When employees resist change, emotions often run high. Our new study, published in the Journal of Management Studies, shows that middle managers play a crucial role in turning negative emotions into constructive engagement during strategy implementation. Drawing on a nine-month ethnographic study in a European public broadcaster, we identify how managers validate frustration and then guide teams toward reappraisal and commitment. The findings highlight that strategy meetings are not only cognitive fora but also emotional arenas where change succeeds – or fails. 

Why emotions matter in strategy 

Strategic change is rarely just about logic and planning. Teams often respond with fear, scepticism, or frustration when new initiatives disrupt established ways of working. Research has long shown that ignoring such emotions undermines change. But how should managers respond? The prevailing advice has often been to “reframe” or “sell” the strategy more positively. Yet psychological research suggests that trying to change emotions too quickly can backfire. For example, when a leader responds to frustration with instant optimism –  “Let’s stay positive, this change will be great!” – employees may feel dismissed rather than reassured. Their frustration lingers, now coupled with irritation at not being heard. Our study addresses this tension: how can middle managers acknowledge negative emotions while also nurturing the enthusiasm needed for implementation? 

How we studied it 

We conducted a nine-month ethnographic study in a North European public broadcasting company as it underwent major strategic changes: digitalization, faster decision-making, and stronger customer focus. We observed 52 video-recorded strategy meetings, interviewed 64 producers and journalists, and shadowed middle managers across informal settings. This gave us a rich, real-time view of how emotions were expressed and regulated in the everyday work of strategy implementation. 

What we found: a three-phase process 

Our analysis revealed that middle managers regulate emotions in three interconnected phases. First, they tune in: noticing verbal and non-verbal cues, asking how people really feel about a new strategy. Second, they validate: acknowledging that frustration or concern is legitimate, sometimes even amplifying it to create a sense of shared recognition. Only then do they move to reappraisal: reframing the issue, emphasizing benefits, creating urgency, or breaking down abstract ideas into practical steps. In one meeting about the broadcaster’s digitalization strategy, a journalist expressed clear frustration: “We’ve been told to ‘be more digital’ for years, but no one explains what that actually means.” The middle manager didn’t rush to reassure or reframe. First, she tuned in – noticing the tense tone and leaning forward to ask, “Can you tell me what feels unclear?” When the journalist vented that the strategy felt abstract and disconnected from daily work, she validated the concern, acknowledging that “it has been confusing” and inviting others to share similar feelings. Only then did she move to reappraisal, suggesting small, concrete first steps – “Let’s start by using short video clips in our news stories before we plan bigger changes.” The mood in the room shifted from frustration to constructive engagement. This sequencing matters. Reappraisal without validation often fails; validation without reappraisal risks stalling change. But together, these phases create a dynamic process that turns resistance into motivation 

Why it matters 

Our findings show that emotional timing is as important as strategic timing. Too often, managers jump straight to solutions, hoping that positivity will overcome resistance. Yet our data suggest that the real art lies in moving step by step: listening first, validating second, and only then reframing the conversation. When managers follow this rhythm, strategy meetings shift from sites of tension into spaces of renewed engagement. For organizations, the implication is clear: training middle managers in emotional skills is not a “soft” add-on, but a strategic necessity. 

Who should care 

This study will resonate with middle managers steering the daily tensions between top management and frontline teams, executives and HR leaders designing leadership programs that integrate emotional intelligence with strategic competence, and scholars and practitioners interested in the micro-dynamics of organizational change. 

Closing thought 

Strategy is not just a battle of ideas; it is also a manoeuvring of emotions. By learning to acknowledge, validate, and reframe emotions in the right sequence, middle managers can transform frustration into fuel, making the difference between a strategy that falters and one that takes root.