The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0953-4814.htm

Leadership behaviours that foster Leadership

behaviours
organisational identification during change

during change
Kim Aitken
Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, and
Received 22 January 2020
Kathryn von Treuer Revised 2 May 2020
Cairnmillar Institute, Melbourne, Australia 14 June 2020
5 October 2020
Accepted 6 November 2020

Abstract
Purpose – To better understand how leadership behaviours are operationalised to foster organisational
identification during change, to maximise the success of change initiatives.
Design/methodology/approach – Utilising the Delphi Technique, 15 Australian senior leaders and
leadership subject matter experts were canvassed regarding their opinions on the role of leadership in
nurturing organisational identification during change. Their perspectives on a preliminary leadership
competency framework developed in an earlier research phase were also obtained.
Findings – Organisational identification was considered an important organisational construct that can yield
a range of positive outcomes – including when guiding organisations (and their members) through change.
However, organisational identification currently appears to be more of an academic term than a concept
employed in leadership practice. Four key themes emerged regarding the leadership behaviours deemed most
effective when encouraging organisational identification during change: (1) effective communication, (2) focus
on relationships, (3) stewardship of the organisation and the change it is undertaking, and (4) management of
self. The refined leadership competency framework consisted of 12 competencies within four competency
domains: (1) Leadership and governance in organisational change, (2) Relationship management and
communication skills, (3) Management of people, organisational systems and processes and (4) Personal
characteristics and capabilities.
Originality/value – The study outlines a range of specific and observable leadership competencies and
behaviours that can be employed to foster organisational identification during change. The findings should be
of interest to organisations examining identity processes in response to business disruptions, including
ensuring their members retain a sense of connection to the organisation during times of uncertainty and altered
work practices.
Keywords Leadership, Organisational identification, Organisational change, Leadership competency
Paper type Research paper

Change is – paradoxically – considered a constant feature of organisational life, which often

requires leaders to examine their organisations’ identities – the “essence of who they are” –
and work to ensure their members retain a sense of connection to the organisation during
times of uncertainty and altered work practices.
However, given the complexity of organisational changes such as mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, service integration and strategic alliances, many organisations achieve only partial
success with the implementation (Alexander et al., 2006; Callaly et al., 2011), or are unsuccessful
with their endeavours (Nag et al., 2007; Sastry, 1997). Additionally, implementation failure is
probably more common than is publicly reported (Tannenbaum, 2006).
The failure of many organisational change initiatives has been attributed to a lack of
employee and cultural integration (Callaly et al., 2010; Tannenbaum, 2006) and a lack of
leadership (Junni and Sarala, 2014). The cost of such failures is far-reaching and has both
financial and non-financial repercussions for organisations, staff and their families, clients, Journal of Organizational Change
Management
stakeholders and their broader communities (Badrtalei and Bates, 2007; Saat and © Emerald Publishing Limited
0953-4814
Himmelsbach, 2014). As such, there have been calls to better understand the organisational DOI 10.1108/JOCM-01-2020-0029
JOCM and leadership determinants of successful organisational change (e.g. Appelbaum, 2007a, b;
Graetz et al., 2006).
As key agents of change, leaders have been shown to undertake a pivotal role in assisting
members to traverse altered organisational arrangements (Aitken and von Treuer, 2014;
Junni and Sarala, 2014). Organisational change necessitates formal and informal – and
frequently unanticipated – adjustments to the identities of participating organisations and
their members. Whilst such changes can be liberating for some, others find them
destabilising, particularly those employees being absorbed or transferred into larger or
more dominant organisations that require them to relinquish their affiliation with their
former organisation (Corley and Gioia, 2004; Ravasi and Schultz, 2006; Reissner, 2010).

Leadership, organisational identity and organisational identification during

change
An organisation’s identity and its followers’ organisational identification are seen as key
considerations when planning organisational change. In particular, followers’ identification –
or affinity – with their organisation has been shown to impact on their willingness to embrace
and support change efforts (Giessner, 2011; Paviglionite, 2007; Tienari and Vaara, 2016).
Organisational identity focuses on the question, “Who are we as an organisation?”, delineating
the “fundamental essence” of an organisation whilst representing members’ shared perceptions of
its central, distinctive and (often) enduring characteristics (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Clark et al.,
2010; Pratt et al., 2016). Correspondingly, organisational identification is defined as an individual’s
sense of connection with, and affinity to, their employing organisation; “the perception of oneness
with or belongingness to the organisation” (Ashforth and Mael, 1989, p. 34); and “the congruence
of individual and organisational values” (Riketta, 2005, p. 360).
As “entrepreneurs”, “custodians” and “impresarios” of organisational identity (Haslam
and Ellemers, 2011; Haslam et al., 2011; Schinoff et al., 2016; van Dick and Kerschreiter, 2016),
leaders are responsible for providing clarity and guidance regarding the “fundamental
essence”– the identity — of a changing organisation, together with the corresponding
implications for organisational members in terms of their own identities, expected conduct
and performance and psychological bonds with the organisation (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;
Corley and Gioia, 2004; Ravasi and Schultz, 2006; van Knippenberg, 2016). Consequently,
there have been appeals for senior and local-level leaders to more fully understand and
leverage the constructs of organisational identity and follower organisational identification,
in order to foster their followers’ connection with their organisation during times of change.

