2. 2
LIST OF CONTENTS PAGE
Title page 1
List of Contents 2
List of Tables 3
List of Figures 3
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 4
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Organisational Change as a Concept 7
2.2 Theories and Approaches to Chan 12
2.3 Leading Change 11
2.3.1 Leaders as Change Agents 13
2.3.2 Creating a Shared Vision 13
2.3.3 Communicating Change 14
2.4 Individual Resistance to Change 15
2.5 Transactional or Transformational Leadership 17
CHAPTER 3 - CONCLUSION 19
REFERENCES 21
APPENDICES 24
Appendix A: Multi Direction Lines of Communication 25
Appendix B: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs 26
List of Tables Page
3. 3
Lewins 3 Stage Change Model 9
Competencies of an Effective Change Agent 16
Comparison of Transactional & Transformational Leadership 18
List of Figures Page
PEST Factors and Organisational Change 7
Comparison of Lewin, Kotter, Cameron & Green Stages of Change 10
Dunphy & Stace Contingency Matrix 11
Temporal Relationships Between Mental Models of Change 12
Kubler Ross Grief Model 16
5. 5
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
Organisational change is viewed by Senior and Flemming (2006) as, a complex and multi-
dimensional action that affects different organisations in diverse ways, and appears inversely at
different levels of an organisation. They posit that unlike many of the change models and theories
approached in literature, leading change is not a simple process of following a linear set of pre-
prescribed stages, to successfully reach a desired future vision.
Burnes (2004) tells us that change is embedded into organisational life, suggesting that the
importance of recognising where an organisation needs to be in the future is integral and
paramount to its survival.
With contemporary organisations experiencing change, whether planned or emergent, on a
greater scale than ever before, (Kirkbridge & Obeng, 1994), the focus of how to successfully
manage change programmes has increasingly been directed towards those charged with leading
it. Kotter (1996) argues that successful change is 70-90 per cent leadership and 10-30 per cent
management. John Kotter’s focus, stressing the importance of affective change leadership, in
contemporary organisations, during increasing turbulent and competitive times, is mirrored by
Graetz (Todnem 2005, p.370), who adds, ‘with increased globalisation, deregulation, the rapid
pace of technological innovation, growing workforces and shifts in demographic trends, few would
dispute that the primary task for todays management is the leadership of organisational change’.
The available literature, models, theories and practices of organisational change management are
extensive. Leadership as a concept is even more extensive and Bennis and Nanus (1997) state
that it is the most studied and least understood concept of all social sciences. With such a diverse
and extensive body of available literature, models, theories and practices, and with increased
focus on leadership during change, the shift from a reported failure rate of change initiatives of 70
per cent (Kotter, 1996. Balogan & Hope Haily, 2004), towards a more profitable number should be
evident. It is therefore the focus of this paper to critically review Leadership as a responsibility of a
Change Agent, and discuss suggested models, practices and frameworks associated with leading
change
7. 7
Literature Review
2.1 Organisational Change as a Concept
When organisations are referred to and considered as open systems, it implies that the
organisation is in a consistent and interactive, mutually dependent association with the
environment in which it operates. The impact of globalisation has increased the rate at which
organisations experience change and many authors (Lombard & Zaaiman 2004, Senior &
Flemming 2006, Weick & Quinn, 1999) advocate that contemporary organisations are in a
constant state of managing change to match the challenges presented externally. These externally
met factors impacting the stability of the organisation are multi-faceted, and are described by
Nadler & Tushman (Senior & Flemming 2006, p.16) as, ‘all factors outside of the organisation that
have a potential to impact on the organisations current operating state’. Figure 2.1 demonstrates a
simplified PEST analysis of potential externally driven factors that can trigger change.
Figure 2.1 PEST factors and
Organisational Change:
Adapted from Senior &
Flemming (2006)
ORGANISATION
• Government Legislation
• Government Ideology
• International Law
• Universal Rights
• War
• Local Regulations
• Taxation
• Trade Union Activity
• Competitors
• Suppliers
• Currency Exchange Rate
• Employment Rates
• Wage Rates
• Government Economic
Policy
• Foreign Economic Policy
• Financial Institutions
• Change from public to private
• Demographic Trends
• Lifestyle Changes
• Skills Availability
• Attitudes to Employment
• Attitudes to minority Groups
• Gender Issues
• Willingness & Ability to move
• Concerns for the
Environment
• Business Ethics
• Information Technology
• Internet
• New Production
Processes
• Computerised
Processes
• Changes in
Transportation
Technology
Political
Factors
Economic
Factors
Technological
Factors
Socio-
Cultural
Factors
8. 8
The theory of organisations being a socially interactive system holds that internally the
organisation is made up of several sub-systems that are co-dependant. As externally driven
factors trigger a need for change, one or more of the organisations sub-systems will be affected,
and as the sub-systems are also inter-dependant and socially integrated (Millet 1998), a ripple
effect is carried throughout the entire system, making it imperative for the organisation to instigate
changes to its internal environment and systems, to remain competitive within its field.
