsible for using the CRM being
implemented.
Criterion 2. CRM implementation must have either occurred within the last 24 months
or is currently in the latter stages of implementation by having completed end user training.
Criterion 3. The participant must not have been a client of the researcher.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Nonrandom sampling employs a convivence factor by only asking for survey participants
from organizations that agree to allow the study (Fink, 2013). The use of computer-mediated
surveys was the chosen medium due to the anticipated geographical distances between the
researcher and participants. Using nonrandom sampling, the survey was sent via a link
embedded in an email to four organizations that had expressed an interest in participating in the
study. The email included a brief introduction, an outline of the purpose of the survey, an
estimated length of time for completion, and a sample Likert style question. The survey was
administered during the first quarter of 2019 and stayed open for three weeks. To improve the
survey's response rate, a reminder email was sent one week after the initial release, and a third
email was sent 48 hours prior to the survey being closed.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 86

Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The participant must have met the criteria for the quantitative survey and
completed it.
Criterion 2. Participants must have volunteered for the interview by notifying the
researcher in the quantitative survey by selecting the box asking if they would like to participate
in a 30- to 45-minute interview.
Interview (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
During the survey, respondents were asked if they would like to volunteer to participate
in a one-hour interview. A financial incentive in the form of a $10 gift card was used to
encourage interview participation (Fink, 2013). The researcher employed convenience sampling
in selecting interview participants based on their availability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest that convenience sampling is based on purely convenience
and could potentially yield "information poor" respondents (p. 98). The researcher had planned
for this while establishing the criteria for both parts of this mixed methods study. Interviews
were scheduled directly with the volunteer by email. The scheduling email included the purpose
of the interview, information about informed consent, and how data would be reported. Once an
agreed upon date and time was established, a calendar invite was sent to the participant, and a
reminder email sent 24-hours in advance. Interviews were conducted via WebEx, and recordings
were immediately sent off for transcribing.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 87

Appendix B: Survey Protocols and Questions
A population of FLMs was solicited to participate in the study. Using nonrandom
sampling, the survey was sent via a link embedded in an email to four organizations that had
expressed interest in participating (Fink, 2013). The email included a brief introduction, an
outline of the purpose of the survey, and an estimated length of time for completion. The survey
was administered during the first quarter of 2019 and stayed open to the sample for three weeks.
Once the survey closed, the researcher analyzed the data.
The following questions were administered in the survey phase of the study. The first 14
questions applied a five-point Likert scale, and the last six are a combination of open text or
multiple choice. The Likert scale scoring will be: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3-
Neither agree or disagree, 4 – Agree and 5 – Strongly Agree.
1. I understood why it was important for my organization to implement a new CRM system.
2. My immediate manager took the time to explain the importance of the new CRM system
to the future of my team’s success.
3. At the start of the implementation process, I knew what my team's goals were to be
successful.
4. I believe the new CRM system will add value to the work that I do as a manager.
5. I believe the new CRM system will add value to the way my team works.
6. I had all the information I needed to successfully implement the CRM at the beginning of
my team’s deployment.
7. My organization did a good job of communicating the value of implementing a new
CRM system.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 88

8. During the implementation process, I knew where to find the information that I needed to
communicate with my team so they could adopt the new CRM system.
9. When confronted with a problem relating to my team’s adoption of the CRM system, I
was, or I am, able to find solutions to solve it.
10. I am confident in my ability to guide my team to successfully adopt the new CRM
system.
11. I was confident that I could support my team after the new CRM system went live.
12. My organization has provided me training on change management.
13. The training my organization provided helped me to successfully lead my team during
the implementation of the new CRM system.
14. I understand how the new CRM system fits into my organization's mission and goals.
15. What was (or would be) most beneficial for your team’s implementation of the new
CRM?
16. What would you have done differently to implement the CRM?
17. What information would you wish your organization knew or considered prior to your
team’s implementation?
18. How long have you worked for your organization?
19. How many years do you have managing people?
20. How long had you directly managed the team your lead during the implementation of the
new CRM system?