Leadership competencies associated with successful organisational change

When used to define the leadership requirements within an organisation, competency
frameworks provide clarity about the behaviours and characteristics leaders must
demonstrate to help their organisation achieve its vision and goals (MacKay, 1997).
Leadership competencies are frequently described as the building blocks upon which best-
practice leadership is constructed (Calhoun et al., 2008; New, 1996; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990).
Typically, a leadership competency framework will incorporate dimensions associated with
change leadership and will reflect the current leadership requirements of the organisation, as
well as incorporating an aspirational component by describing the capabilities required to
steward the organisation to future success (see Alban-Melcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2002,
2005, 2008; Alimo-Metcalfe et al., 2007; Beinecke, 2009a, b; Stefl, 2008).
A previous study conducted by the authors (Aitken, 2019; Aitken and von Treuer, 2014)
qualitatively examined leadership skills and behaviours in a consortia undergoing service
integration, with the aim of identifying the key leadership competencies required to ensure
successful service integration within a coalition framework. The resulting leadership Leadership
competency framework was unique as it captured some of the leadership skills and behaviours
behaviours needed to successfully manage change and integrate services. However, the
findings were only considered preliminary and required further validation and refinement to
during change
be generalisable to a broader range of organisations undergoing change.

Aims and rationale

Whilst the extant literature substantiates the meaningful and enduring relationship between
leadership and follower organisational identification (e.g. Epitropaki and Martin, 2005;
Haslam and Ellemers, 2011; He and Brown, 2013; Kark et al., 2003; van Knippenberg et al.,
2004) there is scant research focussing on the leadership competencies and behaviours
deemed most effective when fostering employee organisational identification during change.
There is also little available research focussing on how these leadership competencies and
behaviours are operationalised during organisational changes such as service integration,
mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures. Therefore, the current study sought to obtain
the perspectives of senior leaders and leadership experts on nurturing organisational
identification during change. In addition, the researchers sought to incorporate these experts’
insights with those gleaned from an earlier phase of research (as above, see Aitken, 2019;
Aitken and von Treuer, 2014) to finalise a leadership competency framework focussed on the
stewardship of organisational change.
The current study sought to answer the following questions:
(1) What emphasis do organisational leaders place on fostering follower organisational
identification during organisational change?
(2) What are the leadership behaviours deemed most effective when fostering follower
organisational identification?
(3) What outcomes (i.e. individual, team and/or organisational) result from encouraging
organisational leaders to focus on fostering follower organisational identification
during change?
(4) How do these leadership behaviours correspond to leadership competencies?
(5) What are the leadership competencies required for successful organisational change?

Methodology
15 experts participated in the current study (nine females). They were recruited from the
authors’ academic and professional circles, with 64 potential participants contacted via email
as the first point of contact (the 15 participants equating to a response rate of 24%).
The participants were practising senior leaders and/or experts in the field of leadership,
with at least 15 years’ experience in either leading or supporting organisations through
change or undertaking research on the topic. The experts possessed experience in a range of
sectors in Australia and at the time of the study were working in consulting (n 5 4),
community leadership development (n 5 2), government (n 5 2), energy infrastructure
(n 5 1), health insurance (n 5 1), manufacturing (n 5 1), mining (n 5 1), research and
development (n 5 1), utilities (n 5 1) and venture capital (n 5 1). The majority of participants
had 20 years or more experience and had operated in at least one of the industries outlined.
The expert insights were obtained using the Delphi Technique, a widely used and
accepted method for gathering data from respondents within their domain of expertise, with
the aim of achieving a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue (Brady, 2015;
Hsu and Sandford, 2007; Skulmoski et al., 2007). Participants were asked to respond to a series
JOCM of questions, in three rounds: one round of interviews and two rounds where questionnaires
were distributed via email and sought comment on the combined and anonymised themes
from previous rounds. The questions explored the experts’ understanding of organisational
identification, the emphasis they placed on fostering organisational identification during
times of change, the leadership behaviours they observed were associated with fostering
organisational identification and the resulting outcomes.
The experts were also asked to provide feedback on the preliminary leadership competency
model, drafted in an earlier research phase whilst working with a consortia seeking to evolve
and expand via service integration (see Aitken, 2019; Aitken and von Treuer, 2014). The
preliminary competency model drew from a literature review that examined research regarding
leadership competencies associated with organisational change. This information was
combined with a thematic analysis of interviews conducted with seven leaders (six female)
tasked with embedding organisational change via service integration within the consortia. The
literature afforded several comprehensive leadership competency frameworks that were used
as reference points in the development of the preliminary framework (i.e. Avolio and Bass, 1991;
Beinecke, 2009b; Gebelein et al., 2001; Stefl, 2008).
The overarching format of the three rounds of questions is outlined in Appendix one.
However, it should be noted that in the interests of parsimony, for the purposes of this publication
the second and third Delphi rounds – where the key themes from the first interview round were
summarised and presented for comment – have been truncated. Interested readers are directed to
Aitken (2019) for the detailed responses included under each of these domains.
Thematic analysis was used to independently identify and summarise the key themes
arising from the interview transcripts and questionnaire responses. The thematic analysis
process of Braun and Clarke (2006) was followed, which involved familiarisation with the
data, generation of initial categories, searching for themes, reviewing themes and defining
and naming themes.
When refining the leadership competency framework, the researchers sought the input of an
associate with 20 years of expertise in developing competency frameworks. This individual was
tasked with reviewing the revisions to ensure they were understandable, observable and
measurable, to enable the leadership competency framework to be directly applicable in
organisational settings (for leadership assessment, development and performance management).