Duncan et al (1998, p.6) argue that the abundance of literature relating to organisational
environments and change focuses heavily on externally driven factors, and often focuses on the
internal environment in terms of its ‘functional assessments of financial, human resource,
information systems, and marketing strengths and weaknesses’, rather than attempts to identify
the present and potential competitive advantages of the organisation. By maintaining an evaluation
of the organisations internal environment and strategic strengths and weaknesses, and integrating
them with identified externally driven threats and opportunities through a process of continuous
adjustment, those leading change are often better prepared for the often messy and turbulent
nature that change represents, (Burnes, 2004).
2.2 Theories and Approaches to Change
Weick & Quinn (1999, p382) suggest that in order for leaders to understand organisational
change, ‘they must first understand organisational inertia, its content, its tenacity and its
interdependencies’. They essentially hold that it is not enough for a leader to simply rely on
command and controlling measures, or inbuilt traits or charisma; Their skill set must include the
wider organisational knowledge to better assist in the analysis of its environment, predict drivers
for change and recognise barriers that can stifle change efforts in the form of resistance.
Planned implementation of change facilitates and maintains the status quo and therefore provides
a measure of stability and equilibrium. Planned Change was first cited by Kurt Lewin (Cameron &
Green 2009), who implied that before change and new behavior can be adopted successfully, the
previous behavior must be discarded (Todnem 2005), and that as individuals we should seek to
address the forces that oppose our own views. Lewin’s ‘field’ theory and force field analysis
suggested that behavioural change is a consequence of changes of forces within the field and his
three step model, (Table 2.1), seeks to analyse these forces to help shift the balance in the
direction of planned change.
9. 9
Phase Action
1 Unfreeze Create initial motivation to change by convincing people that
current state is undesirable.
2 Change Identify new behaviours and norms. Communicate. Adopt new
attitudes and culture.
3 Refreeze Reinforce new behaviour through reward systems,
communications, structures etc.
Table 2.1 Lewin’s 3 step Model: Source: Cameron and Green (2009).
Critics of planned change, (Kilman & Covin 1988, Senior & Flemming 2006) argue that it assumes
organisations operate in a state of relative stability, and that they are able to predict the stability of
change to maintain equilibrium. They add that the fast moving and transformational pace of
contemporary organisations, does not support a process that seeks to introduce incremental and
pre-identified, discrete and self contained events, Burnes (Todnem 2005). These top-down driven
processes of planned intervention are also criticised for failing to involve all stakeholders as it
rarely allows time for competent multi-directional communication. In this regard it is presumed that
stakeholders, including employees, are willing actors in the process and that a common vision can
be easily reached.
This step of devolving the humanistic and cognitive aspects of change has brought critics to
Lewins 3 step model. Gilley (2009) suggests there is a failure to consider the human factor, and
lacks any leadership driven preparation for resistance to change. Edgar Schein (Cameron & Green
2009) developed on Lewins model with ‘Cognitive Redefinition’, adding unfreezing sub-processes
of disconfirmation, survival anxiety and the creation of psychological safety, a point stressed by
Amenakis et al (1999) who hold that support for, or resistance to a change effort, includes a
change agents ability to recognise cognitive precursors from the organisation, the individual, and
their readiness for change. Those supporting the planned approach to change would propose that
the precise reason leaders should employ purposeful self- regulated adjustments, is to condition
its employees to change through an ongoing and cumulative effect, thereby reducing the risk of
individual resistance (Carter et al 2012).
In response to this criticism of the planned approach to organisational change, ‘the emergent
approach has gained ground’, (Todnem 2005, p.374). Burnes (2004) suggests that organisational
change is a more open ended and unpredictable process, a view shared by Kilman and Covin
(1988), who view change as a long term complex and incremental process of shaping how change
unfolds over time. Viewing the process of organisational change as unpredictable and a
relationship that impacts on several layers of the organization, aligns with the systems theory
discussed, that any change involving a sub-system has a ripple affect throughout the organisation.
10. 10
In contrast, followers of planned change suggest that internal pre-prescribed changes made
locally do not impact or influence other sub-units.
