Organizational Change - Woodlanddecay.com

Notebook No.2- Constructing Change Leadership

This post introduces the second Notebook No.2 and its chapters. The shift from change management to change leadership begs a question? Everybody seems to place faith in leading change, but why?

Updated February 2023

Notebook No.2 – Introduction

I worked at Brighton Business School from 1987 to 2019. During a lot of that time I undertook organizational change scholarship and facilitated organizational change workshops. In the early days my focus and the focus of workshop participants was change management. Over time that focus shifted to change leadership. In organizations including my own I witnessed a growing enthusiasm for change leadership and leading change.

I began wondering why this shift had taken place, had I missed the relevant memo?

There is a lack of research/evidence that change leadership delivers successful organizational change. However, I have been surprised at how many bright academics believe such evidence exists and that it is just waiting to be discovered. I have been surprised in the UK how much faith hospitals, schools and even universities have placed in the benefits of leading change.

In The leadership of organizational change, I searched for the origins of change leadership over the past 35 years. This search mirrored my earlier challenging of the belief that 70% of all change initiatives failed. By happy accident rather than intelligent design, I realized that it was change management that they were depicting as failing so that we might believe in change leadership as succeeding.

I believe that the shift from change management to change leadership was merely a change of narrative. That was the easy bit, how do you convince fellow academics about your ecstatic revelation. If the shift to change leadership was more research implied, than research informed, how do you counter a dominant narrative? The succinct answer is with great difficulty.

The clearer my realization became in my mind the less clear my academic journal submissions became. My counter-narrative didn’t convince Editors and reviewers and I could only ever offer them parts of this story in specific focussed journal submissions. In Notebook No.2, I tell the story of how they constructed change leadership.

In Notebook No.2, My desire to explain the construction of change leadership is not a purely academic exercise. I am concerned about how much organizations and governments have invested in change leadership, at a time when societies have suffered through extreme austerity policies. My story is not a neutral story, I do want to challenge current thinking about change leadership and the implications for practice.

Notebook No.2 Cover Image

Notebook No.2 – The Chapters

In the second chapter, Anarchy in the UK, anxiety in the USA, I contrast the anarchy of rock music in the 1970s/1980s with anxieties corporate America was experiencing. In, Reality used to be a friend of mine, I introduce social constructionism. Your change leader is very real, but are some of the strengths and weaknesses you imagine she possesses real?

The title, Eight steps towards successfully leading change, is sarcastic. I do not believe that the eight steps which Professor John Kotter prescribed for leading change deliver successful change. This debate has been confused through references to transformational leadership. Robust research does inform transformational leadership, but transformational leadership is concerned with transforming subordinates rather than organizational transformation. I explain this further in the chapter, Transformational leadership misrepresented and misunderstood.

I suspect I am sarcastic in the penultimate chapter Let’s assume change leadership works. The title is based upon a textbook author who suggested that we assume change leadership works in the absence of evidence. I consider depictions of change leadership in textbooks, academic handbooks and journals. The tone is more positive in the final chapter in which I encourage a greater emphasis on differentiating Commanding, managing and leading change.

In the appendix of Notebook No.2, I include an unpublished paper Questioning the leadership of change in Higher Education. I was troubled when I read A handbook for leaders in higher education: Transforming teaching and learning (Marshall, 2016). This handbook targeted at university leaders, celebrated Kotter’s (1996/2012) eight leading change steps with the book described as a ‘classic’. I thought enough is enough. I knew I needed to be far more proactive in challenging the change leadership fetish. Even if Notebook No.2 is perceived by readers as nonsense, at least I had a go!

Accessing Notebook.No2

Notebook No.2 and the other two were available on the Amazon self-publishing platform in paperback format. I enjoyed being a publisher – cover design, proof reading, layout etc. The Notebook even sold a few copies, which was a pleasant bonus. Today, if you would like a digital copy of the draft please contact me using the Contact page.

References

Hughes, M. (2016) The leadership of organizational change. London: Routledge.

Kotter, J.P. (1996/2012)Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Marshall, S. (2016). A handbook for leaders in higher education: Transforming teaching and learning. London: Routledge.

June 24, 2019
Leading Changes: Why Transformation Explanations Fail
Introduction

Leading changes and leadership theory and practice needs to change. Professor John Kotter (1995) claimed in Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail to have identified eight leadership errors which resulted in transformation failures. He followed this up in 1996 with his best-selling book Leading Change, prescribing an eight step model for leading transformations encouraging change leaders to create a sense of urgency, build powerful guiding coalitions and develop visions.

Kotter openly acknowledged that he neither drew examples nor major ideas from any published source, except his own writing. In the 2012 edition of his book, which included a new preface, Kotter claimed that his book was now more relevant than when it was first published.

As leaders knowingly or unknowingly still use Kotter’s steps and academics still cite this book, my paper critically assesses Kotter’s claim about the relevance of Leading Change. Three conclusions were drawn:
- leading Change remains an enduring landmark leadership study,
- but Leading Change is stuck in the past and
- paradoxically today discourages change.
Leading changes: Why transformation explanations fail

Published in SAGE journal Leadership 12(4): 449-469. Published first online 9th Feb 2015. Issue published 1st Sept 2016. Downloaded 23,084 times (as at December 2022).