Findings
Emphasis organisational leaders place on fostering follower organisational identification
during organisational change
The term “organisational identification” does not appear to be commonly used in Australian
organisations, according to those canvassed. For all except one of the participating experts, their
involvement in this study was their first exposure to the construct – several queried whether the
term “organisational identification” was the latest “buzzword” in organisational research.
However, once the definition of organisational identification was confirmed, the majority of
experts commented that they indeed emphasised fostering employees’ organisational
identification when planning organisational change, yet it was more implicit, rather than
explicit and planned. Further, the experts tended to focus on constructs akin to organisational
identification (i.e. organisational culture; the vision, mission, purpose and values of the
organisation; emphasising organisational history; employee engagement and the employee
value proposition), rather than organisational identification per se. Comments made by the
experts in the round One interviews regarding their focus on organisational identification during
change (which were reinforced in the email rounds) included:
Probably not in [a] structured way . . . But we do talk the language of culture when we are thinking
about organisational change. We . . . get key change leaders to think about what are the cultural
 shifts that might need to occur. But it’s interesting because it feels like, to me, it’s probably still a level Leadership
above what you’re talking about, which is sort of a deeper construct around values and identity and
purpose and some of those sorts of things. (Practitioner, Energy Infrastructure) behaviours
during change
The terminology that would normally be used [would be] around what levels of engagement do
people have and what are the levels of motivation . . . and what are the attitudes towards the
organisations, rather than using identification. (Leadership Expert, Consulting)
[We focus on] how do we actually really connect with people [to create] the strong level of
engagement. You know, an affinity with [our organisation regarding] who we are and attachment to
who we are . . . We’re not just doing leadership development for the sake of doing it. We’re not just
getting really good at recruitment and on-boarding processes for the sake of doing it. We’re doing it
so that we can really get people to connect with who we are. That is the point of difference. They feel
like they’re part of the [organisation’s] tribal family. (Practitioner, Mining)
It’s been the strongest thing in what I’ve done [as a leader]. In saying this, of course, I’ve had the good
fortune of only working for not-for-profit organisations for 20-something years now. And so people
are often attracted to the organisation for the very reason that it has a purpose that resonates.
(Leadership Expert, Community Leadership Development)
These findings align with those revealed in an earlier component of the research where the
competency framework was drafted, whereby the Australian leaders responsible for
evolving their consortia via service integration were not consciously focussed on fostering
employees’ organisational identification with the “new” organisation.
The leadership behaviours deemed most effective when fostering follower organisational
identification
Four key themes emerged regarding the leadership behaviours deemed most effective when
encouraging organisational identification during change: (1) effective communication,
including the ability to clearly articulate the case for change and focusing on one’s style
and frequency of communication to ensure it is “fit for purpose”; (2) focus on relationships,
incorporating authenticity, availability, empathy and consistency; (3) stewardship of the
organisation and the change it is undertaking, including visible and sustained ownership of
the change and (4) management of self, encapsulating an ability to deal with challenges with
equanimity, demonstrating appropriate levels of vulnerability and practising self-care.
The most frequently described behaviours that corresponded to these four themes are
outlined in Table 1.
Comments regarding effective leader behaviours made by the experts in the round one
interviews regarding effective leader behaviours (which were reinforced in the email rounds)
included:
People [who] are able to create an overarching narrative which is entered in the organisational story,
long story . . . context, history and purpose. (Leadership Expert, Consulting)
People who are good at communicating, who take responsibility for communicating across the whole
team . . . The good leaders are ones that do communicate right across the whole . . . take
responsibility for that . . . not delivering this through the organisational structure. And they’re good
at checking in and good at asking for feedback, making that communication genuine and two-way
. . . getting [their] own temperature check. (Practitioner, Utilities)
Exceptional soft skills–empathy, the ability to translate strategy into words and content that
resonates with individuals and makes them clearly see their role in the larger change initiative. The
availability as a leader for one-on-one time, to be there for individuals if they’ve got concerns about
the change piece and about “What does that mean for me?” Transparent communication, openness
. . . a strong, wise caregiver. And someone who is able to clearly articulate the vision on where we’re
going. And again, what our purpose is. (Leadership Expert, Consulting)
JOCM Key theme Effective behaviours

Communication  Articulating the organisation’s vision and purpose, as well as the

reasons for the change, across the organisation
 Being consistent with messages, and reiterating key messages
frequently and in ways that are understood by diverse groups within
the organisation
 Focusing on one’s style of communication to communicate with impact
and sincerity
 Active listening skills, including the ability to discern messages in non-
verbal communication
 Asking effective questions to facilitate open discussion
Focus on relationships  Being available to staff and giving them the opportunity to be heard
 Empathy—attending to the emotional needs of others
 Fostering trust by being authentic and consistent with words and
actions
Stewardship of the organisation  Taking ownership of the change process and not over-relying on
Table 1.
Leadership behaviours and change organisational structures and processes to facilitate the change
deemed most effective  Balancing the needs of the business with the needs of individuals in the
when fostering business
organisational Management of self  Remaining calm and composed in challenging times
identification during  Demonstrating vulnerability
change  Prioritising self-care to replenish and sustain self through change

They are thinking beyond the day-to-day . . . connecting to a higher purpose . . .They are calm and
rational, listening to the subconscious signals being transmitted by the team [and] recognising and
containing the anxiety of the group that they are working with, but also making sure they push back
into that anxiety so the anxiety is . . . enough to mobilise the team but not so much as derail them.
Being open to feedback in a very real way [not shying away] from difficult feedback . . .
Acknowledging the fact that you cannot do it alone and that you need to work with others.
(Leadership Expert, Community Leadership Development)
The importance of leveraging “change champions” was emphasised by a number of experts –
in concordance with themes discovered earlier. This consistent finding reinforces the
influence of those with informal authority, who may not necessarily be in formal leadership
positions but still play a pivotal role in supporting (or hindering) an organisation’s
transformation efforts. The premise that leadership is a practice that can be exercised by
anyone (Heifetz et al., 2009; Heifetz and Laurie, 1997) appears particularly relevant in this
instance.