Emergent approaches to change stress that the complexity of leading change should involve the
assessment of precursors, and cognitive aspects, that if ignored can produce rigorous barriers in
the form of resistance, (Mullins 2010). Emergent change therefore encourages the use of a bottom
up approach to change, where audience analysis is key and stakeholders are consulted through
effective leadership and robust lines of multi-directional communication, as opposed to the top
down approach embodied in planned change. Many proponents of emergent change, (Kotter
1995, Cameron & Green 2009, Kanter 1992), tout that organisations and those leading change
should follow a sequence of ‘actions’, and as a result several theories and models have been
developed. Kotters (1995) eight-stage process prescribes why change initiatives fail and he argues
that in order for leaders to foster successful change his eight stages must happen in order.
Cameron & Green (2009) hold that change is difficult throughout the entire process and is a
continuous cycle, rather than a linear process. They criticise Kotter’s eight stages claiming they
are too straightforward and that the latter stages fail to carry the enthusiasm and momentum of the
early stages.
Figure 2.2 Comparison of Lewin, Kotter and Cameron & Green Stages. Authors’ adaptation
Lewin (1951) Kotter (1995) Cameron &Green (2004)
1 3 4 5 6 7 82
Increase
Urgency
Build
the
Guiding
Team
Get
the
Right
Vision
Communicate
for
Buy-‐in
Create
Short
Term
Wins
Don’t
Let
Up
Empower
Action
Make
it
Stick
Creating
a
climate
for
change
Engaging
and
enabling
the
whole
organisation
Implementing
and
sustaining
change
UNFREEZE CHANGE
Establish
Need
for
Change
Build
the
Change
Team
Create
Vision
&
Values
Notice
Improvement
and
Energise
Communicating
and
Engaging
Empowering
Others
REFREEZE
CONSOLODATE
11. 11
Despite the recent criticism given to Kurt Lewin, both Kotter’s and Cameron & Greens stages
(Figure 2.2) along with many others touted in literature, still appear to follow Lewins three stage
recipe. This gives merit to Burnes’ (2004) argument that rather than being outdated or redundant,
Lewin’s approach is still relevant, awarding legitimacy to both the planned and emergent
approaches of leading change.
Dunphy & Stace (1993) posit that organisational change is so complex and unpredictable that
there is not a ‘one best way’ to approach or lead it. They argue that the size of the change, from
small fine tuning to larger organisational change, the size of the organisation, and number of
individuals involved will dictate the leadership style employed. Dunphy and Stace propose the use
of planned and emergent approaches and apply relevant styles of leadership to match and
achieve the desired transformation, (Figure 2.3.).
Figure 2.3: Dunphy & Stace Contingency Matrix: Authors adaptation form Dunphy & Stace (1993)
Van De Ven and Sun (2011) align with the view of Dunphy and Stace. They suggest that by using
Reflective Strategies to support ‘Action’ Strategies, that seek to quash resistance, conceptual
mental models can be revised to match the socially constructed events appearing during the
organisations change, and demonstrate this with Van De Ven’s and Pooles’ (1995) process model
of change, (Figure 2.4).
Van De Ven & Suns (2011, p.67) proposal, suggests that shifting mental models to match the
‘temporal contexts of change’, allows the strengths of one model to pick up the weaknesses of
Type 1
Participative
Type 2
Charismatic
Type 3
Forced Evolution
Type 3
Dictatorial
Collaborative
Consultative
Directive
Coercive
Leadership
Style
Fine Tuning
Incremental
Adjustment
Modular
Transformation
Corporate
Transformation
12. 12
another.
Figure 2.4 Temporal Relationships Between Mental Models of Change: Adapted from Van De Ven & Sun
(2011)
Whether planned, emergent or contingency, incremental or transformational, reactive or proactive,
the often disruptive, turbulent and individually distressing nature of change is generally not
disputed. It is the ability to identify and successfully implement organisational change, creating an
atmosphere and culture within which change is about learning and creating a shared vision, that is
being increasingly recognised as the role of leadership (Kotter 1996).
2.3 Leading Change
Analysing Leadership has assumed several approaches and Northouse (2011) suggests that there
are as many competing theories and models of leadership as there are books and studies on the
subject. Trait Theory assumes leaders are born with the qualities regarded necessary to fulfill that
role, and therefore strive to identify psychological similarities. Group Theory studies the function of
leadership such as Adairs (1979) Action Centred Leadership Model and assumes that leadership
Dissatisfaction
Implement
Goals
Search/
Interact
Set/Envision
Goals
Stage 4
(Terminate)
Stage 3
(Harvest)
Stage 1
(Start Up)
Stage 2
(Grow)
Variation Selection Retention
Antithesis
Thesis
Conflict Synthesis
EVOLUTION
(COMPETETIVE CHANGE)
DIALETIC
(CONFLICTIVE CHANGE)
LIFE CYCLE
(REGULATED CHANGE)
TELEOLOGY
(PLANNED CHANGE)
13. 13
can be developed; Behavioural theory such as McGregors X and Y theory examine distinct
styles of leadership such as autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. Contingency theorists view
leadership as contextual and dependent on the nature of the organisation and not tied to one of
many typologies, (Jones & Kriflic 2006). The common ground shared by contemporary
organisations is that successful leadership is a critical competence and advantage, to meet the
challenge and turbulent nature of change, Caldwell (2006).