If you have online access to the journal please use this LINK

If you do not have online access to the journal please use this LINK to access an accepted draft version of the paper.
Leading Changes: Why transformation explanations fail
June 22, 2019
I am not Dreaming of an Evidence-Based Christmas

Introduction

My final post of the year is on a festive note, imagining evidence-based Christmas. I have a gentle (respectful) dig at colleagues who see evidence-based management (EBM) as the future for managing and leading organizational change. We need evidence, but we need to remember that managing and leading change always involves moving into the unknown, myths really are part of the change process.

Our understanding this festive season could be evidence-based

We could look to footfall in shops, comparisons of online versus shop sales, the number of flights from airports, the disturbing domestic violence figures. There is plenty of evidence to inform our understanding of Christmas and I am sure many EBM enthusiasts will look at the evidence, in attempting to make the unknown known. But what might they be missing? The study of myths goes back to the earliest philosophers and early civilizations. Interest in myths predates current management fads and buzzwords and I believe myths will still have meaning after the current management fads and buzzwords have gone out of fashion.

Our understanding this festive season could be open to surprise and revelation

We could engage with children and the magic they experience. We could celebrate the unknown as well as celebrating all we know. We could cherish an unexpected reaction to a meaningful gift or a loving act. We have accumulated so much evidence and knowledge in recent years, but I am not sure we have a deeper understanding of each other or even ourselves. I am grateful for the evidence-based medicine which helps keep my progressive arthritis at bay and myself mobile. I am just not convinced that we should apply such methodologies to management and societies in an unthinking and acritical manner. Today, even daring to question EBM feels akin to blasphemy.

It was just like Christmas

I am not a Christian but each Christmas I walk about a mile across the Sussex Downs to a small ancient church. I follow paths which go back hundreds of years to a village which time seems to have forgotten. They have a listing of Rectors on the wall going back to the 13^th Century. I am humbled as I sit on a pew thousands of others have sat on over hundreds of years. The local community come together and sing carols once a year. Each year children perform a spontaneous nativity pantomime. As an introvert, I empathize with the anxiety these youngsters experience as they are challenged to embrace the unknown. That morning they did not know they would be Mary or a sheep or a shepherd, but they warm to their roles and through a collective leap of faith something magical invariably happens. Elements work, and elements do not work, but the children appear to warm to performing and myself and the congregation certainly enjoy this annual spectacle.

It is odd but just for a few moments in that small village church everything seems to make sense. I am the only one who likes to view this as the annual change project pantomime. I look for communications, resistance, teamwork, identity issues etc. I know there is a chance that this pantomime (change project) might not happen, the audience knows this uncertainty. The nativity is choreographed by an enthusiastic compere. It is her belief in herself and the children that facilitates the nativity. She takes the children from the known into the unknown, for me she leads change.

Movement from a known state to an unknown state

Organizational change involves movement from a known state (today) to an unknown state (tomorrow). Today even with EBM we cannot predict future organizational change outcomes with certainty. Organizational change is potentially informed by natural science insights, as well as, social science insights. However, the rhetoric of EBM troubles me in attempting to frame organizational change in exclusively natural science terms, the implication is that we can predict the future with certainty. I am not alone in my concerns, for example, Morrell and Learmonth (2015) offered criticisms of EBM. They questioned claims that all evidence was evaluated in that they found this approach to be narrow and selective. The approach devalued narrative and story forms of knowledge and it was managerialist being for management, rather than about management.

Humble leaders may be more useful than evidence-based leaders

We need evidence and facts to inform organizational change, but we also need those advising to change leaders and managers to display humility in honestly and openly acknowledging the unknown aspect of organizational change. At the level of leaders and managers, we need a greater appreciation that ‘organizations’ are collections of people. These people may share the hopes and desires of their leaders, but they may have hopes and desires of their own. These people may act rationally, but on occasions, they may act irrationally (I certainly do and the children in the nativity sometimes do). They may experience an organizational change in very different ways, potentially thriving on change or struggling with organizational change. If you find yourself in the latter camp, it does not mean that you are a bad person. It does mean that you might not behave in the way a natural science formula suggests you will behave or your leader wants you to behave.

Editorial Note

Santa Claus Selfie

Given the contentious and sentimental nature of this post, the Woodland Decay Editor required the post to be rigorously peer-reviewed. The peer reviewer asked for his anonymity to be protected, but was willing to pose for a photograph with me and recommended publication without revision, it must be Christmas!

Further Reading

Hughes, M. (2019) Myth-understanding Organizational Change. In Hughes, M. (2019) Managing and Leading Organizational Change. London: Routledge.

Morrell, K., and M. Learmonth. (2015) Against Evidence-Based Management, for Management Learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education 14 (4): 520-533.