Outcomes resulting from encouraging organisational leaders to focus on fostering follower

organisational identification during change
A range of positive outcomes (individual, organisational and team) were seen to result from
leaders’ focus on fostering organisational identification during change, and were in
accordance with those outlined in the literature. The most frequently described outcomes are
presented in Table 2.
The individual outcomes were associated with people’s sense of belonging and
connectedness to the organisation throughout and beyond the change process, feeling
consulted and being able to make informed decisions about whether to remain post-change.
Organisational and team outcomes included an increase in employee engagement, meeting
team and organisational targets, a shared purpose and vision and lower-than-expected staff
turnover.
Outcomes Key themes
Leadership
behaviours
Individual  People remaining “on board” and connected with the organisation throughout the during change
outcomes change process, a sense of belonging, and people feeling their purpose is aligned with
that of the organisation
 Individuals’ self-rated level of comfort with change post-implementation
 Quick acceleration of connection to the new organisation (new organisational
structure, merged organisation or acquiring organisation)
 Individuals making informed decisions regarding whether to “select in” or “select out”
of the organisation
 Individuals feeling consulted
Table 2.
 Increase in employee engagement (as measured by surveys)—note this was Outcomes achieved
considered both an individual and organisational outcome when encouraging
 Organisational success (as measured by meeting KPIs) organisational leaders
 Quick acceleration up the “productivity curve” post-change to focus on fostering
 Shared purpose and vision, created and owned by individuals throughout the organisational
organisation (not just the senior leadership team) identification during
 Lower-than-expected staff turnover change

Comments regarding the outcomes associated with fostering organisational identification

made by the experts in the round one interviews included:
Creating a shared purpose or a shared vision . . . actually physically having that where everyone has
contributed to that, opposed to just being a top-down approach. (Leadership Expert, Community
Leadership Development)
People are significantly more motivated [and] engaged in what they do and they’re almost certainly
going to be more creative in what they do. They’re going to be more willing to be open to new ideas
and to new ways of doing things. You’re going to . . . to end up with lower absenteeism, higher
engagement, lower stress, lower turnover, higher productivity, higher creativity. The whole shebang
if people feel clear about, and feel good about, who they’re working for and feel that their purpose and
their values are aligned with those of the institution or organization that they work for. (Leadership
Expert, Consulting)
A far more fundamental understanding of the organisation, of what we’re here for, what we’re
involved in and why we’re doing it. A greater connectiveness across teams of people who might have
been operating in silos . . . Financial success . . . Organisational success. (Practitioner, Venture
Capital)
Really quick acceleration of connection to the new company to what we stand for and really
identifying with that. The other benefit of that is you get that very rapid growth of the productivity
curve. People are on board, they’re engaged, they understand their roles, we have given them an
opportunity to let go of some of the past and we have also very clearly helped them identify what is
going to be different and why. (Practitioner, Mining)

The leadership competency framework and its relevance to fostering organisational

identification during change
A key focus of the current study was to seek the input of a broad range of leadership experts
and practising leaders in the revision of the preliminary leadership competency framework
that was developed previously. The resulting leadership competency framework is presented
in Figure 1. Each of the 12 competencies was defined more specifically in the revised
competency framework, incorporating more detailed and observable behaviours. Moreover,
greater emphasis was placed on describing how these behaviours manifest in the support of
organisational change.
JOCM The “Leadership and Governance in Organisational Change”, “Relationship Management
and Communication Skills” and “Personal Characteristics and Capabilities” competency
domains garnered the most attention from the experts during the Delphi process and were
expanded upon in the revised leadership competency framework, which is
summarised below.
Leadership and governance in organisational change. The “Leadership and Governance in
Organisational Change” domain comprises of two competencies: (1) clarity of shared vision
and (2) stewardship of organisational change:
(1) Clarity of shared vision: Encapsulates leadership behaviours including
demonstrating commitment to the purpose of the organisational change; clearly
articulating the rationale for change throughout the organisation and providing a
compelling narrative for change through storytelling and use of analogy and
metaphor.
(2) Stewardship of organisational change: Includes leadership behaviours such as
assuming personal accountability for achieving key outcomes associated with the
change process; drawing on change management frameworks appropriate to the
organisation’s adaptation or formation; demonstrating full, visible and sustained
support for organisational change processes (i.e. serving as an enthusiastic “change
agent”); assisting others to work through reactions to change and embracing the
diversity of thinking associated with change processes.
Relationship management and communication skills. The “Relationship Management and
Communication Skills” competency domain incorporates three competencies: (3) stakeholder
management; (4) focus on internal relationships and (5) communication:
(3) Stakeholder management: Focuses on leaders’ ability to proactively establish and
maintain professional relationships with key stakeholders; support team members to
effectively manage key stakeholder relationships; customise key messages according
to stakeholder requirements and navigate complex and sensitive political issues.
(4) Focus on internal relationships: Describes leaders’ ability to connect with people
genuinely and authentically throughout the organisation; being available to allow
organisational members to express their views and experiences regarding the change
process; attending to the emotional needs of others and considering the nuances
associated with power and authority to interact effectively with people throughout
the organisation.
(5) Communication: Focuses on leaders’ ability to communicate articulately and
effectively to ensure key messages are conveyed; accurately assess (and employ) the