2.3.1 Leaders as Change Agents
Tushman & Romanelli (Umukoro 2009) claimed that only those in executive levels of leadership
have the potential to successfully implement change. This has brought with it the assumption that
at the senior levels of organisational ‘management’ life is relatively stable, and as such they are
unlikely to deviate away from their current course, preferring instead to maintain the status quo.
Challenging the status quo and aligning an organisations vision towards the desired future state is
the job of those championed with leading change, where the Leadership style adopted encourages
individuals to forego their own self-interests for those of the organisations development. Despite
the wide range of studies done in the name of leadership, a contemporary consensus throughout
is that when leading change, a visionary approach, communication and trust are crucial to
success, (Jones and Kriflic 2006). In addition, despite the criticism trait theory has received, and a
contemporary assumption that no one mould of leadership style exists, some characteristics and
competencies (Table 2.2), are viewed as being essential for successful change agents, (George et
al 2007).
2.3.2 Creating a Shared Vision
Whatever drives the need for an organisation to change, it is perceived that the present state is no
longer adequate, (Pettinger 2007). A desired future state must be visualised, and in order to
facilitate its successful implementation, and reduce possible individual resistance, the vision must
be shared by all of the stakeholders involved. Before employing salesman like tactics to promote
the future vision and formulate change initiatives, a change agent must have a clear understanding
of the organisations needs and desired future state. With this knowledge the change agent must
display a firm belief in the future vision and sell it through example, sacrificing their own self-
interests, challenging the status quo and asking the individual to sacrifice their own self-interest for
those of the wider organisation, (Mullins 2010). This view is shared by McGuire & Hutchings (2006,
p200) who posit that actors selling change must harness self-interest for the ‘common good of the
organisation’ where mutual goals are articulated.
14. 14
The ability to maintain commitment through example is further touted by McGuire & Hutchings
(2006, p199) who quote Machiavelli as saying: ‘When you see a minister thinking more of himself
than of you, and seeking his own profit in everything he does, such a one will never be a good
Minister, you will never be able to trust him.’ A sentiment shared by Kanter et al (1992) who argue
that influencing and maintaining a shared vision through example and functional communication,
can only be achieved if those champions pushing change make it absolutely clear that they
themselves believe in it.
Competencies of an effective Change Agent
Goals Roles Communication
1. Sensitivity in changes in key
personnel, top management
perceptions and market
conditions, and to the way in
which these impact the goals of
the project.
2. Clarity in specifying goals, in
defining the achievable.
3. Flexibility in responding to
changes with the control of the
project manager, perhaps
requiring major shifts in project
goals and management style
and risk taking.
4. Team building activities, to bring
together key stakeholders and
establish and establish effective
working groups and clearly
define and delegate
responsibilities.
5. Networking skills in establishing
and maintaining appropriate
contacts within and outside the
organization.
6. Tolerance of ambiguity, to be
able to function comfortably,
patiently and effectively in an
uncertain environment.
7. Communication skills to transmit
effectively to colleagues and
subordinates the need for
changes in project goals and in
individual tasks and
responsibilities
8. Interpersonal skills, across the
range, including selection,
listening, collecting appropriate
information, identifying concerns
of others and managing
meetings.
9. Personal enthusiasm, in
expressing plans and ideas.
10. Stimulating motivation and
commitment in others involved.
Competencies of an effective Change Agent
Negotiation Managing Up
11. Selling plans and ideas to others, by creating a
desirable and challenging vision of the future.
12. Negotiating with key players for resources or for
changes in procedures and to resolve conflict.
13. Political awareness, in identifying potential coalitions
and in balancing conflicting goals and perceptions.
14. Influencing skills, to gain commitment to project plans
and ideas from potential sceptics and resistors.
15. Helicopter perspective, to stand back from the
immediate project and take a broader view of priorities.
Table 2.2 Competencies of an Effective Change Agent: Adapted from Buchanan and Boddy (1992)
2.3.3 Communicating Change
Top down approaches to communication, adopted in planned change, may be necessary to
enforce or impose a radical change to combat unforeseen and imminent threats from the
organisations environment. The increased recognition of the individual and cognitive aspects,
Cameron & Green (2009), of change by contemporary theorists, views effective communication by
change agents as pivotal and synonymous with the implementation of successful change
initiatives (Kotter 1996), establishing a shared vision and reducing individual resistance. The
arguments against imposed, command and controlling forms of communication, tout that imposed
15. 15
change fails to consider an individuals needs, aspirations or motivation, which can promote the
formation of resistance as an individual that is kept in the dark will often formulate their own, often
negative interpretation of what is happening, (Duck 1993).