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 89

Appendix C: Interview Protocols and Questions
As noted by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the semi-structured interview allows the
researcher the benefits of using a structured interview guide, but with the flexibility to enable the
interviewee's responses to guide the discussion. Maxwell (2013) asserts that applying a semi-
structured interview will also allow the researcher to "focus on the particular phenomena being
studied" (p. 88). By creating an open, relaxed interview flow, and unwavering attention on the
phenomena, the researcher was able to collect a rich data set from the sample of eight FLMs by
placing them at ease and creating trust.
The questions utilized were premeditated and drawn from the analysis of the survey to
evaluate the FLM in the setting of the contextual framework. While the interview questions seek
to appraise the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of the FLM, the primary
focus was on the knowledge influences of the FLM in implementing CRM. The FLMs, who had
volunteered to participate, were aware of the purpose of the study and its usefulness in fostering
an understanding of the influences which affected their ability to lead their team to adopt the
CRM.
The following questions were utilized during the one-on-one interviews:
1. Tell me about your experience leading your team through the implementation process of
the new CRM.
2. How would you describe your role during the implementation process for the new CRM?
3. Please describe how your organization trained you on change management?
4. How did you apply change management best practices during the process?
5. What types of communications did your organization rely on during the implementation?
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 90

a. Please describe your role with regard to communicating your organization’s
message to your team?
b. How often did you need to communicate with your team during the
implementation?
6. Think about your first communication with your team about CRM implementation.
Please describe what you communicated?
a. What was your team’s initial response?
b. What questions came up after that first communication?
7. Tell me about how you communicated new information to your team during the
implementation process.
8. How would you describe your self-reflection process during the implementation?
a. How often did you stop to reflect on your actions, if at all?
b. Did you ever have to alter your leadership approach to get your team to respond
positively?
9. During the implementation, think of a time when you had to consider the effects of your
actions in front of your team. What was the situation, and what was your personal process
to evaluate your activities?
10. What did you feel was the most important thing for you to do during the implementation
process?
11. If I were to ask your team, what do you think they say about your leadership during the
implementation of the new CRM system?
12. How would you describe your team’s adoption of the new CRM system?

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 91

Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness
The notion of internal validity, or credibility, is defined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) as
“how research findings match reality” (p. 242). To ensure this study is credible and maintains
trustworthiness, three separate strategies were applied: (1) member checks, (2) rich descriptions,
and (3) negative or discrepant case analysis.
The first strategy, member check, is described as continuously soliciting feedback about
the data and conclusions by those who participated in the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This strategy was used during both the data collection and analysis stages.
During each stage, the researcher requested and gained additional access to three different
interview participants to ask further questions on the data that had been collected and analyzed.
Participants #1, #4, and #6 were included with member checks.
The second activity, rich descriptions, was used during the reporting stage and allows
readers the ability to match their particular context to the study. Maxwell (2013) suggests that
recording each interview can aid in producing rich or high-quality data. Finally, the researcher
had two months of data collection and another two months for data analysis to allow the data to
be thoroughly vetted against researcher expectations and assumptions. As pointed out by
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), this method of negative or discrepant case analysis offers
researchers the opportunity to identify data that challenge researcher bias. As a result of utilizing
these three strategies, the study achieves the level set for credibility and trustworthiness by the
researcher.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 92

Appendix E: Validity and Reliability
Salkind (2014) describes reliability as the degree in which a test consistently measures
something. To confirm the survey's reliability, internal consistency and interrater reliability were
utilized. Internal consistency reliability refers to knowing whether items on the survey are
consistent and represent only one construct (Salkind, 2014). The survey had two constructs:
FLM motivation and organizational influences. These were tested for reliability through
administering and soliciting valuable feedback on the instrument from the researcher's co-
workers before it being sent to the sample population. Salkind (2014) suggests that by applying
Cronbach's alpha, the researcher can correlate each Likert scale score and compare it to the total
test score to check for internal consistency. The second form of reliability was through
understanding how much the participants agree on their responses, also known as interrater
reliability (Salkind, 2014). In this, the researcher solved for the number of agreements between
participants against the total number of possible agreements (Salkind, 2014).
The validity of the survey was assessed by using criterion validity. Salkind (2014) notes
that criterion validity measures whether a survey is reflective of the participants' abilities in a
current or future state. Specifically, concurrent validity assessed the current ability level for the
FLM in terms of their motivation and the organizations' influences on achieving positive
outcomes from CRM implementation.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 93