Leadership and Relationship Management of Personal

governance in management and people, organisational characteristics and
organisational change communication skills systems and processes capabilities

1. Clarity of shared 3. Stakeholder 6. Management of 9. Personal integrity

Figure 1. vision management people 10. Achievement
Leadership 2. Stewardship of 4. Focus on internal 7. Management of focus
competency organisational relationships organisational 11. Analysis, decision
framework to foster change 5. Communication systems and making and
effective processes judgement
organisational 8. Planning 12. Self management
change—revised
 appropriate mode of communication to suit the situation and audience; tailor their Leadership
communication approach according to the stage of change the organisation is behaviours
undertaking and not underestimate how much communication required by those
impacted by the change.
during change
Management of people, organisational systems and processes. The “Management of People,
Organisational Systems and Processes” competency domain includes three competencies:
(6) management of people; (7) management of organisational systems and processes and
(8) planning:
(6) Management of people: Describes common people and team management practices
that are still relevant during organisational change, including the ability to coordinate
diverse teams to achieve desired organisational outcomes; fostering a positive work
environment; employing a range of influencing and motivational techniques that suit
the situation and audience and performance management (including conducting
challenging conversations).
(7) Management of organisational systems and processes: Includes leaders’ ability to
implement a systemic view of the organisation; apply appropriate corporate
governance frameworks and practices; ensure the smooth functioning of
organisational systems and processes (including ensuring these do not become a
barrier to organisational change) and foster a service improvement ethos across the
organisation.
(8) Planning: Incorporates activities associated with developing plans that reflect key
priorities and overseeing the smooth implementation of plans, including evaluating,
expediting, reviewing and adjusting progress against plans.
Personal characteristics and capabilities. The “Personal Characteristics and Capabilities”
competency domain comprised of four competencies: (9) personal integrity; (10) achievement
focus; (11) analysis, decision-making and judgement; and (12) self-management.
(9) Personal integrity: Describes the leaders’ ability to operate with a strong moral
compass; adhere to a clear set of professional ethical standards and place the interests
of the organisation (and the individuals within it) ahead of their own interests.
Consistency and candour also featured.
(10) Achievement focus: Incorporates setting and accomplishing challenging goals;
tenacity and the application of a growth mindset.
(11) Analysis, decision-making and judgement: Including the ability to navigate complex
and ambiguous issues; critical thinking; consideration of the broader implications of
decisions; taking (and advocating for) difficult decisions on behalf of the organisation
and providing intellectual stimulation by facilitating discussion regarding complex
issues.
(12) Self-management: Incorporating self-confidence that instils confidence in others;
composure in pressured situations; demonstrating optimism that sustains self and
others; demonstrating flexibility if situations do not evolve as predicted and
engaging in regular activities to sustain own health and well-being.
When asked to prioritise the competencies that were most instrumental in fostering
organisational identification during times of change, the experts stated the following:
 Leadership and governance in organisational change domain (including “clarity of
shared vision” and “stewardship of organisational change”).
JOCM  Personal characteristics and capabilities domain (particularly “personal integrity” and
“self-management”).
 Relationship management and communication skills domain.

Discussion
The current study captured the expertise and experience of both practising leaders and
leadership experts regarding the leadership behaviours deemed most effective when
fostering organisational identification and the impact of these behaviours. This study also
summarised experts’ perspectives on how such behaviours need to be operationalised to
maximise the success of organisational change. Using this expertise, together with specific
feedback from the experts, a contemporary and practical leadership competency framework
was developed for leaders who are guiding their organisations through change, which
extended beyond fostering organisational identification to the leadership of change more
broadly.

Understanding and application of organisational identification in an organisational context

The term “organisational identification” does not appear to be commonly used in the
organisational contexts in which the experts operated (i.e. a range of industries in Australia).
The findings reflect the argument made by some researchers (e.g. Ashforth et al., 2008) that
organisational identification overlaps somewhat with the constructs of affective organisational
commitment, employee engagement, organisational loyalty, person–organisation fit,
psychological ownership and job embeddedness. And while Riketta (2005) established an
empirical distinction between organisational identification and affective organisational
commitment, more research could be undertaken regarding the distinction between
organisational identification and the other constructs. Nevertheless, regardless of the
terminology used, an employee’s connection with his/her employing organisation was seen
to yield a range of positive outcomes, both tangible and intangible, and should be fostered.
The finding that organisational identification is not considered a distinct or discrete
organisational construct outside of academia at this time suggests there is an opportunity to
socialise the concept of organisational identification more broadly, in order for leaders and
their organisations to leverage it during their management of change. Specifically,
organisations and their leaders would benefit from understanding how organisational
identification is defined, its divergence (and convergence) with other key organisational
constructs, corresponding positive outcomes and the strategies that can be employed to
foster organisational identification in their employees.
As previously mentioned, the experts who contributed to this study described how they
focused more on constructs akin to organisational identification during change management
projects (i.e. organisational culture; the vision, mission, purpose and values of the
organisation; employee engagement and the employee value proposition). These
constructs – and associated methodologies for cultivating them – are well-established in
corporate spheres. The current research indicates that organisational identification serves as
a useful additional lens (and metric) through which to view the strategies, management and
outcomes associated with organisational change: Its ability to be quantitively measured at
various points in a change process (e.g. pre-, during and post-change) ensures its value to
organisations wishing to gauge their employee’s level of affinity and connection as
organisational change evolves (Mael and Ashforth, 1992, 1995; Shamir and Kark, 2004;
Smidts et al., 2001). As it becomes more socialised in corporate environments — as a construct
and a contributor to successful organisational change — it is likely that both organisations
and consulting firms will utilise and commoditise organisational identification as part of their
change management toolkit, incorporating it into key aspects of change processes from Leadership
planning through to communication, implementation and review. behaviours
Additionally, organisational identification serves as a useful lens through which to view
the significant changes that will be required of organisations as a result of the COVID-19
during change
pandemic, with corresponding implications for reflecting on the “essence of who they are”,
and exploring their members’ own professional and personal identities and their interface
with the organisation’s identity. Examining post-pandemic identity processes will be a
worthy avenue of future research.