Lack of or inappropriate communication can increase perceived levels of threat in individuals,
magnified if the change that is being imposed directly affects them. The self-interest, once
discarded during the unfreezing process, in favour of the organisations desired future vision, is
subsequently re-ignited as levels of motivation and trust are reduced; trust that Quirke (1995) touts
as being difficult to recover when an individual perceives it is being betrayed.
Self interest is often viewed as the principle motivation of employees, (McGuire & Hutchings
2006), and aligns with Vrooms (1964) Expectancy Theory which is concerned with the cognitive
precursors that stimulate motivation, the way they relate to one other and reward (Lunenburg
2011). Therefore those leading change need to communicate in as transparent a manner as is
possible, through as many channels available, and with such frequency that individuals will
embrace the message, (Kotter 1995).
Husain (2013) evokes the involvement of all stakeholders at the start of the process. A robust
stakeholder and audience analysis will often uncover unforeseen barriers that could develop
resistance to change; therefore involving all stakeholders from the outset can aid the anticipation
of resistance and the desired momentum of the project. The learning aspects of leading change
also benefit, as multi-directional communication (Appendix A), not one-way transmissions, allows
for positive or negative feedback up the chain (Quirke 1995), and as Mullins (2010) suggests,
individuals that are involved in decisions that directly affect them, will gain a sense of ownership
and are more likely to align with the organisations vision. As Ford et al (1995) claim, change does
not just happen, it is negotiated through leadership and communication; communication is the
context within which change occurs.
2.4 Individual Resistance to Change
Senior & Flemming (2006) express the pivotal role that the change agent plays in recognising and
reducing resistance. They posit that organisations that impose change using uni-directional
communication fail to consider the cognitive and humanistic aspects that change can bring. Bovey
& Hede (2001, p372) contends that management usually ‘focuses on the technical elements of
change, and neglects the equally important human element’, a sentiment matched by Bradutanu
and Prediscan (2012) who add that those implementing the change at executive level do not
experience resistance, as they are the ones deciding what is being changed. This view aligns with
the argument that managers seek to maintain the status quo, and it is therefore the job of the
16. 16
change agent to challenge the status quo by driving the need for change. Although a clinical
study, the Kubler Ross’ Grief Model (Figure 2.6) is used extensively by change practitioners to
support the theory that any change process brings with it hard wired and natural responses.
Figure 2.5: Kubler Ross Grief Model: Adapted from Cameron & Green (2009)
It is the recognition of such cognitive aspects that Mullins (2010) suggests is a functional
competence of the change agent, and Mabin et al (Boohene & Williams 2012, p136) contend that
leaders recognising and embracing negative behaviour can assist change by helping to challenge
and refine the change programme. Sutton (2007) also holds that individuals experience different
levels of psychological states, and that people fear and seek change in equal measure,
representing a perceived level of both risk and opportunity. This perception can subsequently be
exploited by those charged with leading change to motivate individuals in the direction of the
organisations desired future vision. Referent Cognitions Theory, holds that negative behaviour can
be induced when an individual is not allowed to express opinions on decisions that affect them,
supporting the view approached in paragraph 2.3.3, that robust involvement, through an
audience/stakeholder analysis from the outset, can assist change agents to reduce resistance by
anticipating potential barriers to change. The behavioural aspects of resistance, displayed covertly
or overtly (Bovey & Hede 2001, Mullins 2010) are viewed as significant barriers to change, and
should be harvested to promote a culture that shares the same values.
Kubler Ross Curve applied to Change
DENIAL
They are not
really going
through with it
ANGER
This is a
waste of time
and money.
What is wrong
with the old
system
BARGAINING
There had better
be some serious
incentives for
doing this extra
task
DEPRESSION
I can’t believe
they are actually
doing this
ACCEPTANCE
It is different but
I can see the
advantage
MOVING ON
This new
change is more
efficient and
actually allows
me to manage
my work better
17. 17
The change agent must be competent at recognising that undesirable behaviour is not
something that should just be quashed, and change agents must display the same values through
example to avoid becoming a force of resistance in their own right (Prediscan & Bradutanu 2012),
because as Senior & Flemming (2006) suggest, those organisations with high levels of resistance
have very few effective change agents.
