Hensmans (2015), Journal of Organizational Change Management

The Trojan horse mechanism and reciprocal sense-giving to urgent strategic change

In a European merger, executives won fast buy-in by getting trusted old-guard insiders to vouch for the change, at the risk of resentment later.

Parts of the Loop it informs

Make sense togetherMixed Start it close to the workMixed

Read the original paper

Summary written by Unfrozen from the published abstract, then checked twice by independent reviewers against the source. Loop coding is exploratory and AI-assisted, pending human verification. Spot an error? Email info@unfreeze.us and it gets fixed.

Questions this study helps answer

What the research saysDoes trust in leaders matter during change?

Related studies

Huy et al. (2014)Over three years of a radical change, middle managers went from supporting their top leaders to mutiny as they reassessed whether those leaders were legitimate, and their emotional reactions fed rising resistance.Huy (2011)In a three-year case at a large tech firm, executives treating strategy as a purely task-focused job unintentionally stirred middle managers' group identities around tenure and language; the resulting emotions saw managers, even ones executives promoted, back or quietly brush off an initiative.Eggers (2016)After IBM's plasma display bet failed, middle-level champions recast the case for LCDs in business terms for senior managers, and IBM went on to lead LCDs.Alfoldi et al. (2017)At Unilever, regional mandates given to subsidiaries proved ambiguous; several units negotiated what they meant and reshaped their scope over time, with boundary-spanning middle managers doing the most intense sensemaking.