Leadership and its effect on organisational identification during times of change

The outcomes described by participating experts – including individuals’ feelings of belonging
and connectedness; increases in employee engagement; meeting team and organisational
targets; shared purpose and vision and lower than expected staff turnover – reflect the range of
variables examined in relation to leadership and organisational identification in existing
literature. Other researchers have explored – and verified positive relationships between – the
constructs of leadership and organisational identification and a broad range of variables
including cognitive and affective, behavioural, relational, health-related, performance and
outcome-related variables (e.g. Homburg et al., 2009; Riketta, 2005; van Dick et al., 2006; van Dick
et al., 2007; van Knippenberg and Schie, 2000; Wieseke et al., 2007). These combined findings
further reinforce the merit in leaders focusing on followers’ organisational identification during
change and that organisations would do well to equip their leaders with the knowledge, skills
and tools to cultivate a strong sense of connection to the organisation’s identity as it evolves. A
sound theoretical and practical understanding of identity processes would be a beneficial
addition to leadership development programmes, as well as ensuring leaders possess the
requisite communication, relationship management, change management and self-management
skills.

Leadership competencies
A key outcome of this study is the refinement of a leadership competency framework
focussed on the navigation of organisational change, which extended beyond fostering
organisational identification to the leadership of change more broadly, thus enhancing the
framework’s generalisability. The leadership themes captured in the framework were made
more specific as a result of the input of senior leaders and leadership subject matter experts,
however still bore close resemblance to the literature reviews and interview themes that
contributed to the development of the preliminary framework created in the previous study
(Aitken, 2019; Aitken and von Treuer, 2014). Such consistencies give weight to Beinecke’s
(2009b) claim about the “universality” of core competencies. Further research demonstrating
applicability of the competency framework across all sectors addressing different types of
change will be useful. Future research will no doubt also be required into the leadership
competencies deemed essential in organisations who make significant changes to their ways
of working post-pandemic, including more flexible work practices and more virtual
engagement.
Of note is the finding that the competencies emphasised most frequently by experts
throughout this study (also by the leaders canvassed in an earlier phase of the research) were
more related to personal characteristics that are more challenging to develop – many of which
are more intrinsic, value-oriented and personality-based, such as a willingness to take
ownership of situations, honesty, integrity, a genuine affinity for others and a willingness and
ability to engage in honest (if sometimes difficult) conversations. In order to demonstrate these
behaviours, leaders require knowledge, skills and abilities that are not easily attained in the
short term (or via training courses), rather are acquired through career and life experiences that
JOCM allow a leader to hone their communication, influencing and relating skills – as well as their
personal character – in corporate settings. Furthermore, it could be argued that the
development pipeline for these leadership competencies should commence when personal
character and value sets are first nurtured and not at the time an individual is identified as
having “leadership potential” within his/her organisation.
This finding reinforces that these competencies must be (and indeed, in many instances
are) the focus of leadership selection processes at all levels within an organisation, including
for emerging leaders. Additionally, developmental activities that occur over an extended
period of time, such as coaching (i.e. one-on-one, team, group and peer), mentoring, talent
management and experiential leadership programmes – which serve as appropriate vehicles
for nurturing and refining such capabilities – must be prioritised (Bass et al., 2008; Beinecke,
2009a, b; Palmer and Whybrow, 2019; Whitmore, 2017). Honest and targeted feedback (i.e. via
360-degree feedback mechanisms and observations from credible others) is also invaluable to
leaders wanting to ensure that their leadership practice is resonating with their organisation
and its key stakeholders during times of change.

Conclusion
The current study reinforces the available literature, which purports that organisational
identification is considered an important organisational construct that can yield a range of
positive outcomes for both individuals and organisations. Organisational identification is
deemed worthy of leaders’ attention when guiding organisations (and their members)
through change.
According to the leadership experts and leadership practitioners canvassed in this study,
organisational identification currently appears to be more of an academic term than a concept
employed in leadership practice. Constructs such as employee engagement, organisational
commitment, employee value proposition, organisational culture, the vision, mission, purpose
and values of the organization, organisational loyalty, person–organisation fit were more
common in corporate parlance and practice and focused on in a more deliberate manner
during organisational change. However, once the construct of organisational identification
was mooted, all those involved in the study signalled the benefits of fostering a strong sense
of connection to an organisation’s identity as it evolves. As such, there is merit in promoting
the construct more broadly in corporate circles, including outlining how leaders can foster
organisational identification within their organisations to maximise the success of
organisational change.
The study findings also reinforce that there is appetite for more guidance for leaders
navigating their organisations through change. The revised leadership competency
framework thus serves as a practical insight into the behaviours deemed most effective for
leaders to employ when leading change. In its current form, the leadership competency
framework provides a blueprint for leaders regarding the behaviours they need to
demonstrate, articulated in understandable, observable and measurable terms, as defined by
their peers (i.e. the senior leaders and leadership experts who participated in this study).
Further, the framework could be used by organisational development and human resources
functions as they select, develop, evaluate and support those charged with leading change
within their organisations.