2.5 Transactional or Transformational Leadership
James McGreggor Burns (1978) proposed that organisations operate in two basic states,
Convergent (stable) and Divergent (unstable and unpredictable), to which he identified and
attached two different styles of leadership, Transactional and Transformational.
Transactional leadership builds on the premise that an individuals self interest and expectancy are
cognitively significant factors. Pearce and Sims (2002) say transactional leaders optimise self-
interest to motivate individuals to engage in behaviours that that will maximise their expected
return for performance. Transactional leaders focus on the organisations current position, offering
reward and punishment for performance and compliance, to optimise efficiency and maintain the
status quo, supporting Burns (1978) proposal that organisations can operate in a convergent state.
Yet if leadership of change is to be defined in terms of contemporary theorists, then failure to fully
integrate stakeholders in the change process, dismissing resistance as dissent and not a hard
wired fight or flight response to threats (Cameron & Green 2009), and trying to create a shared
vision without in some way challenging the status quo, then transactional leadership does not align
with contemporary change management.
Transformational leadership finds its history in Charismatic Leadership styles such as Robert
Houses’ (1976) Charismatic Leadership Theory, (Pearce & Sims 2002). Fiol et al (1999) hold that
neo-charismatic leadership styles such as charismatic, visionary and transformational leadership,
articulate visions that are based on ideological values, offer innovative solutions to major social
problems, support change and are more effective in dealing with cognitive and socially driven
conditions of stress and crisis. Burns (1978) proposes that transformational styles of leadership
appeal to the values and needs of leaders, drawing on Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (Appendix B),
and he was quick to espouse and inject ethical and moral components into his model, from the
standpoint of the leader and in support of the individual. Transformational leaders draw on the
higher values of individuals (Bass & Avolio 1994), and in contrast to transactional leaders,
transformational leaders seek to ask individuals to forego their self-interest and intrinsic needs for
the greater good of the organisation. Transformational Leaders inspire individuals through
charismatic, inspirational and integrity driven leadership (Table 2.3), selling the mutually beneficial
and value-laden need for change, and challenging the status quo.
18. 18
Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership
• Builds on a mans need to get job done
and make a living
• Is preoccupied with power and position,
politics and perks
• Is mired in daily affairs
• Is short term and hard data orientated
• Focuses on tactical issues
• Relies on human relations to lubricate
human interactions
• Follows and fulfils role expectations by
striving to work effectively within current
systems
• Supports structures and systems that
reinforce the bottom line, maximise
efficiency and guarantee short term
profits
• Builds on mans need for meaning
• Is preoccupied with purposes and values,
morals and ethics
• Transcends daily affairs
• Is orientated toward long-term goals
without compromising human values and
principles
• Focuses on missions and strategies
• Releases human potential – identifying
and developing new talent
• Designs and redesigns jobs to make
them meaningful and challenging
• Aligns internal structures and systems to
reinforce overarching values and goals
Table 2.2 Comparison of Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Adapted from Covey (1992)
Planned or Emergent, through environmentally driven factors and unpredictable cognitive
precursors, change is a difficult and often messy process. Leadership is essential to its success,
and the Transformational Leader fits the mould and Divergent state that change presents.
20. 20
Conclusion
Increased globalisation, and the fast pace of the environment in which contemporary organisations
operate, will only accelerate the rate of change (Mullins 2010). Leading organisations and
individuals through the divergent state that change presents, is being seen as pivotal to
galvanising support for and implementing a desired future vision. This vision can ‘dissolve into a
list of confusing, incompatible and time consuming projects that can head in the wrong direction or
nowhere at all’ (Kotter 1996, p7), if individuals perceive that leadership contradicts their own views
or challenges their values, commitment and motivation. Therefore leadership must be displayed
through example, dedication and ethically underlined behaviour, which foregoes self-interest and
narcissism.
Change Agents should not be charged with leading change purely through a position of hierarchy,
longevity within the organisation or as a means of boosting a CV, (Duck 1993), they must have an
expressed and proven knowledge of the concepts, theories and facets of change. Recognition of
the cognitive aspects is key to identifying possible areas of overt and importantly covert resistance;
as covert resistance provides no visible discord yet just as successfully undermines change
processes as when overt resistance is manifested (Mullins 2010).
Values driven leadership that appeals to the organisations and individuals needs, will drive change
in the desired direction. Through affective leadership, individuals will embrace the future instead of
‘clinging defensively to what they currently have’ (Kotter 1996, p.185), freezing a shared future
vision, thus reducing the current reported failure rate of implementing organisational change.
21. 21
REFERENCES
Balogan, J. & Hope-Hailey, V. (2004) Exploring Strategic Change. 2nd
edn. London: Prentice Hall.