Appendix F: Ethics
The key to this study's success was gaining access to the population. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) assert that full transparency regarding the purpose of the study, how its
conclusions will be used and reported out, and how participants' privacy will be protected will
weigh heavily on whether organizations decide to take part. Thus, the first step was to prepare
and submit all materials needed by the appropriate decision makers within the organization to
make an informed decision to allow or reject the study. As suggested by Krueger and Casey
(2009), the development of a written plan forced the researcher to work through and consider all
ideas. This written plan also sufficed as the materials needed by decision makers to provide
feedback and was used during their decision-making process to allow or reject the study
(Krueger & Casey, 2009).
Included in the written plan were several items that are important for the study's success.
These included a way for informed consent to be obtained by individual contributors. Glense
(2011 lists three elements that participants should have and know if they choose to take part in
the study. Participants need to know that “participation is voluntary, that any aspects of the
research might affect their well-being, and that they may freely choose to stop participation at
any point in the study” (Glense, 2011, p. 166).
To gain informed consent, an email was sent to all volunteers outlining the elements
mentioned above and describing how their data would be used, by whom it would be seen, and
how it would be reported. To gain voluntary participation, the researcher established and
maintained stable parameters around confidentiality on how data would be collected, consumed,
and reported back. As discussed by Glense (2011), participants need to know and believe that
their responses will be kept in confidence and that they will have a full right to privacy.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 94

Pseudonyms were used to cloak both the organizations' and individual participants' identities,
and only non-descriptive data has been reported out.
Further considerations were given to positionality and the potential for researcher bias in
the study. Maxwell (2013) describes researcher bias as an existing theory, perceptions,
subjectivity, and goals that might influence the validity of qualitative research. To reduce
research bias, the study applied triangulation through a mixed methods approach in which two
data collection methods were applied for the same research questions (Creswell, 2014).

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 95

Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Framework
This study applies the New World Kirkpatrick Model of evaluating training outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Model is an evolution of Donald
Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model, introduced as part of his doctoral dissertation in 1959
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) put forth four different
levels of evaluating training outcomes: Level 1 – Reaction, Level 2 – Learning, Level 3 –
Behavior, and Level 4 – Outcomes. The main difference between the New World Model and
Kirkpatrick’s original model is that the New World suggests that the implementation strategy
starts with Level 4 – Result and descends. Table 13 presents the implementation
recommendations based on the four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model.
Table 13
The New World Kirkpatrick Model Four Levels of Evaluation
Evaluation
Level
Evaluation
Type
Description
4 Results Measures the results of the organizations identified
performance goals within 120 days of post CRM
implementation.
3 Behavior Measures the critical behaviors of the FLM in successfully
leading and coaching their team to adopt the new CRM.
2 Learning Measures the FLMs knowledge related to learning how to
drive their team using change management best practices
effectively.
1 Reaction Measures the reactions of FLM immediately after training is
completed.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 96

Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
This was a cross-sectional study focusing on the FLM role in multiple organizations,
from several industries, and there was not a unified performance goal. For this reason, this study
utilized a performance goal drawn from the related literature. Fuchs (2004) points out that while
companies have a handful of different business-related reasons for choosing to implement CRM,
each should gauge success in terms of end user adoption and ROI. Multiple studies have
reported that user adoption is a leading cause of CRM implementation failure. Awasthi and
Sangle (2012) found that user adoption was the number one factor in successfully implementing
CRM. Further support was provided in a study on CRM adoption in the United States which
agrees that end user adoption is a prevailing driver for successful CRM implementations (Newby
et al., 2014).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kotter (2007) asserts that adoption goals should be broken into desired business
outcomes and the intended user behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) concur that result
indicators close the gap among individual behaviors and desired organizational goals. Table 14
outlines the Level 4 evaluation goals for the organization to meet its desired performance goal
within 120 days of post CRM implementation. For instance, a company's may plan to use CRM
in their call center to reduce the high number of customer calls which require escalated
(supervisor) support. The leading indicator might be the amount of time that a customer stays in
the queue (on hold) before speaking with an agent. If this example is applied to this study, the
FLM would need to be able to coach the call center agent on how to properly use CRM to reduce
wait times and support adoption through performance metrics. Table 14 proposes Level 4
Results and Leading Indicators for the FLM in leading their team to implement CRM.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 97