References
Aitken, K. and von Treuer, K. (2014), “Organisational and leadership competencies for successful
service integration”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 150-180.
Aitken, K. (2019), “The role of leadership in fostering organisational identity and organisational Leadership
identification to support successful change”, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Deakin University.
behaviours
Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (Eds) (1985), Organizational Identity, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 7.
during change
Alexander, J.A., Weiner, B.J., Shortell, S.M., Baker, L.C. and Becker, M.P. (2006), “The role of
organizational infrastructure in implementation of hospitals’ quality improvement”, Hospital
Topics, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 11-21.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2002), “Leadership”, in Warr, P. (Ed.), Psychology at Work,
5th ed., Penguin Books, London, pp. 300-325.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2005), “Leadership: time for a new direction?”, Leadership,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-71.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2008), Engaging Leadership: Creating Organisations that
Maximise the Potential of Their People, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,
London.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, J., Bradley, M., Mariathasan, J. and Samele, C. (2007), “The impact
of leadership factors in implementing change in complex health and social care environments”,
Research project supported by NHS Grant SDO/22/2002.
Appelbaum, S.H., Lefrancois, F., Tonna, R. and Shapiro, B.T. (2007a), “Mergers 101 (part one): training
managers for communications and leadership challenges”, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 128-136.
Appelbaum, S.H., Lefrancois, F., Tonna, R. and Shapiro, B.T. (2007b), “Mergers 101 (part two): training
managers for culture, stress, and change challenges”, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 191-200.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H. and Corley, K.G. (2008), “Identification in organizations: an examination
of four fundamental questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 325-374.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1991), The Full Range Leadership Development Programs: Basic and
Advanced Manuals, Bass, Avolio & Associates, Binghamton, NY.
Badrtalei, J. and Bates, D.L. (2007), “Effect of organisational cultures on mergers and acquisitions: the
case of DaimlerChrysler”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 303-317.
Bass, B.M., Bass, R. and Bass, R.R. (2008), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications, Free Press, New York.
Beinecke, R.H. (2009a), “Introduction: leadership for wicked problems”, Innovation Journal, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Beinecke, R.H. (2009b), “Leadership training programs and competencies for mental health, health,
public administration and business in seven countries: international Initiative for Mental Health
Leadership”, Retrieved October 2010 from, available at: www.iimhl.com.
Brady, S.R. (2015), “The Delphi method”, in Jason, L. and Glenwick, D.S. (Eds), Handbook of
Methodological Approaches to Community-Based Research: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods, Oxford University Press, pp. 61-67.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Calhoun, J.G., Arbor, A., Dollett, L., Sinioris, M.E., Wainio, J.A., Butler, P.W., . . . and Warden, G. (2008),
“Development of an interprofessional competency model for healthcare leadership”, Journal of
Healthcare Management, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 375-390.
Callaly, T., von Treuer, K., Dodd, S. and Berk, M. (2010), “Mental health services for young people—
the challenge of integrating services”, Acta Neuropsychiatrica, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 158-160.
JOCM Callaly, T., von Treuer, K., van Hamond, T. and Windle, K. (2011), “Forming and sustaining
partnerships to provide integrated services for young people: an overview based on the
headspace Geelong experience”, Early Intervention in Psychiatry, Vol. 5, pp. 28-33.
Clark, S.M., Gioia, D.A., Ketchen, D.J. Jr and Thomas, J.B. (2010), “Transitional identity as a facilitator
of organizational identity change during a merger”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55
No. 3, pp. 397-438.
Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2004), “Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate
spin-off”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 173-208.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2005), “The moderating role of individual differences in the relation
between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organisational
identification”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 569-589.
Gebelein, S.H., Stevens, L.A., Skube, C.J., Lee, D.G., Davis, B.L. and Hellervik, L.W. (2001), Successful
Manager’s Handbook, 6th ed., Personnel Decisions International Corporation, Minneapolis, MN.
Giessner, S.R. (2011), “Is the merger necessary? The interactive effect of perceived necessity and sense
of continuity on post-merger identification”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 1079-1098.
Graetz, F., Rimmer, M., Lawrence, A. and Smith, A. (2006), Managing Organisational Change, 2nd ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, Milton, QLD.
Haslam, A.S. and Ellemers, N. (2011), “Identity processes in organizations”, in Schwartz, S.J., Luyckx,
K. and Vignoles, V.L. (Eds), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, Springer, New York,
Vols 1 and 2, pp. 715-744.
Haslam, A.S., Reicher, S.D. and Platow, M.J. (2011), The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity,
Influence and Power, Psychology Press, New York.
He, H. and Brown, A.D. (2013), “Organisational identity and organisational identification: a review of
the literature and suggestions for future research”, Group and Organisation Management,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 3-35.
Heifetz, R.A. and Laurie, D.L. (1997), “The art of leadership”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75,
pp. 124-134.
Heifetz, R.A., Grashow, A. and Linsky, M. (2009), The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and
Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J. and Hoyer, W.D. (2009), “Social identity and the service–profit chain”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 38-54.
Hsu, C. and Sandford, B.A. (2007), “The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus”, Practical
Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 1-8.
Junni, P. and Sarala, R.M. (2014), “The role of leadership in mergers and acquisitions: a review of