Bass,B. & Avolio, B. (1994) Improving Organisational Effective: Through Transformational
Leadership. London: Sage.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. (1997) Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. 2nd
edn. New York: Harper.
Boohene, R. & Williams, A. (2012) ‘Resistance to Organisational Change: A Case Study of Oti
Yeboah Complex Limited’, International Business and Management, 4(1), pp. 135-145.
CSCANADA [Online]. Available at: http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/ibm/article/view/j.ibm
(Accessed: 26 March 2013).
Bovey, W. & Hede, A. (2001) ‘Resistance to Organisational Change: the role of cognitive and
affective processes’, Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 22(8), pp. 372-382.
MCBUP [Online]. Available at: http://www.mcbup.com/research_register// (Accessed: 8 March
2013)
Buchanan, D. & Boddy, D (1992) The Expertise of the Change Agent: Public Performance and
Backstage Activity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Burns, J. (1978) Leadership. Harper Row: New York.
Burnes, B. (2004) Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics. 4th
edn.
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Caldwell, R. (2006) Agency and Change. Routledge: London.
Cameron, G. & Green, M. (2009) Making Sense of Change Management: A complete guide to
models, tools and techniques of organizational change. 2nd
edn. London: Kogan Page.
Carter, M. Armenakis, A. Field, H. & Mossholder, K. (2012) ‘Transformational Leadership,
Relationship Quality and Employee Performance during Continuous Incremental Organisational
Change’, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, DOI 10.1002/job.1824. WILEY [Online]. Available
at: http://business.troy.edu/Portal/Data/Sites/1/userfiles/46/carter-et-al.-job-in-press.pdf (Accessed:
14 March 2013).
Chaston, I. (2011) Public Sector Management: Mission Impossible. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Duck, J. (1993) ‘Managing Change: The Art of Balancing’, Harvard Business Review on Change,
pp. 55-81.
Duncan, j. Ginter, P. & Swayne, E. (1998) ‘Competitive Advantage and Internal Organisational
Assessment’, Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), pp. 6-16. TKE [Online]. Available at:
http://turbo.kean.edu/~jmcgill/assess.pdf (Accessed: 24 February 2013).
Dunphy, D. & Stace, D. (1993) ‘The Strategic Management of Corporate Change’, Human
Relations, 46(8), pp. 905-920.
22. 22
Fiol, M. Harris, D. & House, R. (1999) ‘Charismatic Leadership: Strategies for Effecting Social
Change’, Leadership Quaterly, 10(3), pp. 449. UPENN [Online]. Available at:
http://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu/l_change/publications/house.shtml (Accessed: 6 March
2013).
Ford, J. & Ford, L. (1995) ‘The Role of Conversations in Producing Intentional Change in
Organisations’, Academy of Management, 20(3), pp. 541-70. JSTOR [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/258787?uid=3738032&uid (Accessed: 7 March 2013).
George, B. Sims, P. Mclean, A. & Mayer, D. (2009) ‘Discovering Authentic Leadership’, Havard
Business Review, 2(7), pp.129-138. EBSCO [Online]. Available at:
http://chapters.ewb.ca/pages/chapter-presidents/leadership-articles-and-
links/Discovering%yourself%20your%authentic%leadership.pdf (Accessed: 14 April 2012).
Giily, A. Gilly, W. & McMillan, S. (2009) ‘Organizational Change: Motivation, Communication and
Leadership Effectiveness’, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 75-94. WILEY [Online].
Available at: http://www.performancexpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Organizational-
Change-Motivation.pdf (Accessed: 2 March 2012).
Husain, Z. (2013) ‘Effective Communication Brings Successful Organisational Change’, The
Business Management Review, 3(2), pp. 43-50. ABRMR [Online]. Available at:
www.abrmr.com/download.php?file=7-dubai13.pdf (Accessed: 22 March 2013).
Jones, R. & Kriflic, G. (2006) ‘Subordinates expectations of Leadership Within A Cleaned-Up
Bureaucracy: a Grounded Theory’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, 19(2), pp.
154-172.
Kanter, R. Stein, B. & Jick, T. (1992) The Challenge of Organisation Change. New York: Free
Press.
Kilman, R. & Covin, T. (1988) Corporate Transformation. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Kirkbride, P. Duncan, J. & Obeng, E. (1994) ‘Change in a Chaotic World’, Journal of Strategic
Change, 3(3), pp. 151-163.
Kotter, J. (1995) ‘Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail’, Harvard Business Review
Must Reads on Change, pp. 3-12.
Kotter, J. (1996) Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. London: Harper Row.