Table 14

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
The FLM is recognized by
senior management within their
organization for their team
adopting CRM quickly.
The FLM is mentioned in a
congratulatory newsletter or other mass
communication within their
organization.
Review organizational newsletters and
other mass communication mediums.
Internal Outcomes
The team achieves performance
goals within 120 days of post
CRM implementation.
The FLM executes all change
management communication &
training activities during the
implementation process.
Monthly short interviews with FLM
during the implementation process to
check if best practices are being
followed.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholder of focus is the first level managers (FLM) at
organizations implementing customer relationship management (CRM) software. The new
critical behaviors of the FLM to be monitored will be their execution of change management best
practices related to how they communicate with their team during the implementation. The
second critical behavior will be the FLM’s ability to support the post-training environment as a
first line support mechanism. The last critical behavior is the FLM’s ability to solve for low-
level issues that their team members have during the implementation process. The specific
metrics, methods, and timing for each of those behaviors are shown in Table 15.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 98

Table 15

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. The communications
plan is executed as
designed.
1a. The individual
communication pieces
being sent to the FLM
team members.
1a. The senior manager is
copied on all email
communications.
During the
implementation process,
plus 90 days post-go-
live.
1b. The FLM conducts
face-to-face meetings with
their team to ensure
questions are being
answered.
1b. The senior manager
attends team meetings and
observes the FLM behavior.
Random times during
the implementation
process.
1c. The FLM direct reports
are ready for the
implementation.
1c. Online surveys to assess
end-user readiness.
90 days and 30 days
before the
implementation.
2. Retrain end users on
critical CRM processes
once back in the field.
The number of one-on-one
training events given by
the FLM to individuals.
Self-reporting to senior
manager
Weekly.
3. FLM can solve low
level (non-technical)
issues that end users
have.
The number of support
calls the help desk to
receive.
Automated tracking by Help
Desk software that shows call
in information and assigns
the call to the proper FLM &
issue.
Weekly. Submitted to
the senior manager.

Required drivers. The FLM requires their senior manager and the organization to train,
reinforce, and support the proper behavior. This suggests that organizations must train their
FLM on change management and put in place the accountability and support structures to ensure
training is pulled through to the desired behaviors. It also suggests that the FLM’s senior
manager be equally versed in the execution and oversight the proper behaviors. Table 16
illustrates the required drivers in supporting the critical behaviors of the FLM.

FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 99

Table 16
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Role-playing with a senior
manager and peers on how to
communicate to the team.
Monthly 1a, 1b
Checklist to track and mark
off communication activities
as they occur.
Ongoing 1a, 1b
Reports to show FLM the
number and types of support
calls that are being called
into the Help Desk by their
team.
Weekly 1c, 2, 3
Encouraging
Feedback and encouraging
from senior manager.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Recognition in the company
newsletter or other mass
communication.
Monthly 3
Public acknowledgment of
excellent behaviors during an
all-hands meeting with peers.
Monthly 1, 3

Organizational support. The FLM’s organization should be required to develop the
conceptual and procedural knowledge of change management best practices for the FLM to
apply while leading the CRM implementation. Organizations should strive to put their managers
through change management training that is focused on improving the critical behaviors
identified during this study and outlined above. As further support for the FLM, the plus two
managers, or the next level of management above the FLM, should also participate in the
necessary change management training. By completing the training themselves, the plus two
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 100

managers can better monitor, coach, and, as needed, correct the FLM's critical behaviors
identified in this section.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) assert that Level 2 Learning is the most familiar of
four evaluating levels for training professionals. The most common mistake made by a trainer at
this level is the failure to be "purposeful and deliberate" when deciding on training topics will be
evaluated (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 42). The following 10 learning goals are
recommended based on the results and findings of this study.
Learning Goals. Upon completion of the training program, the FLM should be able to:
1. Identify CRM value and WIIFMs (what’s in it for me) that will most influence their
team’s behaviors.
2. Understand that perceived value and WIIFMs are personal, and individual team members
might be motivated or demotivated by different factors.
3. Develop a team-centric plan to communicate, reinforce, and support the team's
comprehension of the value of CRM.
4. How to communicate using multiple channels and identify which channel is preferred by
their team members.
5. Be able to create a personal connection with individual team members via interpersonal
or face-to-face communication.
6. Apply self-reflection techniques to recognize when communication is not having a
positive effect on behaviors and can alter the approach.
7. Prepare and be able to have difficult conversations when individual team members are
slow to adopt.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 101

