Nexus between Leadership and Change - Literature review Example

Managing Change Fatigue Name: Student ID: Course Code: Date of Submission: Managing Change Fatigue 1.0 Introduction According to Tung (2001, p.41), it is not the strongest organisations that survive that one which is able to adapt to change. However, Beaudan (2006, p.2) notes that “three out of five change efforts are only a partial success, and two out of five end up in failure”. Indeed, there is the general recognition that initiating and sustain change is not an easy process. One factor that is associated with resistance to change is the term ‘what is in for me’ (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Levasseur, 2001). Since leadership is associated with change (Lucey, 2008, p.12), the question that emerges is how the change that has been initiated be sustained so as to be successful instead of a failure? Beaudan (2006, p.2) acknowledges the fact that change is likely to bring fatigue in the stage that he refers to us as ‘stall warming’. In his work “making change last: how to get beyond change fatigue”, he postulates that leadership has a critical role in sustaining change by combating fatigue associated with it. The aim of this discourse is to critically analyse the level of support offered for Beaudan’s argument in the literatures on leadership and change, assessing the evidence that leaders as individuals can have a major impact on the change process. The main argument of this paper is on creating effective followership and reducing psychological resistance to change during change implementation process since the major contentions advanced by Beaudan (2006) revolves around resistance to change. 2.0 Nexus between Leadership and Change Before indulging deep on the evidence that leader as individuals can have a major impact on the change process, it is integral to build a literature on how the two are connected before examining impact of the leaders. Lucey (2008, p.12) contrast a manager and a leaders so as to create a vivid picture of what is a leader. She notes that leaders are those people are able to initiate change and create a surrounding where change is the order of the day. On the other hand she views managers as those who are for stability and implementers of change. Kotter (1995, p.60) sees a manager as one who in charge of controlling, problem solving and producing the short term results as per the expectations of stakeholders. On the other has and, he conceptualises a leader as one who establishes direction by outlining vision for the future. Moreover, this individual is able to set the strategies for attaining the vision. In a nutshell, he sees leadership as ‘aligning people, communicating the direction to all whose co-operation is needed’. Pindur, Rogers and Kim (1995, p.65) observes that the growth of leadership in managing people is grounded on the human relations theoretical basis. The styles and attributes of a leader differ from one to another. This is tied to power that a leader wields in the organisation. A leader can be said to be autocratic/ dictator, participative/ democratic or delegative/ free reign (Bolden, etal. 2003). The optimal in all the above is a leader who is able to combine all of the above styles in different scenarios. There are those who are transformational in nature, visionary and motivational in nature among others. Agboola and Salawu (2011, p.236) notes that classical approach embraces the ‘stick and carrot’ approach where the aim is to improve performance through reward and punishment. Moreover, they note this kind of approach is rigid and risky as it assumes that the main goal of employees is economic gain. However, Pindur, Rogers and Kim (1995, p.65) observes that research has shown that human being being social, they have more needs that economic gains alone. These needs include pyscho-social needs like motivation, training & development among others. Ability to recognise this appreciates the fact that performance of an individual is tied to a wide array of factors which act as constraints (Pindur, Rogers and Kim, 1995, p.65). A leader who promotes and maintains employee-management relationship encourages full participation of individuals within an organization to fully co-operate and enhance the unity of purpose in attainment of the entities vision (Kakabadse et al., 2004, p.135). Through this system of administration, smooth running of the business eliminates visionary setbacks, policy resistance and creates mutual understanding and respect between the boss and the subject. Effective leadership ties with what is known as transformational leadership rather than transactional leadership. The significance of leadership in influencing employees and managers so that their synergies can be galvanised towards a common goal has been proven to be critical process. In a nutshell, it is a shared leadership irrespective of the employee’s position in the organisation. The reason in support of stating that effective leadership is tied to transformational leadership rather than transactional leadership is summed up by the fact that transactional leadership is seen to be based on the traditional roles of a manager of controlling and organising. The tenet of this approach is to appeal to the self interest of those being led (Pindur, Rogers and Kim, 1995, p.65). What emerges from these literatures as effective leadership is the ability to cope with change by inspiring and giving new sense. There are other types and attributes of leadership that encompasses effective leadership. Consultative leadership comes into place based on the fact that the success of any organisation is tied on how well the management relate with its employee. Employees are the epicentre of idea creation and implementation of strategic management plan of an organisation so as to achieve strategic positioning and market leadership (Bacal, 2012, p.8). Frankel (2008, p.24) stresses the need for managers to embrace characteristics of an effective leader. The essence is to create an aura of possibilities among employees. When managers and employers give employees that opportunity to innovate and engage in their profession the best way they can by looking at the value one brings in rather than the experience employees are likely to have that synergy and team work (Cummings, 2010, p.363). The point to be abstracted from this argument is that leaders do not create change, but they rely on the employees to change the culture through day to day behaviours by creating that enabling environment for employees. Katzenbach and Smith (1994 cited in Bolden et al, 2003, p.12-13) observes that critical behaviours of effective leader include asking question and not giving answers, doing real work in support of others, providing opportunities for other, becoming match maker instead of the focal point and seeking common understanding instead of consensus. They further offer indicators that effective leaders should follow and they include organisational performance, individual performance and team performance. 