Lombard, C. & Zaaiman, J. (2004) ‘An Empirical Evaluation of Competency Requirements for
First-Line Managers to Deal with resistance to Change”, SA Journal of Resource Management,
2(3), pp.7-15. SAJHRM [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sajhrm.co.za/index.php/sajhrm/article/download/44/44 (Accessed: 16 February 2013).
Lunenburg, F. (2011) ‘Expectancy Theory of Motivation: Motivating by Altering Expectations’,
International Journal of Management and Administration, 15(1), pp 1-6. NATIONALFORUM
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Luneneburg,%20Fred%20C%2
0Expectancy%20Theory%20%20Altering%20Expectations%20IJMBA%20V15%20N1%202011.pd
f (Accessed: 12 April 2013).
Maslow, A. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper Collins.
23. 23
McGuire, D. & Hutchings, K. (2006) ‘A Machiavellian Analysis of Organisational Change’,
Journal of Organisational Change Management, 19(2), pp. 192-209.
Millet, M. (1998) ‘Understanding Organisations: The dominance of systems theory’, International
Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 1(1), pp. 1-12. ESQ [Online]. Available at:
http://www.usq.edu.au/extrafiles/business/journals/hrmjournal/internationalarticles/domofsystemsth
eorymillett.pdf (Accessed: 2 March 2013).
Mullins, L. (2010) Management and Organisational Behaviour. 9th
edn. Essex: Pearson.
Nelson, B. & Quick, J. (2008) Understanding Organisational Behaviour. 3rd
edn. Mason:
Thompson.
Pearce, C. & Sims, H. (2002) ‘Vertical Versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of the
Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive,
Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors’, 6(2), pp. 172-179. EPF
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.strategicleaders.org/system/files/private/Vertical%2520Versus%2520Shared%2520Lea
dership%2520as%2520Predictors%2520of%2520the%2520Effectiveness.pdf (Accessed: 29
March 2013).
Pettinger, R. (2007) Introduction to Management. 4th
edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.
Prediscan, M. & Bradutanu. (2012) ‘Change Agent – A Force Generating Resistance to Change
Within an Organisation?’, Acta Universitatis Danubius, 8 (6), pp. 5-12. Economica [online].
Available at: journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/oeconomica/article/.../1346 (Accessed: 9 March
2013)
Quirke, B. (2008) Making the Connections: Using Internal Communication to Turn Strategy Into
Action. 2nd
edn. Hampshire: Gower.
Senior, B. & Flemming, J (2006) Organisational Change. 3rd
edn. Essex: Pearson.
Sutton, M. (2007) ‘Knoweledge Citizens as Change Leaders and Leaders of Change’, South
African Journal of Information Management, 9(3), pp. 1-4. SAJIM [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sajim.co.za/index.php/SAJIM/article/download/31/31 (Accessed: 16 February 2013).
Todnem, R. (2005) ‘Organisational Change management: A Critical Review’, Journal of Change
Management, 5(4), pp. 369-368.
Umukoro, F. (2009) ‘The Effects Managerial Characteristics and Organisational Growth on
Strategic Change’, Inter Metro Business Journal, 5(1), pp. 1-21. CEA [Online]. Availble at:
http://ceajournal.metro.inter.edu/spring09/umukoro0501.pdf (Accessed: 24 March 2013).
Van De Ven, A. & Poole, M. (1995) ‘Explaining Development and change in Organisations’,
Academy of Management Review, 20: 510-540.
Van de Ven, A. & Sun, K (2011) ‘Breakdowns in Implementing Models of Organisational Change’,
Acad Management Perspect, 25(3), pp. 58-74. AMP [Online]. Available at:
http://amp.aom.org/content/25/3/58 (Accessed: 12 April 2013).
Vroom, V. (1964) Work and Motivation. New Jersey: Wiley.
Weick and Quinn (1999) ‘Organisational Change and Development’, Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, pp. 361-386. ORGA [Online]. Available at: https://www.uzh.ch/iou/orga/ssl-
dir/wiki/.../Weick_Quinn.pdf (Accessed: 6 March 2013).
25. 25
Appendix A
Multi Directional lines of Communication
Manage Upwards
(the sponsor)
Manage Backwards
(review and control)
Manage Inwards
(self management)
Manage Outwards
(customer, employees
and other
stakeholders)
Manage Forwards
(planning)
Manage Downwards
(the team)
CHANGE
AGENT
Multi Directional lines of Communication adapted from Project Leadership Briner et al (1996)
26. 26
Appendix B
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS
Food, water, shelter, clothing, family
SAFETY NEEDS
Protection, security, order, law, limitations, stability
LOVE AND BELONGING NEEDS
Family, friendships, affection, relationships
ESTEEM NEEDS
Achievement, status, responsibility,
reputation
SELF-ACTUALISATION
Personal growth and fulfilment,
empowerment