8. Leverage their organizations existing performance management system to set individual
goals, monitor them, and hold individuals accountable for achieving established goals.
9. Support their teams CRM adoption as a secondary training resource after the initial
training has occurred.
10. Manage adoption expectations with senior managers by identifying pockets of resistance
and presenting a resistance plan.
Training program. The ten learning goals for the FLM will require a minimum of eight
hours of classroom learning and an additional two hours of one-on-one coaching activities post-
classroom training. Upon completion of the training sequence, the FLM will be able to
successfully apply the new knowledge in leading their teams to adopt CRM. It is recommended
that both classroom training and one-on-one coaching take place in person, when possible. In
the event this is not possible, the eight hours of classroom training should be divided into four,
two-hour online modules.
The classroom training should be interactive and engaging, and learners should be
inspired to participate. This synchronous environment should be a blend of short teachings,
followed by group or small team activities that are pre-designed to reinforce the learning which
had just occurred. Included in these group activities should be role playing team meetings and
one-on-one conversations, teach backs of the information only covered, and sharing of past
experiences with change and how to apply the new learnings. To support the learners, the
training facilitators will need a set of printed aids to reinforce lessons. These should include the
conceptual theories presented, as well as the organization's procedural information that needs to
be conveyed and followed once the FLM has returned from the training.
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 102

Evaluation of the components of learning. Critical to supporting the learning will be
the evaluation of knowledge transfer. The FLM will need to demonstrate that they understand
the new declarative and procedural knowledge through assessments conducted during and post-
training. Table 17 presents the evaluation components of the recommended learning program for
the FLM. Note the blend of evaluating knowledge comprehension during and post-training is
intended to ensure maximum transfer and identify gaps of each learner so that those gaps can be
the focus of the one-on-one coaching.
Table 17
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Role-playing observations During training
Multiple choice assessment During training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Retrospective Survey Post-training survey to evaluate the learning
experience
Instructor observations During training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Retrospective Survey Post-training survey to evaluate the learning
experience
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Role-playing observations During training
Retrospective Survey Post-training survey to evaluate the learning
experience
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Retrospective Survey Post-training survey to evaluate the learning
experience
Create an individual action plan During training

Level 1: Reaction
Learner reaction is important to understand if there is perceived value in the training
course. It offers the instructor the opportunity for self-reflection in action and the chance to alter
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 103

the direction of the training while in motion. The instructor should always be observing the
reactions and behaviors of the attendees to gauge engagement and asking those who are not
participating for input. Post-training evaluations should include asking the FLM’s manager (the
+2-senior manager) to have a discussion with the FLM and provide relevant feedback to the
training team. Table 18 presents the recommended components to measure reactions to the
training program.
Table 18
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Instructor observations During training
Role-playing observations During training
Relevance
Retrospective Survey One week after training completion, and a
minimum two weeks before one-on-one
coaching begins
Ask for learner feedback Quick check-ins with learners following
scheduled breaks (can be done in a group or
individually)
Customer Satisfaction
Retrospective Survey One week after training completion, and a
minimum two weeks before one-on-one
coaching begins
Feedback from FLMs +2 managers +2 managers should have a post-training
discussion with FLMs within one week of
completion