3.0 Leaders’ Impact on the Change Process (Managing Change Fatigue) 3.1 Creating Followership and Reducing Psychological Resistance Three of the problems that Beaudan (2006, p.6)identified as the rationale behind stalling of change or emergence of fatigue are the fact that “ all change run into resistance, individuals who support change at the beginning may become neutral, passive or active resisters over time and the fact that all change involves a shift of the organisation’s power structure”. Indeed, the major cause of fatigue is related to resistance. Beaudan (2006, p.3) concern is on how resistance build and manifests itself during the critical mid course. He notes that this resistance emerges from the first day change was initiated even though it might be passive and underground. Manifestation of resistance and emergence of change fatigue include symptoms like outsiders question the values of change, coordinators/ effort leaders getting stressed, key leaders not attending progress reviews and reluctance to share among others. Therefore, one impact that a leader must create during change process is that of effective followership. The role of a leader in combating these change failure factors lies on how he or she can create effective followership and reduction to resistance. In this section, the principal argument advanced in the discussion in support of Beaudan’s proposition is on reduction of resistance and creation of effective followership. The rationale is that this will create motivation and urge to contribute positively towards change. Beaudan (2006, p.5-6) in his framework about getting change back on track identifies four point strategies that leaders should implement either in isolation or in integration. These are rethinking change goals and expectations, changing the change’s speed, changing the mix of people and adding excitement to the process. The question is how can these be attained? Kotter and Schlesinger (2008, p.132) notes that managing change is not easy since only a few succeeds. Lawrence and Robinson (2007) posit that a survey had indicated that between 33% and 75% of employees had manifested their resistance to organizational change by engaging in adverse workplace behaviours/deviance such as organizational sabotage, vandalism, theft, as well as unwarranted/unreasonable workplace absenteeism among other negative workplace behaviours. Other ways through which employees psychological resistance to organizational change manifest itself include fraud by employees; and the adverse implication of workplace deviance with regard to organizational productivity and performance. Abdulhamid (2011) also indicates that employees’ psychological resistance to organizational change takes various forms of which non-compliance to organizational procedures, core values and policies is an integral part. According to Agboola and Salawu (2011), employees’ psychological resistance to organizational change through delinquency and deviance workplace behaviour by employees is aimed at truncating the organizational change process or deterring its implementation. Conflicts amongst workmates as well as managers, and employees’ resignation, and poor customer services are other forms of employees’ resistance to change (Chew, Cheng and Petrovic-Lazarevic, 2006). The question that emerges is that if it is critical how can managers ensure the process succeeds during the ‘stalling phase’? One of the solution lies with effective followership which ensures support from the required quarters (Lucey, 2008, p.11). Change management undergoes three stages. The first is the unfreezing stage, change creation and refreezing. Unfreezing stage involves creation of sense of urgency and need for change. The second is stage of change that involves elimination of status quo. The last is refreezing where gains made are consolidated (Carter, 2008, p.21). All these three phases require followership so as to be attained. The absence of the same would imply failure. This followership can be attained through soft power like persuasion. Followership is the linchpin of change as it constitutes steps to building support for change (Maurer, 2006, 21-22). Actually, one point where effective followership becomes critical is in overcoming psychological resistance to change. The modern day business environment is subject to various phenomena such as globalization, technological advancements, international competition, downsizing, restructuring, and privatization among others (Hendrickson and Gray, 2012, p.53). As such, to be sustainable, relevant, competitive and profitable, organizations both business and otherwise must adapt to the prevailing situational conditions. This means that time and again organisations must adapt to and implement organisational changes. Most of these organizational changes involve transition from the known way of doing things, business operations and procedures, as well as organizational cultures among others to the unknown (Agboola and Salawu, 2011, p.234). As such, employees resist organizational change for various reasons of which some include; organizational reasons, cognitive reasons, moral and cultural reasons, as well as personal reasons (Smallan and Sayers, 2009, p.436). If a manager has effective followership, he or she is sure that resistance is likely to be minimal. In order to effectively manage employees’ psychological resistance to organizational change and its implications on organizational performance and profitability, Avey, Wersing and Luthans (2008) proposes a model which emphasizes the association existing between positive employees and positive change in the organisation. The model claims that employees emotions influences their attitudes as well as behaviours which then can either facilitate or inhibit positive change within the organization. As such, to effectively manage employees’ psychological resistance to change, it is significant to foster employees’ positive attitudes and behaviours of emotional engagement and organizational citizenship respectively. These are positive employees’ psychological emotions and capital (psychological resources) essential in combating negative reactions such as deviance and cynicism which are manifestations of employees’ psychological resistance to organizational change. According to Stragalas (2010), Kotter’s model plays a significant role in the effective management and implementation of organizational change. Kotter’s model involves eight steps in the adaptation and effective implementation of organizational