December 20, 2018

Leading Change vs Commanding Change

Commanding change is a very different practice from leading change. Senior people refer to ‘leadership’ when what they are really talking about is ‘command.’ In a crisis, we urgently require the answers of ‘command’. During an organizational change, we require the questions of ‘leadership’.

Introduction

As discussed in the previous post claiming that a building is on fire may do more harm than good. I am weary of people asserting that what we need is change leadership, strong change leaders, where are the leaders, etc, etc, etc…

Both organizational change and leadership are vague/slippery concepts which even respected scholars would concede we do not fully understand. What we really need is a better differentiation of change leadership, from commanding change and managing change.

Throughout universities, hospitals and organizations, in general, I hear senior people referring to ‘leadership’ yet what they are really talking about is ‘command.’ All organizations at different times draw upon command, leadership, and management. Differentiating these concepts and their appropriateness to specific problems is currently missing from practitioner debates yet integral to organizational change processes.

If I couch the same idea slightly differently, Stacey (2012) eloquently argued that what masquerades as the leadership of change is closer to institutionalized bullying. We need to be clear what leadership isn’t (see Figure 1, first column) and equally clear what leadership might be (see Figure 1, second column).

The compliance produced by institutionalized bullying is inimical to change. Change will then only come when deviants utter ‘shrill cries of protest from the margin’ which those at the centre will probably classify as hysterical. (Stacey, 2012: 89)	Leaders inspire people by inviting them into a dialogue where they suspend assumptions and so learn and change. Well-intentioned rational people, engaged in dialogue under inspiring leaders with vision, will willingly change. (Stacey, 2012: 80)
As it is…	As it might be…

Figure 1 – Bullying is very different from leading change

How can we differentiate the problems organizations encounter and relate them to management, leadership, and command?

In seeking to understand leadership Grint (2005) revisited Rittel and Webber’s (1973) famous typology of tame, wicked and critical problems. The tame problems were resolvable, their limited uncertainty suited management and management processes. Whereas wicked problems were complex and intractable without unilinear solutions. These wicked problems were more suited to leadership requiring leaders to ask the right questions, rather than impose the right answers. These answers were not necessarily self-evident as they required a collaborative process of dialogue to make progress. Finally, critical problems were the very real crises which organizations encountered. In these situations, with very little uncertainty and very little time, command was required. Command provides answers to enable taking decisive action in a crisis.

In further understanding leadership, Grint (2005) revisited Etzioni’s (1964) famous typology of power; calculative compliance, normative compliance, and coercive compliance. Calculative compliance was closest to management in organizing processes. Normative compliance with an emphasis on soft power and reference to shared values was closest to leadership in asking questions. Coercive compliance was all about hard and physical power, typified in the military and emergency services. Coercive compliance was closest to the command of providing answers.

This reasoning suggests that in response to different organizational change problems there may be a requirement for management, leadership and command and the exercise of different forms of power. This is helpful in disrupting the current leading change fetish as the universal panacea for all organizational change problems.

What is the difference between commanding change and leading change?

The change challenges organizations and societies face require very different conceptualizations of change leadership, from leading change as commanding change which we currently appear to experience.

Figure 2 questions today’s dominant model of leading change which I believe has damaged health and education institutions in the UK and perhaps beyond. I believe in the social benefits of our National Health Service and the transformative potential of schools, colleges, and universities.

However, I increasingly fear that commanding change masquerading as leading change misunderstands that these organizations are collections of people. The art of leading change is to meaningfully engage with such people through questioning and dialogue generating collaborative ownership/resolution of change problems.

Commanding Change As it is …	Leading Change As it might be…
Urgency/Crisis	Time/Engagement Always Required for Optimum Outcomes
Top Down Strong Assertions	Questioning Dialogue
Hard/Physical Power	Soft Power/Shared Values
Perceived as Problematic Resistance	Perceived as Part of a Change Process
Answers/Directives/Edicts	Collaborative Ownership/ Resolution of Change Problems

Figure 2 – The difference between commanding change and leading change

I am afraid if we continue to misunderstand the hard/physical power of command which is urgently required in times of crisis as leading change nothing will change and nobody will change despite all the noise and senior management edicts.

The ‘irony of leadership’ is that collaboration diminishes the potential contribution of the leader (Grint, 2005). The next time somebody asserts what we need is strong leadership ask them do they mean leadership or command?

Category: Organizational Change

Notebook No.2- Constructing Change Leadership

Updated February 2023

Notebook No.2 – Introduction

Notebook No.2 – The Chapters

Accessing Notebook.No2

References

Leading Changes: Why Transformation Explanations Fail

Introduction

Leading changes: Why transformation explanations fail

I am not Dreaming of an Evidence-Based Christmas

Introduction

Our understanding this festive season could be evidence-based

Our understanding this festive season could be open to surprise and revelation

It was just like Christmas

Movement from a known state to an unknown state

Humble leaders may be more useful than evidence-based leaders

Editorial Note

Further Reading

Leading Change vs Commanding Change

Introduction

How can we differentiate the problems organizations encounter and relate them to management, leadership, and command?

What is the difference between commanding change and leading change?

Further Reading