recent empirical studies”, in Finkelstein, S. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Advances in Mergers and
Acquisitions, Emerald Group Publishing, Vol. 13, pp. 181-200.
Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003), “The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment
and dependency”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 246-255.
MacKay, P. (1997), “Competencies and competence: what are they and what role do they play?”,
Retrieved September 2010 from, available at: www.ldc.govt.nz/?/information/publications.
Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 13,
pp. 103-123, doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202.
Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1995), “Loyal from day one: biodata, organisational identification, and
turnover among newcomers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 309-333, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1995.tb01759.x.
Nag, R., Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2007), “The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge,
and practice: attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting”, The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 821-847.
New, G.E. (1996), “Reflections: a three-tier model of organizational competencies”, Journal of Leadership
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 44-51.
behaviours
Palmer, S. and Whybrow, A. (2019), Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners,
2nd ed., Routledge, Hove.
during change
Paviglionite, J.H. (2007), “The influence of organizational identity in the integration of technology
firms in a business merger”, Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation/Thesis, Walden University.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-91.
Pratt, M.G., Schultz, M., Ashforth, B.E. and Ravasi, D. (2016), “Organisational identity: mapping where
we have been, where we are, and where we might go”, in Pratt, M.G., Schultz, M., Ashforth, B.E.
and Ravasi, D. (Eds), The Oxford Book of Organisational Identity, Oxford University Press,
United Kingdom, pp. 1-18.
Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M. (2006), “Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the role of
organizational culture”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 433-458.
Reissner, S.C. (2010), “Change, meaning and identity at the workplace”, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 287-299.
Riketta, M. (2005), “Organizational identification: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 358-384.
Saat, M. and Himmelsbach, J. (2014), “Merger and acquisition transactions: important aspects of the
newly developed holistic process model using the example of the TUV € NORD Group”,
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 10-20.
Sastry, M.A. (1997), “Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 237-275.
Schinoff, B.S., Rogers, K.M. and Corley, K.G. (2016), “How do we communicate who we are? Examining
how organisational identity is conveyed to members”, in Pratt, M.G., Schultz, M., Ashforth, B.E.
and Ravasi, D. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organisational Identity, Oxford University Press,
United Kingdom, pp. 219-238.
Shamir, B. and Kark, R. (2004), “A single-item graphic scale for the measurement of organizational
identification”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 115-123,
doi: 10.1348/096317904322915946.
Skulmoski, G.J., Hartman, F.T. and Krahn, J. (2007), “The Delphi method for graduate research”,
Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol. 6, pp. 1-21.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A.T.H. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2001), “The impact of employee communication and
perceived external prestige on organisational identification”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1051-1062.
Stefl, M.E. (2008), “Common competencies for all healthcare managers: the Healthcare Leadership
Alliance model”, Journal of Healthcare Management/American College of Healthcare Executives,
Vol. 53 No. 6, p. 360.
Tannenbaum, M. (2006), “Hospital vexed by new computer system”, Mountain View Voice, Vol. 14
No. 29, pp. 5-10.
Tienari, J. and Vaara, E. (2016), “Identity construction in mergers and acquisitions: a discursive
sensemaking perspective”, in Pratt, M.G., Schultz, M., Ashforth, B.E. and Ravasi, D. (Eds),
The Oxford Handbook of Organisational Identity, Oxford University Press, pp. 455-473.
van Dick, R. and Kerschreiter, R. (2016), “The social identity approach to effective leadership: an
overview and some ideas on cross-cultural generalizability”, Frontiers of Business Research in
China, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 363-384.
van Dick, R., Grojean, M.W., Christ, O. and Wieseke, J. (2006), “Identity and the extra mile:
relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 283-301.
JOCM van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M.W. and Wieseke, J. (2007), “Relationships between leader and
follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviour”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 133-150.
van Knippenberg, D. and Schie, E.C. (2000), “Foci and correlates of organizational identification”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 137-147, doi: 10.1348/
096317900166949.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2004), “Leadership, self,
and identity: a review and research agenda”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 825-856.
van Knippenberg, D. (2016), “Making sense of who we are: leadership and organisational identity”, in
Pratt, M.G., Schultz, M., Ashforth, B.E. and Ravasi, D. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of
Organisational Identity, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, pp. 335-349.
Whitmore, J. (2017), Coaching for Performance: The Principles and Practice of Coaching and
Leadership, Nicholas Brealy Publishing, London.
Wieseke, J., Ullrich, J., Christ, O. and van Dick, R. (2007), “Organisational identification as a
determinant of customer orientation in service organisations”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 265-278.

Further reading
Corley, K.G. (2004), “Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions of
organizational identity and change”, Human relations, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 1145-1177.
Jacobs, G., van Witteloostuijn, A. and Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013), “A theoretical framework of
organizational change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 772-792.

Appendix
The appendix is available online for this article.

Corresponding author
Kim Aitken can be contacted at: kimmaitken@icloud.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com