change with the objective of preventing employees’ resistance to the proposed change. These steps the following include: first, establishing a sense of urgency. This involves analyzing potential environmental crises as well as opportunities and enlightening at least 75% of management staff on the benefits of the proposed change and convincing them that the status quo is dangerous as compared to the unknown. The second step involves establishing an effective guiding coalition involving organizational members with power and commitment to lead the change effort. This team should exhibit the ability to work outside the hierarchy and as a team. The third step is creation of a vision to guide the change process, and developing strategies to enhance the transformation of the vision into reality. Fourth, the management communicates the new vision. Effective management of employees’ psychological resistance to organizational change must involve a multi-channeled and continuous communication. This will enable the management to model the new set of organizational procedures, operations, behaviours, as well as actions. Fifth, the management empowers others in the organization to act on the new organizational vision. This stage will involve changing or eliminating factors as well as process which impede the organizational change process. It also involves innovation, risk-taking as well as action on the newly established strategies. Sixth, planning for and creating wins in the short term. This is achieved via defining and promoting proactively visible improvement success factors. Thus, to effectively manage resistance the management should reward employees for their positive and active involvement in the change process at this stage. In the seventh step, the management consolidates the improvements achieved so far and produces more organizational change by building credibility based on early success factors through the removal of barriers to change and acquiring additional organizational resources to facilitate the organizational change process. Finally, the management institutionalizes the new organizational approaches. This involves proactively explaining to the employees the relationship between the new organizational approaches and the organizational change success factors. In addition, the management creates succession plans which identify and mandate individual in the organization to foster the new vision in the long term (Stragalas, 2010). 4.0 Conclusion The aim of this discourse is to critically analyse the level of support offered for Beaudan’s argument in the literatures on leadership and change, assessing the evidence that leaders as individuals can have a major impact on the change process. Thus, to reduce fatigue associated with change, it is critical to initiate strategies that will reduce resistance along the way. One cause of failure is resistance by stakeholders at any given level. Developing effective followership and reduction of resistance addresses certain mid-course critical questions. These include resistance, casualties, communication and sustainability (p.4). Followers make a leader so long as the leader is able to meet their emotional, economic and social needs. The emerging finding is that followership is not an overrated concept. In this context, we can term it as a soft power derived outside the normal power relations framework that at helps in overcoming resistance since the employees will ascribe to the belief and culture presented by the leader. Consequently, this enable an organisation to build a strong team with the leader as the focal point with employees as the supporting pillars of realising dreams projected by the leader. Thus, it can be argued that one major role of a leader in combating fatigue associated with change process is through creation of effective followership and reduction of psychological resistance which affirms the observation by Beaudan on change fatigue. References Agboola, A and Salawu, R 2011, Managing Deviant Behavior and Resistance to Change. International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 235-242. Bacal, R 2012, Performance management, New York, McGraw-Hill. Beaudan, E 2006, Making change last: how to get beyond change fatigue, Ivey Business Journal, vol. 22, no. 7, p. 23-89. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A and Dennison, P 2003, A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter. Carter, E 2008, Successful Change Requires more than Change Management, The Journal for Quality and Participation, vol. 31, no. 1, p. 20-23. Chew, M., Cheng, J and Petrovic-Lazarevic, S 2006, “Managers’ role in Implementing Organizational Change: Case of Restaurant Industry in Melbourne”, Journal of Global Business and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 58-67. Cummings, G. G., MacGregor, T., Davey, M., Lee, H., Wong, C. A., Lo, E., Muise, M & Stafford, E 2010, Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: A systematic review, International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 47, p. 363-385. Frankel, A 2008, What leadership styles should senior nurses develop? Nursing Times, vol. 104, no. 35, p. 23-24. Hendrickson, S and Gray, E 2012, Legitimizing Resistance to Organizational Change: A Social Work Social Justice Perspective, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 2, no. 5, p. 50-59. Kakabadse et al. 2004, Working in Organizations, Burlington, Gower Publishing Company. Kotter, J 1995, Leading Change, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995, p. 56-67. Kotter, J and Schlesinger, L 2008, Choosing Strategies for Change, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2008, p. 130-139. Lawrence, T and Robinson, S 2007, “Ain’t Misbehavin: Workplace Deviance as Organizational Resistance,” Journal of Management, vol. 33, p. 378-394. Levasseur, R 2001, People Skills: Change Management Tools – Lewin’s Change Model. Interfaces, vol. 31, no. 4, p. 71-73. Lucey, J 2008, Why is the Failure Rate for Organizational Change so high? Management Services, Winter 2008, p. 10-18. Maurer, R 2006, 12 Steps That Can Build Support for Change, The Journal for Quality and Participation, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 21-22. Pindur, W., Rogers, S and Kim, P 1995, The history of management: a global perspective. Journal of Management History, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 59-77. Rashid, Z.A., Sambasivan, M. and Rahman, A 2004, “The Influence of Organizational Culture on Attitudes towards Organizational Change.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 161-179. Stragalas, N 2010, “Improving Change Implementation.” OD Practitioner, vol. 42, no. 1, p. 3- 38. Tung, L 2001, Learning from world class companies, London, Cengage Learning. Read More