Evaluation Tools
Critical to any successful training program are the tools used for evaluating its
effectiveness. When evaluation tools are applied, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) assert that
training programs will better support their organizations by ensuring learnings are transferred to
critical behaviors, programs are continuously improved upon, and there is demonstrated value for
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 104

the program. The following two sections outline recommendations for how to immediately
evaluate Level 1 and Level 2 learning goals and how to evaluate Level 3 and Level 4 goals after
a delayed period.
Immediately following the program implementation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) suggest that Level 1 and Level 2 training evaluations are most effective when conducted
directly after learners have finished the training program. The choices put forth in the
recommendation as mentioned above section for Level 1 and Level 2 evaluation tools include
instructor observations, asking learners for verbal feedback, and retrospective surveys. Each of
these tools can be employed with minimal effort by the training team, but can they can have a
profound impact on learning outcomes.
For example, one of the participating organizations in this study has over 80 FLMs that
would require training on change management if the recommendations from this study are
accepted. Therefore, the 80 FLM participants being asked to complete the suggested eight hours
of change management instruction might have to be broken down into manageable classroom
sizes. In effectively using the prescribed evaluation tools during the first few FLM training
seminars, the instructors can identify which training activities are meeting learning goals. The
training team can take immediate action in deciding which activities need to be improved upon,
eliminated, or continued by asking the FLM to take a short survey post-training immediately.
This just-in-time evaluation aids in an improved learning environment and enhances learning
being transferred to Level 3 Behaviors.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Being a cross-sectional
study, no single organizational performance goal was identified as a focus for improvement.
Instead, this study applied Fuchs (2004) rationale in that each company implementing CRM
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 105

should gauge success in terms of end user adoption and ROI. Fuchs (2004) asserts that the end
user adoption of CRM results in improved ROI, and leading indicators are tool usage and data
quality. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) argue that delays in evaluation for Level 3
Behaviors and Level 4 Results will produce more insightful results. Delays for evaluating
training outcomes for Level 3 and Level 4 metrics should not be single events or snapshots in
time, but ongoing. For example, leading indicators for Level 3 Behaviors can start to be
measured immediately upon the CRM tool going live. Simple metrics, such as users logging into
the tool or users using certain tool features, can be measured and evaluated in a timely manner,
and reported out to senior leadership quickly. The idea, as pointed out by Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), is that these evaluations are an ongoing process and not a single snapshot in
time.
During the interview phase of the study, Participant #1 said the new CRM "had improved
our sales results by 6% just in the last four months." Note the self-reported delay of four months
in this statement. Level 4 Results, such as sales trends, will need to be measured both
continuously and frequently because when implementing a new CRM tool, they cannot be
actioned immediately.
Data Analysis and Reporting
As one study participant opined, “It is futile and a waste of time for training program
managers to collect data without adequately analyzing it and reporting it out to result in actions.”
No tangible value is gained by an organization when training data is not collected for any of the
four levels discussed in this study. Little value is obtained by the organization when data is
collected, but no action is taken to analyze and apply its findings to decision making. In
addressing the analysis and reporting out of training data, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
FIRST LEVEL MANAGERS 106

recommend that it should be simple to prepare, relevant due to its timing, accurately displayed,
and addresses the learning goals without prejudices. The CRM tools being implemented today all
have smart analytical and reporting capabilities that can be easily set up to report out on Level 3
Behavior indicators and Level 4 Results. The critical task for training managers to complete
when using CRM data analysis and reporting functions is to engage business leaders at all levels
to determine the appropriate end user, team, and business goals for each of these two levels.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A customer relationship management approach to improving certificate completion

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

Customer satisfaction with information technology service quality in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Development of intraorganizational post-merger collaboration plan: an evaluation study

PDF

Learners’ perceptions of the microlearning format for the delivery of technical training: an evaluation study

PDF

A study of manager reflective practice

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

Retention rates and burnout among medical assistants: an evaluation study

PDF

The Army’s process to evaluate costs versus benefits: a case study on the change of command ceremonies

PDF

Officer performance appraisal program management: an evaluative case study

PDF

The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementing proactive safety strategies in place of reactive safety strategies at a manufacturing organization: an evaluation study

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Human error risk reduction in aviation: an evaluation study

PDF

Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study

PDF

Implementing organizational change in a medical school

Asset Metadata

Creator Crosby, Christopher Roy (author)

Core Title An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/29/2019

Defense Date 07/27/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Adoption,change management,CRM,customer relationship management,first-level managers,Management,management training,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change management,software implementation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Peterson, Wendy (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email crcrosby@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-198725

Unique identifier UC11662760

Identifier etd-CrosbyChri-7677.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-198725 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CrosbyChri-7677.pdf

Dmrecord 198725

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Crosby, Christopher Roy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA