LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT

(MGMT 442)

MARCH 10, 2012

Course Introduction

The world is filled with followers, supervisors, and managers but very few leaders.

Leadership is like beauty, it is hard to define but you know it when you see it. Time has

Produced a legacy of distinguished and outstanding individuals who have impacted history

and the ongoing development of mankind. These people were both men and women, rich and

poor, learned and unlearned, trained and untrained. They came from every race, color,

language and culture of the world. Leaders are ordinary people who accept or are placed

under extraordinary circumstances that bring forth their latent potential, producing character

that inspires the confidence and trust of others. Our world today is in desperate need of such

individuals.

Change is a constant, a thread woven into the fabric of our personal and professional lives.

Change occurs within our world and beyond -- in national and international events, in the

physical environment, in the way organizations are structured and conduct their business, in

political and socioeconomic problems and solutions, and in societal norms and values. As the

world becomes more complex and increasingly interrelated, changes seemingly far away

affect us. Thus, change may sometimes appear to occur frequently and randomly. We are

slowly becoming aware of how connected we are to one another and to our world.

Organizations must also be cognizant of their holistic nature and of the ways their members

affect one another. The incredible amount of change has forced individuals and organizations to
see “the big picture” and to be aware of how events affect them and vice versa.

1
Organizational change is an ongoing process that has important implications for organizational
performance and for the well-being of an organization’s members. An organization and its
members must be constantly on the alert for changes from within the organization and from the
outside environment and they must learn how to adjust to change quickly and effectively. Often,
the revolutionary types of change that result from restructuring and reengineering are necessary
only because an organization and its managers ignored or were unaware of changes in the
environment and did not make incremental changes as needed. The more an organization
changes, the easier and more effective the change process becomes. Developing and managing a
plan for change are vital to an organization’s success.

Often the only difference between chaos and a smoothly functioning Operation is leadership;

this course is about that difference. This material is comprised of two major concepts that

very important for leaders. One is leadership, where the basic concepts, including meaning,

its difference with management, what makes effective leaders, importance and the role of

leadership in organizations are discussed. This part also includes leadership theories. The

second part deals with organizational Change and its management. The module describes and

critically evaluates the basic concepts of, leadership theories and Change management issues.

Dear learners; in the course of your study you are requested to attempt all the in-text questions,
the activities and the self test exercises so that yourself learning activities will get smooth and
easier. This course introduces leadership and change management which is a responsibility of an
effective leader. It covers in detail the concept of Leadership, theories of leadership and leader
development, change (evolutionary and revolutionary changes), Obstacles to Change, Managing
a change and adapting to Change, ways of introducing change and harmonizing the organization
in order to create a learning organization that is ready accept the environmental dynamism in this
turbulent business environment in the age of globalization.

Course Objectives:

After successful completion of this course student will be able to:

 Define what leadership is and how it is applied at all levels of management

2
 Understand the basics of leadership in the era of globalization

 Develop skills in communicating, influencing and negotiating with peers,

subordinates and senior managers.

 Become adept at assessing leadership traits and qualities in ourselves and others

 Learn how to develop leadership skills and capabilities

 Assist organizations to in changing their organization to accommodate the changing

World

 Manage changes effectively and efficiently

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO LEAEDERSHIP

Objectives After completing the learning of this unit, you should able to:

 Define leadership

 Identify leadership and management

 Describe qualities of effective leaders

 Identify Dimensions of conceptualization of leadership, and

 Describe issues pertaining to the nature of leadership

1.1. Leadership Definition

Perhaps the best way for you to begin to understand the complexities of leadership is to see

some of the ways leadership has been defined. Leadership researchers have defined

leadership in many diverse ways. A simple definition of leadership is that leadership is the

art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal.

Put even more simply, the leader is the inspiration and director of the action. He or she is the

person in the group that possesses the combination of personality and skills that makes

others want to follow his or her direction.

3
For this course, leadership is defined as "enabling a group to engage together in the process

of developing, sharing and moving into vision, and then living it out." We also emphasize

the importance of a leader's character and integrity in building up the trust necessary for the

leadership to be exercised over a period of time.

Some of the common ideas that others include in leadership definitions include exerting

influence, motivating and inspiring, helping others realize their potential, leading by

example, selflessness and making a difference. For perspective, we include several other

common definitions :

 The process by which an agent induces subordinate to behave in a desired manner

(Bennis, 1959).

 Directing and coordinating the work of group members (Fiedler, 1967).

 An interpersonal relation in which others comply because they want to, not because

they have to (Merton, 1969).

 Transforming followers, creating visions of the goals that may be attained, and

articulating for the followers the ways to attain those goals (Bass, 1985; Tichy &

Devanna, 1986).

 The process of influencing and organized group toward accomplishing its goals

(Roach & Behling, 1984).

 The ends of leadership involve getting results through others, and the means of

leadership involve the ability to build cohesive, goal-oriented teams. Good leaders are

those who build teams to get results across a variety of situations (Hogan, Cruphy, &

Hogan, 1994) “Leadership is an interpersonal process in which influence is exercised in a social

system for the achievement of organizational goals by others”.

Researchers agree on two characteristics of leadership. First, leadership involves exerting

influence over other members of a group or organization. Second, leadership involves

4
helping a group or organization achieve its goals. Leaders of a group or organization are the

individuals who exert such influence. A Leader helps others achieve organizational goals and

influences perceptions and behaviors, including attitudes, learning, motivation, stress,

performance, decision-making quality, turnover, and absenteeism.

Leader effectiveness is the extent to which a leader helps a group or organization achieves

its goals.

• Leadership - the process of guiding & directing the behavior of people in the work environment

• Formal leadership - the officially sanctioned leader-ship based on the authority of a formal
position. Formal leaders are members of an organization with authority to influence other
members to achieve organizational goals.

• Informal leadership - the unofficial leadership accorded to a person by other members of

the organization. Informal leaders lack formal authority, but sometimes exert just as much
influence as formal leaders—and sometimes more. Informal leaders influence others, based

on special skills or talents that help achieve group goals..

• Followers-hip - the process of being guided & directed by a leader in the work environment

"Leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less." This moves beyond the position

defining the leader, to looking at the ability of the leader to influence others - both those

who would consider themselves followers, and those outside that circle. Indirectly, it also

builds in leadership character, since without maintaining integrity and trustworthiness, the

capability to influence will disappear. Hence, leadership is a process by which a person

influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that

makes it more cohesive and coherent.

5
"Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well-communicated,

building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership

potential."

!To sum up although through the years, leadership has been defined /conceptualized in many
ways, there are some major emphasized dimensions or components that are nearly common to
most of the approaches to the conceptualization of the concept, and can serve as defining
elements. In view of that, leadership is defined as an influence process that assists groups of
individuals towards goal achievement. Further, recently others expanded, defines leadership as a
process in which leaders and followers interact dynamically in particular situations or
environments (interactional frame work for leadership analysis). Leadership is viewed as a
function of three elements-leaders-followers-situations. Hence, one can infer that leadership is a
broader concept than that of leaders, and the study or conceptualization of leadership must
involve more than just the study of leaders as individual. The study or conceptualization of
leadership must also include two other areas: the followers and the situations.

1.1.1. Concepts of Leadership

Dear learners; are leaders born or made?

Good leaders are made not born. If you have the desire and willpower, you can become an

effective leader. Good leaders develop through a never ending process of self-study,

education, training, and experience. This course will help you through that process.

To inspire your workers into higher levels of teamwork, there are certain things you must

be, know, and, do. These do not come naturally, but are acquired through continual work

and study. Good leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership

skills; they are NOT resting on their laurels.

Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership knowledge and skills. This is

6
called Process Leadership (Jago, 1982). However, we know that we have traits that can

influence our actions. This is called Trait Leadership (Jago, 1982); in that it was once

common to believe that leaders were born rather than made (leadership theories will be

discussed in chapter two).

While leadership is learned, the skills and knowledge processed by the leader can be

influenced by his or her attributes or traits, such as beliefs, values, ethics, and character.

Knowledge and skills contribute directly to the process of leadership, while the other

attributes give the leader certain characteristics that make him or her unique.

Skills, knowledge, and attributes make the Leader, which is one of the Four Factors of

Leadership.

While leadership is learned, the skills and knowledge processed by the leader can be

influenced by his or her attributes or traits, such as beliefs, values, ethics, and character.

Knowledge and skills contribute directly to the process of leadership, while the other

attributes give the leader certain characteristics that make him or her unique.

The four major factors in leadership are:

1. Leader

You must have an honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you can

do. Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader or someone else who determines if the

leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, then they will be

uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, not yourself or your

superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.

7
2. Followers

Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires

more supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation requires a

different approach than one with a high degree of motivation. You must know your people!

The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of human nature, such as

needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know your employees' be, know, and do

attributes.

3. Communication

You lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when you

"set the example," that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to

perform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate

either builds or harms the relationship between you and your employees.

4. Situation

All situations are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in another.

You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and the leadership style

needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront an employee for

inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, too harsh or too

weak, then the results may prove ineffective.

Also note that the situation normally has a greater effect on a leader's action than his or her

traits. This is because while traits may have an impressive stability over a period of time,

they have little consistency across situations (Mischel, 1968). This is why a number of

8
leadership scholars think the Process Theory of Leadership is a more accurate than the Trait

Theory of Leadership.

Various forces will affect these four factors. Examples of forces are your relationship with

your seniors, the skill of your followers, the informal leaders within your organization, and

how your organization is organized.

1.1.2. Leadership is Both Science and an Art

Saying leadership is both a science and an art emphasizes the subject of leadership as a field

of scholarly inquiry, as well as certain aspects of the practice of leadership. The scope of

the science of leadership is reflected in the number of studies-approximately 8,000-cited in the

authoritative preference work, Bass & Stogdill’s Hand Book of Leadership: Theory

Research and applications (Bass, 1990). However, being an expert on leadership is neither a

necessary or sufficient condition for being a good leader. Some managers may be effective

leaders without ever having taken a course or training program in leadership, and some

scholars in the field of leadership may be relatively poor leaders in themselves.

This is not to say that knowing something about leadership research is irrelevant to

leadership effectiveness. Scholarship may not be a prerequisite for leadership effectiveness,

but understanding some of the major research findings can help individuals better analyze

situations using a variety of perspectives. That, in turn, can give leaders insight about how to

be more effective. Even so, because the skill in analyzing and responding to situations

varies greatly across leaders, leadership will always remain partly an art as well as a

science.

9
1.1.3. `Boss or Leader?

Although your position as a manager, supervisor, lead, etc. gives you the authority to

accomplish certain tasks and objectives in the organization (called Assigned Leadership),

this power does not make you a leader, it simply makes you the boss (Rowe, 2007).

Leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals (called

Emergent Leadership), rather than simply bossing people around (Rowe, 2007). Thus you

get Assigned Leadership by your position and you display Emergent Leadership by

influencing people to do great things.

1.2. Leadership vs. Management

Leadership and management are terms that are often used interchangeably in the business

world to depict someone who manages a team of people. In reality leadership vs.

management have very different meanings. To be a great manager you must understand

what it takes to also be a great leader. In trying to answer “what is leadership?” it is natural to
look at the relationship between leadership and management. To many, the word management
suggests words like, efficiency, planning, paperwork, procedures, regulations, control and
consistency.

Leadership is more associated with words like, risk taking, dynamic, creativity, change, and

vision.

! Leaders are thought to do the right things, where as managers are thought to do things

right (Bennis, 1985; Zalezink, 1983). Some other distinctions between managers and

leaders are:

 Managers administer; leaders innovate.

10
 Managers maintain; leaders develop.

 Managers control; leaders inspire.

 Managers have a short term view; leaders, a long term view.

 Managers ask how and when; leaders ask what and why

 Managers imitate; leaders originate.

 Managers accept the statuesque; leaders challenge it.

Their difference is quite useful, since organizations typically need both functions

performed well. Leadership and management complement each other, and both are vital to

organizational success. With regard to the issue of leadership versus management we take

middle-of-the- road position. We think of leadership and management as closely related but

distinguishable functions. It shows leadership and management as two overlapping functions.

Although some of the functions performed by leaders and managers may be unique, there is also
an area of overlap.

The difference between management and leadership is a question that has been asked

more than once and also answered in different ways. The biggest difference between

managers and leaders is the way they motivate the people who work or follow them, and

this sets the tone for most other aspects of what they do.

Many people, by the way, are both. They have management jobs, but they realize that you

cannot buy hearts, especially to follow them down a difficult path, and so act as leaders too.

Managers have subordinates Leaders have followers

Managers have subordinates

By definition, managers have subordinates - unless their title is honorary and given as a

11
mark of seniority, in which case the title is a misnomer and their power over others is other

than formal authority.

Authoritarian, transactional style

Managers have a position of authority vested in them by the company, and their

subordinates work for them and largely do as they are told. Management style is

transactional, in that the manager tells the subordinate what to do, and the subordinate does

this not because they are a blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward (at

minimum their salary) for doing so.

Work focus

Managers are paid to get things done (they are subordinates too), often within tight

constraints of time and money. They thus naturally pass on this work focus to their

subordinates.

Seek comfort

An interesting research finding about managers is that they tend to come from stable home

backgrounds and led relatively normal and comfortable lives. This leads them to be

relatively risk-averse and they will seek to avoid conflict where possible. In terms of

people, they generally like to run a 'happy ship'.

Leaders have followers

Leaders do not have subordinates - at least not when they are leading. Many organizational

leaders do have subordinates, but only because they are also managers. But when they want

to lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have

12
followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.

Charismatic, transformational style

Telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow you. You have to appeal to them,

showing how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you

enough to stop what they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they

would not normally consider risking.

Leaders with a stronger charisma find it easier to attract people to their cause. As a part of

their persuasion they typically promise transformational benefits, such that their followers

will not just receive extrinsic rewards but will somehow become better people.

People focus

Although many leaders have a charismatic style to some extent, this does not require a loud

personality. They are always good with people, and quiet styles that give credit to others

(and takes blame on themselves) are very effective at creating the loyalty that great leaders

engender.

Although leaders are good with people, this does not mean they are friendly with them. In

order to keep the mystique of leadership, they often retain a degree of separation and

aloofness.

This does not mean that leaders do not pay attention to tasks - in fact they are often very

achievement-focused. What they do realize, however, is the importance of enthusing others

to work towards their vision.

Seek risk

13
In the same study that showed managers as risk-averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking,

although they are not blind thrill-seekers. When pursuing their vision, they consider it

natural to encounter problems and hurdles that must be overcome along the way. They are

thus comfortable with risk and will see routes that others avoid as potential opportunities

for advantage and will happily break rules in order to get things done.

A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their lives which they

had to overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had problems such as dyslexia,

others were shorter than average. This perhaps taught them the independence of mind that

is needed to go out on a limb and not worry about what others are thinking about you.

In summary

This table summarizes the above (and more) and gives a sense of the differences between

being a leader and being a manager. This is, of course, an illustrative characterization, and

there is a whole spectrum between either ends of these scales along which each role can)

range. And many people lead and manage at the same time, and so may display a

combination of behaviors.

14
Subject Leader Manager

Essence Change Stability

Focus Leading people Managing work

Have Followers Subordinates

Horizon Long-term Short-term

Seeks Vision Objectives

Approach Sets direction Plans detail

Decision Facilitates Makes

Power Personal charisma Formal authority

Appeal to Heart Head

Energy Passion Control

Culture Shapes Enacts

Dynamic Proactive Reactive

Persuasion Sell Tell

Style Transformational Transactional

Exchange Excitement for work Money for work

Likes Action

Wants Striving Results

Risk Achievement Minimizes

Rules Takes Makes

15
 Conflict Breaks Avoids

Direction Uses Existing roads

Truth New roads Establishes

Concern Seeks Being right

Credit What is right Takes

Blame Gives Blames

Takes

A Huge Difference

Do you want to be a leader or a manager? You need to make a choice as there is a huge
difference. "The world is full of managers and desperately short of leaders – real leaders."

1.3. What makes effective leader?

Dear learners; can you mention attributes that makes leaders effective?

Scholars have forwarded their thoughts on what makes an effective leader. Passion, values,

vision, confidence and humility are some of them.

Passion

An effective leader is a person with a passion for a cause that is larger than they are.

Someone with a dream and a vision that will better society, or at least, some portion of it. A

very key question has to be answered here : Can someone who is a charismatic leader, but

16
only to do evil or to promote him/herself, be a leader -- especially if she has a large following?”
the answer is no, he/she is a manipulator.

Also, without passion, a leader will not make the necessary courageous and difficult

decisions and carry them into action. This is not to imply that all decisions are of this nature.

But you can be sure, some of them will be. The leader without a passion for a cause will

duck.

Values

Leadership implies values. A leader must have values that are life-giving to society. It is the

only kind of leadership we need. This then also implies values that are embedded in respect for
others. So often we think of people skills or caring about people as being “warm and fuzzy.” A
leader can be of varying ‘warmth and fuzziness,” but a leader has to respect others. You can’t
lead without it. Otherwise we are back to manipulation. Respect means also that one can deal
with diversity -- a critical need for a leader in today’s world -

probably always has been, although diversity may have been more subtle in the homogenous

societies of the past.

Vision This is a bit different than passion, but in other ways it isn’t separable. If one doesn’t care
about a subject, an issue, a system, then one won’t spend the time thinking about how it

could or should be different. Yet, one could have strong feelings about something and not good
ideas, particularly if he/she didn’t spend a good deal of time studying the topic. Thus a

leader has to have some ideas about change, about how the future could be different. Vision

then is based on two components that leaders also need: creativity and intellectual drive.

Creativity: One has to try to think out of the box to have good visions and to come up with
effective strategies that will help advance the vision. I’d also add here the need for a sense of
humor. It’s a creative skill that is in great need by leaders. We should read the funnies

17
more!

Intellectual Drive and Knowledge: believe a leader has to be a student. In general it is

hard for a leader to be around enough other leaders to pick this up just through discussion,

so a leader has to be a reader and a learner.

Confidence and Humility

While one can have a great vision and good ideas for change, and even passion for it, if one isn’t
confident, then action will not occur. Without action, there is no change. Yet,

paradoxically, a leader needs to have humility. No matter how creative and bright one is,

often the best ideas and thinking are going to come from someone else. A leader needs to be

able to identify that, have good people around who have these ideas. This takes humility, or at
least lack of egocentricity. The leader is focused on the ends and doesn’t have to see

him/herself always as the conduit or creator of the strategy to get to that end.

Communicator None of the above assets will work for a leader if she can’t speak or write in a
way to convince others that they should follow along, join the team, get on board. All the above

gets to the old adage that a leader knows how to do the right thing and a manager knows

how to do things right. But a leader has to be a manager, too.

One Size Does Not Fit All Leaders

There is no one style, personality profile, or interaction approach for an effective leader.

Leaders do come in "all shapes and sizes." Few can deny the leadership skills of Golda

Meir, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Meg Whitman, Dr. Martin Luther King, Lee

Iacocca, Oprah Winfrey, and Steve Jobs. And, few can deny that these leaders differ

significantly.

18
The management guru, Peter Drucker, noted that some of the most effective chief executives he
has worked with did not have “one ounce of charisma.” He cites the example of Harry

Truman as an example of a non-charismatic individual who was still one of the most

effective chief executives in US history. He also states that he worked with effective leaders

who were very diverse in terms of their personalities, attitudes, values, strengths, and

weaknesses. Some were introverted while others were extroverted. Some were easy going

and others were controlling.

What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they

respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A

sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.

When a person is deciding if she respects you as a leader, she does not think about your

attributes, rather, she observes what you do so that she can know who you really are. She

uses this observation to tell if you are an honorable and trusted leader or a self-serving

person who misuses authority to look good and get promoted. Self-serving leaders are not as

effective because their employees only obey them, not follow them. They succeed in many

areas because they present a good image to their seniors at the expense of their workers.

Be, Know, Do

The basis of good leadership is honorable character and selfless service to your

organization. In your employees' eyes, your leadership is everything you do that effects the

organization's objectives and their well-being. Respected leaders concentrate on:

o what they are [be] (such as beliefs and character)

19
o what they know (such as job, tasks, and human nature)

o What they do (such as implementing, motivating, and providing direction).

What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they

respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A

sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.

1.3.1.The Two Most Important Keys to Effective Leadership

According to a study by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are key

components of employee satisfaction (Lamb, McKee, 2004). They found that:

o Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of

employee satisfaction in an organization.

o Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to

winning organizational trust and confidence:

1. Helping employees understand the company's overall business strategy.

2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key

business objectives.

3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and how an
employee's own division is doing — relative to strategic business objectives. So in a nutshell —
you must be trustworthy and you have to be able to communicate a vision of where the
organization needs to go.

1.3.2.Principles of Leadership

To help you be, know, and do, follow these eleven principles of leadership (U.S. Army,

1983).

20
1. Know yourself and seek self-improvement - In order to know yourself, you have

to understand your be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking self-improvement means

continually strengthening your attributes. This can be accomplished through self

study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others.

2. Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid

familiarity with your employees' tasks.

3. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways to

guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they always do sooner or
later — do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take corrective action,

and move on to the next challenge.

4. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making,

and planning tools.

5. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only

hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we

want to see - Mahatma Gandhi

6. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and

the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.

7. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them,

but also seniors and other key people.

8. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good

character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.

21
9. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished

Communication is the key to this responsibility.

10. Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization,

department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of

people doing their jobs.

11. Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you

will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest

capabilities.

1.3.3.The Process of Great Leadership

The road to great leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is common to successful leaders:

A. Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be

improved the most.

B. Inspire a shared vision - Next, share your vision in words that can be understood

by your followers.

C. Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem.

D. Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells

others what to do, a leader shows that it can be done.

E. Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' hearts, while keeping

the pains within your own.

Leadership-Management Synergy

22
Leaders: Provide vision. Managers: Provide resources. ► Resulting synergy: Employee
empowerment... More

Today's World Realities

In today's rapidly changing economy, the old ways of management no longer work and will

never work again. The magnitude and pressure of environmental, competitive, and global

market change we are experiencing is unprecedented. It's a very interesting and exciting

world, but it's also volatile and chaotic. You cannot address these new challenges with more of
the same management solutions – successful change requires leadership.

1.4. Importance of Leadership for Good Governance

What is good governance?

Good leadership is essential for successful business, government, and a number of other

groups and organizations in all aspects of life. Pierce and Newstrom (2000) argue that

leaders influence others through their ability to "motivate, inform, inspire, exhibit technical

competence, communicate effectively, and convey a vision". Most typically leadership is

utilized to influence others toward goal achievement. There are a number of different

leadership styles and strategies used to accomplish goals. Each style or strategy of

leadership is more or less suited to a specific goal, application or organization.

In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a catalyst and servant whose leadership

style is support, advocating, and empowerment. While in an ineffective leadership situation,

the leader is a pushover, whose leadership style is abdication and fraud. Human Resource

Leaders believe in people and communicate that belief; they are visible and accessible; they

empower, increase participation, support, share information, and move decision making

23
down into the organization.

In an effective leadership situation, the leader is an advocate, whose leadership style is

coalition and building. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a hustler,

whose leadership style is manipulation. Political leaders clarify what they want and what

they can get; they assess the distribution of power and interests; they build linkages to other

stakeholders, use persuasion first, and then use negotiation and coercion only if necessary.

In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a prophet, whose leadership style is

inspiration. While in an ineffective leadership situation, the leader is a fanatic or fool, whose

leadership style is smoke and mirrors. Symbolic leaders view organizations as a stage or

theater to play certain roles and give impressions; these leaders use symbols to capture

attention; they try to frame experience by providing plausible interpretations of experiences;

they discover and communicate a vision. From the above discussion we can infer that good

governance requires good leadership.

The World Bank outlined the need for Good Governance, which is necessary for economic,

human, and institutional development. This was to be achieved through key Governance

activities and processes. Its conceptualization of Good Governance included:

 Political accountability

 Freedom of association and participation by different groups in the process of

Governance

 An established legal framework based on Rule of Law and independence of

judiciary to protect human rights, secure social justice, and guard against

24
exploitation

 Bureaucratic accountability with emphasis on openness and transparency in

Administration

 Freedom of information and expression needed for formulation of public policies,

decision making, monitoring and evaluation of government performance

 A sound administrative system leading to efficiency and effectiveness, and  Co-operation

between the government and civil society organizations. The concepts of ‘governance’ and ‘good
governance’ have gained prominence and presently occupy a key place in promotion of sustained
all-round development.

Leading Change

Leadership is about getting people to abandon their old habits and achieve new things, and

therefore largely about change - about inspiring, helping, and sometimes enforcing change

in people. "While there can be effective management absent ideas, there can be no true

leadership."

Leadership is an important function of management which helps to maximize efficiency and

to achieve organizational goals. The following points justify the importance of leadership in

a concern.

1. Initiates action- Leader is a person who starts the work by communicating the

policies and plans to the subordinates from where the work actually starts.

2. Motivation- A leader proves to be playing an incentive role in the concern’s working.

He motivates the employees with economic and non-economic rewards and thereby

gets the work from the subordinates.

25
3. Providing guidance- A leader has to not only supervise but also play a guiding role

for the subordinates. Guidance here means instructing the subordinates the way they

have to perform their work effectively and efficiently.

4. Creating confidence- Confidence is an important factor which can be achieved

through expressing the work efforts to the subordinates, explaining them clearly their

role and giving them guidelines to achieve the goals effectively. It is also important to

hear the employees with regards to their complaints and problems.

5. Building morale- Morale denotes willing co-operation of the employees towards their

work and getting them into confidence and winning their trust. A leader can be a

morale booster by achieving full co-operation so that they perform with best of their

abilities as they work to achieve goals.

6. Builds work environment- Management is getting things done from people. An

efficient work environment helps in sound and stable growth. Therefore, human

relations should be kept into mind by a leader. He should have personal contacts with

employees and should listen to their problems and solve them. He should treat

employees on humanitarian terms.

7. Co-ordination- Co-ordination can be achieved through reconciling personal interests

with organizational goals. This synchronization can be achieved through proper and

effective co-ordination which should be primary motive of a leader.

Summary

A simple definition of leadership is that leadership is the art of motivating a group of people

26
to act towards achieving a common goal. For this course, leadership is defined as "enabling a

group to engage together in the process of developing, sharing and moving into vision, and

then living it out." We also emphasize the importance of a leader's character and integrity in

building up the trust necessary for the leadership to be exercised over a period of time. Some

of the common ideas that others include in leadership definitions include exerting

influence, motivating and inspiring, helping others realize their potential, leading by

example, selflessness and making a difference.

"Leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less." Good leaders are made not born. If

you have the desire and willpower, you can become an effective leader. Good leaders

develop through a never ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience In
trying to answer “what is leadership?” it is natural to look at the relationship between

leadership and management. To many, the word management suggests words like,

efficiency, planning, paperwork, procedures, regulations, control and consistency.

Leadership is more associated with words like, risk taking, dynamic, creativity, change, and

vision. Leaders are thought to do the right things, where as managers are thought to do

things right.

Scholars have forwarded their thoughts on what makes an effective leader. Passion, values,

vision, confidence and humility are some of them. Good leadership is essential for successful

business, government, and a number of other groups and organizations in all aspects of life.

CHAPTER TWO

27
 LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND STYLES

Introduction

Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior, for it is the leader who

usually provides the direction toward goal attainment. Therefore, a more accurate predictive

capability should be valuable in improving group performance. The original search for a set

of universal leadership traits failed. At best, we can say that individuals who are ambitious,

have high energy, a desire to lead, self-confidence, intelligence, hold job relevant knowledge,

are perceived as honest and trustworthy, and are flexible are more likely to succeed as leaders
than individuals without these traits. The behavioral approach’s major contribution was

narrowing leadership into task-oriented and people-oriented styles, but no one style was

found to be effective in all situations. A major breakthrough in our understanding of

leadership came when we recognized the need to develop contingency theories that included

situational factors. At present, the evidence indicates that relevant situational variables would

include the task structure of the job; level of situational stress; level of group support; the
leader’s intelligence and experience; and follower characteristics such as personality,

experience, ability, and motivation. The chapter will familiarize you with the key concepts

and theories of leadership. Enjoy reading about an interesting topics of leadership.

Learning objectives

After successfully completing this chapter the students will be able to:

 Explain leadership theories

 Discuss different leadership styles

 Differentiate transactional, and transformational leaders

 Describe leadership skills and competencies  Identify good and bad leaders

2.1. Leadership Styles

Dear learners, what leadership styles are followed by the leaders you know?

Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans,

28
and motivating people. Kurt Lewin (1939) led a group of researchers to identify different

styles of leadership. This early study has been very influential and established three major

leadership styles. The three major styles of leadership are:

o Authoritarian or autocratic

o Participative or democratic

o Delegative or Free Reign

Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant, bad leaders

tend to stick with one style.

2.1.1.Authoritarian(autocratic)

What is Autocratic Leadership?

This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want

it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Under the autocratic

leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictator

leaders. They do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates.

Some of the appropriate conditions to use it is when you have all the information to solve

the problem, you are short on time, and your employees are well motivated.

The autocratic management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the

manager. It permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group

and keeps each decision to himself until he feels it is needed to be shared with the rest of the

group.

The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If you have the time

and want to gain more commitment and motivation from your employees, then you should

use the participative style.

Autocratic leadership is a classical leadership style with the following characteristics:

1. Manager seeks to make as many decisions as possible !

29
2. Manager seeks to have the most authority and control in decision making

3. Manager seeks to retain responsibility rather than utilize complete delegation

4. Consultation with other colleagues in minimal and decision making becomes a solitary

process

5. Managers are less concerned with investing their own leadership development, and prefer

to simply work on the task at hand.

The autocratic leadership style is seen as an old fashioned technique. It has existed as long

as managers have commanded subordinates, and is still employed by many leaders across

the globe. The reason autocratic leadership survives, even if it is outdated, is because it is

intuitive, carries instant benefits, and comes natural to many leaders. Many leaders who start

pursuing leadership development are often trying to improve upon their organizations

autocratic leadership style.

Despite having many critics, the autocratic leadership styles offer many advantages to

managers who use them. These include:

Reduced stress due to increased control. Where the manager ultimately has significant

legal and personal responsibility for a project, it will comfort them and reduce their stress

levels to know that they have control over their fate. A more productive group ‘while the leader
is watching’. The oversight that an autocratic manager exerts over a team improves their working
speed and makes them less likely to slack. This is ideal for poorly motivated employees who
have little concern or interest in the quality or speed of work performed. Improved logistics of
operations. Having one leader with heavy involvement in many areas makes it more likely that
problems are spotted in advance and deadlines met. This makes autocratic leadership ideal for
one-off projects with tight deadlines, or complicated work environments where efficient
cooperation is key to success. Faster decision making. When only one person makes decisions
with minimal consultation, decisions are made quicker, which will allow the management team
to respond to changes in the business environment more quickly.

What Are The Disadvantages Of The Autocratic Leadership Style?

30
Short-termistic approach to management. While leading autocratically will enable faster

decisions to be made in the short term, by robbing subordinates of the opportunity to gain

experience and start on their own leadership development, and learn from their mistakes,

the manager is actually de-skilling their workforce which will lead to poorer decisions and

productivity in the long run.

Manager perceived as having poor leadership skills. While the autocratic style has merits

when used in certain environments (as highlighted below), autocratic leadership style is easy

yet unpopular. Managers with poor leadership skills with often revert to this style by default.

Increased workload for the manager. By taking on as much responsibility and

involvement as possible, an autocratic leader naturally works at their full capacity, which

can lead to long term stress and health problems and could damage working relationships

with colleagues. This hyper-focus on work comes at the expense of good leadership

development.

People dislike being ordered around. They also dislike being shown very little trust and

faith. As a result, the autocratic leadership style can result in a demotivated workforce. This

results in the paradox that autocratic leadership styles are a good solution for demotivated

workers, but in many cases, it is the leadership style alone that demotivates them in the first

place.

Teams become dependent upon their leader. After becoming conditioned to receive

orders and act upon them perfectly, workers lose initiative and the confidence to make

decisions on their own. This results in teams of workers who become useless at running

operations if they loose contact with their leader. This is the result of a lack of time

dedicated to leadership development on the employees part.

! Following on from the merits and drawbacks listed above, the autocratic leadership style

is useful in the following work situations:

31
1. Short term projects with a highly technical, complex or risky element.

2. Work environments where spans of control are wide and hence the manager has little time

to devote to each employee.

3. Industries where employees need to perform low-skilled, monotonous and repetitive tasks

and generally have low levels of motivation.

4. Projects where the work performed needs to be completed to exact specifications and/or

with a tight deadline.

5. Companies that suffer from a high employee turnover, i.e. where time and resources

devoted to leadership development would be largely wasted. Although one could argue

that a lack of leadership development in the first place caused the high turnover.

2.1.2. Participative or democratic style

This style involves the leader including one or more employees in the decision making

process (determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final

decision making authority. Using this style is not a sign of weakness; rather it is a sign of

strength that your employees will respect. These leaders can win the cooperation of their

group and can motivate them effectively and positively. The decisions of the democratic

leader are not unilateral as with the autocrat because they arise from consultation with the

group members and participation by them.

This is normally used when you have part of the information, and your employees have other
parts. Note that a leader is not expected to know everything — this is why you employ
knowledgeable and skillful employees. Using this style is of mutual benefit — it allows

them to become part of the team and allows you to make better decisions.

Democratic Leadership is the leadership style that promotes the sharing of responsibility,

the exercise of delegation and continual consultation. The style has the following

characteristics:

1. Manager seeks consultation on all major issues and decisions.

32
2. Manager effectively delegate tasks to subordinates and give them full control and

responsibility for those tasks.

3. Manager welcomes feedback on the results of initiatives and the work environment.

4. Manager encourages others to become leaders and be involved in leadership

development.

Positive work environment: A culture where junior employees are given fair amount of

responsibility and are allowed to challenge themselves is one where employees are more

enthused to work and enjoy what they do.

Successful initiatives: The process of consultation and feedback naturally results in better

decision making and more effective operations. Companies run under democratic leadership tend
to run into fewer grave mistake and catastrophes. To put it simply – people tell a

democratic leader when something is going badly wrong, while employees are encouraged

to simply hide it from an autocrat.

Creative thinking: The free flow of ideas and positive work environment is the perfect catalyst
for creative thinking. The benefits of this aren’t just relevant for creative industries,

because creative thinking is required to solve problems in every single organization, whatever
it’s nature.

Reduction of friction and office politics: By allowing subordinates to use their ideas and even
more importantly – gain credit for them, you are neatly reducing the amount of tension

employees generate with their manager. When autocratic leaders refuse to listen to their

workers, or blatantly ignore their ideas, they are effectively asking for people to talk behind

their back and attempt to undermine or supercede them.

Reduced employee turnover: When employees feel empowered through leadership

development, a company will experience lower rates of employee turnover which has

numerous benefits. A company that invests in leadership development for its employees is

investing in their future, and this is appreciated by a large majority of the workforce.

Lengthy and ‘boring’ decision making: Seeking consultation over every decision can lead

33
to a process so slow that it can cause opportunities to be missed, or hazards avoided too

late.

Danger of pseudo participation: Many managers simply pretend to follow a democratic

leadership style simply to score a point in the eyes of their subordinates. Employees are quick to
realize when their ideas aren’t actually valued, and that the manager is merely

following procedure in asking for suggestions, but never actually implementing them. In other
words, they’re simply exerting autocratic leadership in disguise.

Now we have seen the benefits and drawbacks of this leadership style, let’s look at where its

actually implemented in the business world.

1. Democratic leadership is applied to an extent in the manufacturing industry, to allow

employees to give their ideas on how processes can become leaner and more efficient. While
‘Fordism’ is still applied in some factories across the country, truth is that

production managers are now really starting to harness the motivational bonuses

associated with not treating employees like robots anymore.

2. Democratic leadership is effective in professional organizations where the emphasis is

clearly on training, professional & leadership development and quality of work

performed.

3. Non profit organizations also tremendously benefit from drawing upon the creative

energies of all their staff to bring about cost cutting techniques or fund raising ideas.

4. As previously mentioned, creative industries such as advertising and television enjoy a lot

of benefits from the free flow of ideas that democratic leadership brings.

2.1.3. Laissez-faire or free rein style

A free rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself as shown; such a

leader allows maximum freedom to subordinates, i.e., they are given a free hand in deciding

their own policies and methods.

In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is

34
still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to

analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You cannot do

everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks.

This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong, rather this is a

style to be used when you fully trust and confidence in the people below you. Do not be

afraid to use it, however, use it wisely!

D e l e g a t i v e ( f r e e r e i g n ) style is also known as laissez faire (or lais·ser faire),

which is the noninterference in the affairs of others. [French: laissez, second person pl.

imperative of laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]

Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is little

time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has significantly more

experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic leadership style may be most

effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a homogeneous level of

expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be more effective. The style adopted

should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while balancing

the interests of its individual members.

A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the

followers, the leader, and the situation. Some examples include:

o Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The

leader is competent and a good coach. The employee is motivated to learn a new skill.

The situation is a new environment for the employee.

o Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their job. The leader

knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their

jobs and want to become part of the team.

o Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job than you. You

35
cannot do everything and the employee needs to take ownership of her job! In

addition, this allows you to be at other places, doing other things.

o Using all three: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly and

a new one must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and input on

creating a new procedure (participative). Delegating tasks in order to implement the

new procedure (delegative).

Forces that influence the style to be used included:

o How much time is available?

o Are relationships based on respect and trust or on disrespect?

o Who has the information — you, your employees, or both?

o How well your employees are trained and how well you know the task.

o Internal conflicts.

o Stress levels.

o Type of task. Is it structured, unstructured, complicated, or simple?

o Laws or established procedures such as OSHA or training plans.

Leadership styles also exhibits how much power is concentrated in the hands of leaders and

delegated to followers.

PositiveandNegativeApproaches

There is a difference in ways leaders approach their employee. Positive leaders use rewards,

such as education, independence, etc. to motivate employees. While negative employers

emphasize penalties. While the negative approach has a place in a leader's repertoire of

tools, it must be used carefully due to its high cost on the human spirit.

Negative leaders act domineering and superior with people. They believe the only way to

get things done is through penalties, such as loss of job, days off without pay, reprimanding

employees in front of others, etc. They believe their authority is increased by frightening

36
everyone into higher levels of productivity. Yet what always happens when this approach is

used wrongly is that morale falls; which of course leads to lower productivity. Also note that

most leaders do not strictly use one or another, but are somewhere on a continuum ranging

from extremely positive to extremely negative. People who continuously work out of the

negative are bosses while those who primarily work out of the positive are considered real

leaders.

UseofConsiderationandStructure

Two other approaches that leaders use are: Consideration (employee orientation) — leaders are
concerned about the human needs of

their employees. They build teamwork, help employees with their problems, and provide

psychological support. Structure (task orientation) — leaders believe that they get results by
consistently keeping

people busy and urging them to produce. There is evidence that leaders who are considerate

in their leadership style are higher performers and are more satisfied with their

job (Schriesheim, 1982). Also notice that consideration and structure are independent of

each other, thus they should not be viewed on opposite ends of a continuum. For example, a

leader who becomes more considerate does not necessarily mean that she has become less

structured.

2.2. Leadership theories

Leadership theories explain the concept and practices adopted to become a leader. It gives

precise information on the leadership qualities and attributes one must have to become a

leader. Let us get into the details of leadership theories.

2.2.1.Key Variables in the Theories of Leadership: Some of the key variables in leadership
theories include:

 Characteristics of the leader

 Characteristics of the followers

37
 Characteristics of the situation Causal relationships among the primary types of leadership
processes

2.2.2.Level of Conceptualization for Leadership

Level of analysis is another basis for classifying leadership theory and research. As we

already attempted to explain in the process of defining concept leadership at the beginning of

the unit, so far, Yukl(2006) has summarized levels of conceptualization for leadership/levels

of describing leadership as:

1) an intra-individual process,

2) a dyadic process,

3) a group process, or

4) an organizational process.

Most of the leadership theories are focused on processes at only one of these levels, due to

different reasons:

 it is very difficult to develop a multi-level theory

 One level of analysis/description is also parsimonious/economical and easy to apply

than multi-level theory.

The underlying assumption is that what level is emphasized will determine the type of

criterion variables that may use:

 to evaluate leadership, and

 The type of mediating processes used to explain effective leadership.

NB: The leadership literature-definition and evaluation of leadership has been affected by

the dominance of dyadic theories.

The other central issue is that as illustrated in the figure above, it is believed that theories

conceptualized at a higher level usually assume that related processes occur at lower

levels, even though they are not explicitly described. For example;

38
In a cohesive team with high mutual trust and cooperation, some assumptions can be made about
the likely pattern of dyadic leader-member relationships, and about each individual’s

values, attitudes, and perceptions.Yet, a theory conceptualized at a higher level usually

includes aspects of leadership that are not adequately explained by the lower-level

processes. These is discussed or presented as follows

I. Intra-Individual Processes (individual leaders behaviors )

It focuses on individual leaders behaviors (in conceptualizing leadership such theories has

emphasized on individual leaders behavior).Now a days it is uncommon to find such

Organization(describes leadership as a process that occurs in a large open systems in which the
groups are subsystems ) Group(views leadership as a group process)

Dyadic(relationship b/n leaders and other individuals)

Intra-Individual (Behavior of individual leaders)

leadership theories that focus on processes within a single individual, because most

definitions of leadership involve influence processes between individuals. Yet, a number of

researchers have used psychological theories of decision making, motivation, and cognition

to explain the behavior of an individual leader.

Example:

a) Theories that describe leader traits and skills associated with motivation to become a

leader (trait approaches).

b) self-management or self-leadership theory, which describes how a person can become more
effective as a leader or follower. Self-management or “selfleadership” involves:  identifying
personal objectives and priorities,  managing one’s time efficiently,  monitoring one’s own
behavior and its consequences, and  Trying to learn to be more effective in accomplishing
personal objectives.

Contribution of intra-individual approaches:

Knowledge of these approaches provides some insights that are helpful for developing better

leadership theory, but the theory itself should not be focused on this level.

39
Limitations of this approach (intra-individual approaches of conceptualizing leadership):

Its potential contribution to leadership is limited, because it does not include influence over

others, which most theorists consider to be the essential process of leadership

Example: In trait studies that do not include leader behavior and influence processes, it is

difficult to determine why some traits or skills are related to leadership effectiveness or

advancement.

II. Dyadic Processes

In describing leadership, this approaches focuses on the relationship between a leader and

another individual who is usually a follower. Most dyadic theories view leadership as a

reciprocal influence process between the leader and another person

This approach has an implicit assumption that leadership effectiveness cannot be understood

without examining how leader and follower influence each other over time. Therefore, Key

questions are how to develop a cooperative, trusting relationship with a follower and how to

influence a follower to be more motivated and committee.

Example:

a) Leader-member exchange theory: It describes how dyadic relationships evolve over

time and take different forms, ranging from a casual/informal exchange to a

cooperative alliance with shared objectives and mutual trust. Although the theory

recognizes that the leader has multiple dyadic relationships, the focus is clearly on

what happens within a single relationship.

b) Much of the research on power and influence tactics is also conceptualized in terms

of dyadic processes.

Its contribution:

The research on dyadic processes provides important insights about leadership,

NB: In fact, most theories of leadership effectiveness are conceptualized primarily at the

40
dyadic level. These theories usually acknowledge that group and organizational processes

are involved in leadership, but they do not clearly/explicitly describe these processes.

Limitations:

It often underestimates the importance of the context in which a dyadic relationship

occurs. Example, developing a cooperative relationship with one subordinate may be

dysfunctional if it is done in a way that undermines relationships with other subordinates.

III. Group Processes

This approaches view leadership as a group process. Here, two key topics are the nature of

the leadership role in a task group and how a leader contributes to group effectiveness.

Theories of group effectiveness provide important insights about leadership processes and

relevant criteria for evaluating leadership effectiveness.

For instance; Extensive research on small groups has identified important determinants of

group effectiveness such as: how well the work is organized to utilize personnel and resources,
how much role clarity members have, how much members are committed to perform their work
roles, and The extent to which members trust each other and cooperate in accomplishing task

objectives.

Note:

a) Behavioral theories describing leadership processes in various types of groups and

teams is good example of such approach

b) Meetings are a special context for the study of leadership as a group process. Because much of
a manager’s /leader’s time is spent in formal and informal

meetings with people to solve problems and make decisions.

Here there are three Questions which should raised and answered:

a) what leadership functions are necessary to make these group meetings more

effective

b) how leadership emerges in formal and informal groups

41
c) Why are some members more influential than others, what determines who will

be chosen as a leader, and why do some leaders lose the trust and confidence of

followers?

NB: These questions have been the subject of research by behavioral scientists during the last
four decades, and most probably it will be considered by another’s course (It is issue of

social exchange theory).

Limitations of group process is that, it does not considered external environment factors i.e

emphasized on internal group process.

IV. Organizational Processes

The organizational level of analysis describes leadership as a process that occurs in a larger
“open system” in which groups are subsystems.

The organization process approach has emphasized on addressing the limitations of the

earlier three approaches: groups approach provides a better understating of leadership

effectiveness than dyadic or intra-individual approaches, but has some important limitations.

However, a group usually exists in a larger social system, and its effectiveness cannot be
understood if the focus of the research is limited to the group’s internal processes.

It views that the survival and prosperity of an organization depends on effective adaptation

to the environment, which means marketing its outputs (products and services)

successfully, obtaining necessary resources, and dealing with external threats. What

methods are on the ground to improve adaption? Adaptation is improved by:

 anticipating consumer needs and desires,

 assessing the actions and plans of competitors,

 evaluating likely constraints and threats (e.g., government regulations, input scarcity,

hostile actions by enemies), and

 Identifying marketable products and services that the organization has unique

capabilities to provide.

42
In short essential leadership function is to help the organization to adapt to its environment

and acquire resources needed to survive.

2.3. Major Leadership Theories

The basic concern of this section is to highlight the overview of leadership theories and

practice. Like definitions of leadership, there have been several approaches to the study of

leadership. Although it would be difficult to deal with all of them; an attempt will be made to

discuss the most common and have relevance for our purpose. The basic concern of this

section is to highlight the overview of leadership theories and practice. Like definitions of

leadership, there have been several approaches to the study of leadership. Although it would

be difficult to deal with all of them; an attempt will be made to discuss the most common and

have relevance for our purpose.

Since, some of the early approaches to the study of leadership have been invalidated by later

researches; some important lessons may be derived from considering them. In fact, like

definitions of leadership, there have been several models or approaches to the study of

leadership. It would be difficult to deal with all of them; an attempt will be made to discuss

the most common ones. For instance, according to Yukl,(2005) the major approaches to

leadership, or researches in leadership can be classified into four approaches, namely:

a) Trait approach,

b) Behavior approach,

c) Power influence approach, and

d) Situational approach.

2.2.1. The Great Man Theory

The Great Man Theory was a popular 19th century idea according to which history can be

largely explained by the impact of "great men", or heroes: highly influential individuals who,

due to either their personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or Machiavellianism utilized

43
their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact. The theory was popularized in the

1840s by Thomas Carlyle, and in 1860 Herbert Spencer formulated a decisive counter

argument that kept being the most influential for all the 20th century; Spencer said that such

great men are the products of their societies, and that their actions would be impossible

without the social conditions built before their lifetime.

In view of the complex nature of leadership effectiveness, researchers in the past have

defined leadership based on their researched frame of reference. It is generally agreed that,

leadership begins with trait approach, which emphasized on the personal attributes of

leaders, followed by behavior approach, which examined leadership in terms of content

categories, such as managerial roles, functions, and responsibilities.

Other approaches including contingency approach, is known as the combination of trait

and behavioral approaches to leadership. This approach deduced that effective leadership is
based on the match between a leader’s style and situational favorability (Fiedler, 1964). On

the other hand, some researchers (e.g.,Hersey & Blanchard,1984) came up with other

leadership theory known as situational leadership theory that emphasized on leadership

effectiveness as a function of leadership behavior and subordinates maturity. As compared

to other theories, situational theory uses more contemporary approach to researching aspects

of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Another contemporary approach, the integrative

approach, focuses more on the dynamics between leaders and followers.The two most

popular theories that fall under the integrative approaches are transformational and

charismatic leadership.

In fact, since, some of the early approaches to the study of leadership have been invalidated

by later researches; some important lessons may be derived from considering them. For

instance, although the past studies have conceptualized leadership as a social influence

process from an organizationally designated superior to his or her subordinates,

44
understanding the fact that leadership can be practiced by any organization members regardless
of their status in the organizations, now a day’s more or less leadership

conceptualized or understood as the ability to exert influence over others. Moreover, you will
have another course “Leadership Theories and Practices”, probably that

will be provided next year. Thus, in this course we are not expected to cover all these

leadership theories or research, but we should look in to the basic theories that may help you

to better understand the concept of leadership. For our purpose, the discussion of this section

will focus on the major classifications leadership theories and empirical researches, or

approaches that are organized and presented below. These are:

1) Trait approach

2) Behavioral approach

3) Style approach : Power Influence Approach

4) Contingency approach

5) Situational approach

2.2.2.The Trait Approach

Please, think again of some five people whom you would consider to be examples of

outstanding leaders? Write down their names and look for particular personal traits and

characteristics, which all these leaders have? The people you could have identified may

include, Martin Luther king, Adolph Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi,Napoleon Bonapart, Nelson

Mandela, Weston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, etc. Then, what can you conclude about the

characteristics of these leaders?

As we defined on the introductory part, leadership is a process of influencing an organized group

towards accomplishing its goals.” Given this definition, one basic question that

leadership researchers have tried to answer over the past 100 years is whether certain

personality attributes or characteristics help or hinder the leadership process. In other

words, does athletic ability, height, personality, intelligence, or creativity, help a leader to

45
influence a group?

Put in the context of those five or more leaders that you have listed above, are they smarter,

more creative, more ambitious, or more outgoing than their less successful counterparts? Do

those three or more leaders act in fundamentally different ways than their followers ,and are

these difference in behavior due to differences in their innate intelligence ,certain personality

traits, or creative ability ? . If so, then could these some characteristics also be used to

differentiate successful from unsuccessful leaders, executive from first line supervisors, or

leaders from individual contributors? Thus, it were such types of questions that led to what

was perhaps the trait approach of leadership.

Early in the century, leaders were generally regarded as superior individuals who, because of

fortunate/lucky inheritance or social circumstance/conditions, possessed qualities and

abilities that differentiated them from other people in general. Trait approach is mainly

interested in identifying traits or qualities that leaders should possess.

Trait approach to leadership based on two assumptions, namely that:

a) all human beings can be divided into two groups leaders and followers, and

b) Leaders possess certain qualities that followers do not.

The research has been evidenced that, until the 1950s investigations to find the traits that

determine who will be leaders dominated the study of leadership. Research attempted to

isolate unique traits or characteristics of leaders that differentiated them from their

followers. Frequent studies were looked at whether certain personality traits, physical

attributes, intelligence, or personal values differentiated leaders from followers.

Although, the trait researches have examined various leadership factors, all of which were

thought to predict successful leadership, over time, recognition grew that traits can generally

be affected by inheritance, learning and environment.

Among a number of the early trait approach, Stogdill(1948 ) was the first leadership

46
researcher to summarize the result of the studies and come with some conclusions. He

classified the personal factors associated with leadership in to the following five categories:

 Capacity-intelligence, alertness, verbal facility/ability, originality/innovation,

judgment

 Achievement–Scholarship/learning , knowledge, athletic accomplishments

 Responsibility–Dependability, initiatives, persistence, aggressiveness, self

confidence, desire to excel

 Participation- activity, sociability, cooperation, adaptability, humor/comedy

 Status-socioeconomic positions, popularity

Although he found that these traits are consistently differentiated leaders from non-leaders,

he concluded that the trait approach by itself had yielded negligible and confusing results. He

asserted that a person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some

combination of traits because the impact of traits varies widely from situation to situations.

As a consequence, he added the six factors associated with leadership-situational

components. The studies on the trait approach to leadership have not proved fruitful due to

various reasons:

a) leaders do not always possess the same personal characteristics

b) they do not specify how much of each trait a leader should have and

c) there is no uniformity of identified traits for a leader (Koontz,2006

Notwithstanding the lack of success in identifying general leadership traits, research

persisted. More recent trait studies, however, use a wider variety of improved measurement

procedures, including projective tests and assessment centers, and they emphasis on selection

focused traits research than on the comparison leaders and non-leaders. This distinction is a

significant one. Predicting who will become leaders and predicting who will be the more

effective are quite different tasks.

47
Trait studies continue, but they now tend to explore the relationship between traits and

leadership effectiveness of administrators in particular types of organization and settings.

The more recent studies have reached the conclusion that traits do matter and that certain traits in
combination with various factors contribute to leader’s effectiveness.

Question: What, then, can be said about trait research? What has a century of research on the

trait approach given us that is useful? The answer is an extended list of trait that “would -be”
leaders might hope to possess or

wish to cultivate if they want to be perceived by others as leaders. Regarding this,

Northouse(1997) has identified some of the traits that are central to this list including:

Intelligence, Self-confidence, Determination, Integrity, and Sociability.

Perhaps, the most viable classification of the traits and skills variables, are that currently

associated with effective leadership is that of Durbin and Ireland (1993) which grouped such

leadership qualities under three categories: cognitive skill, personality traits and

relationships with subordinates.

i. Cognitive Skills:

The underlying assumption is that Effective leaders should have cognitive skills, or mental

abilities and knowledge. Here three cognitive skills are identified: Problem Solving Ability,

Insight into People and Situation, and Technical and Professional Competence

ii. Personal Traits and Characteristics:

Personality traits are relatively stable dispositions in particular ways. Personal traits and

characteristics have an important influence on leadership, although they are difficult to

measure. Traits and characteristics vary with the situation. For example, warmth may be

more important for an accountant than for mechanic. The list of personality factors

associated with effective leadership is quite long. The following seem particularly important:

Self-Confidence, Need for Achievement, Sense of Humor/comedy, Enthusiasm, and

Assertiveness/boldness.

48
iii. Relationship with Subordinates

Some traits possessed by leaders are closely linked to behavior involving relationships with

staff members. Some of the important traits are: Interpersonal Skills,-Leading by Example,

Sensitivity/compassion and tact/diplomacy, Supportiveness, and Maintaining High

Expectations

Note: Therefore, you can undertake self-evaluation against the trait views, so compare your

personal traits with these outlined for effective leaders.

Are there any similarities? Would you regard yourself as a leader or a potentially successful

lead.

The Strengths and Weakness of Trait Approach

This is to present some major contributions of trait approach to the development of view of

leadership. Thus, although, several major studies questioning and challenging the trait

approach, it contributes a lot or several advantages to viewing leadership. Some of the major

contributions are:

a) It is intuitively appealing because it fits clearly into the popular idea that leaders are special
people who are “out front” leading the way in society

b) There is a great deal of research that validates the basis of this perspective

c) By focusing exclusively on the leader, the trait approach provides an in-depth understanding
of the leader’s component in the leadership process and

d) It has provided some benchmarks against which individuals can evaluate their own

personal leadership attributes.

On the negative side, or as a weakness:

a) the trait approach has failed to delimit a definitive list of leadership traits. In

analyzing the traits of leaders the approach has failed to take into account the impact

of the situations

b) The trait approach has not adequately linked the traits of leaders with other outcomes

49
such as group and team performance ,and

c) This approach is not particularly useful for training and development because individuals”
personal attributes are relatively stable and fixed and therefore their traits

are not amenable to change.

To sum up, the trait approach has its roots in leadership theory that suggested that certain people
were born with special traits that made them “great” leaders, because it was believed

that leaders and non-leaders could be differentiated by a universal set of traits, throughout

the century researchers have been challenged to identify the definitive traits of leaders.

Around the middle of the century, several major studies questioned the basic premise that a

unique set of traits defined leadership as a result attention shifted to incorporating the impact

of situations and followers on leadership. Researchers began to study the interactions that occur
between leaders and their contact instead of focusing only on leaders’ traits. More

recently there are signs that trait research has come full circle, because there is are renewed

interest in focusing directly on the critical traits of leaders. From the multitude of studies that
have been conducted through the years on individuals’

personal characteristics. It is clear that many traits contribute to leadership some of the

important traits that are consistently identified in many of these studies are intelligence, self

confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability. These traits, more than many of the

others, are characteristic of the people we call leaders. On a practical level the trait approach

is concerned with which traits leaders exhibit and who has these traits. Organizations

employ personality assessment instruments to identify how individual will fit within their

organizations. The trait approach is also used for personal awareness and development, as it

allows mangers to analyze their strengths and weaknesses and to gain a clearer understanding

of how they should try to change to enhance their leadership.

Hence, we can conclude that of interest to scholars throughout the 20 tnth century, the trait

research was one of the first systematic attempts to study leadership. The trait approach is

alive and well. It began with an emphasis on identifying the qualities of great person; next, it

50
shifted to include the impact of situations on leadership; and most currently, it has shifted

back to reemphasis the critical role of trait in effective leadership. Thus, whether you are

prospective or practicing administrator, it is fundamentally important to know your

strengthen and weaknesses, to learn new skills and continue developing old ones, to enhance

deficiencies, and to compensate for weakness.

2.3.2. Behavioral Approaches

Dear learners, Did you feel that because leaders differ in appearance and personality/trait,

are similar in their behavior? Or Are certain ways of behaving as a leader more effective

than other?

The kinds of questions that led researcher to begin the study of behavior approach is found

the failure of trait approach to identify a universal set of leadership trait.

Focus of Behavior approach:

 It look at what a leader does, rather than who he/she is(concern of trait appr.).

 Here one line of research is focused on what leaders actually do on the job, which

relates to the content of managerial activities, roles, and responsibilities.

Emphasized on how managers spend their time and the typical pattern of activities,

responsibilities, and function for managerial jobs.

What is the basic Difference B/n Trait and Behavior Approach?

 As you remember trait approach emphasizes the personality characteristics of the

leader,

 While the behavior approach emphasized the behavior of leaders and how it might

contribute to leadership success or failure. It says that anyone who adopts the

appropriate behavior can be a good leader.

 In Trait approach leadership is conceptualized in terms of traits that someone ‘has’), While in
behavior approach leadership is conceptualization as a form of activity’.

51
 Moreover, the behavior approach focuses exclusively on what leaders do and how

they act

 Also in bhr approach the Ldshp study is expanded to include the action of leaders

toward subordinates in various contexts.

According to the behavior approach leadership is comprised of essentially two general

kinds of behaviors: task behaviors and relationship behaviors.

a) Task behaviors facilitate goal accomplishment: they help group members to achieve

their objectives.

b) Relationship behaviors help subordinates feel comfortable with themselves, with

each other, and with the situation in which they find themselves.

What is the central purpose of b/hr approach?

Note: The Central Purpose/idea of b/hr approach: is to explain how leaders combine

these two kinds of behaviors to influence subordinates in their efforts to reach a goal.

Different Studies that have been conducted in Behavioral Approach:

a) The first studies were conducted at Ohio State University in the late 1940s (analyze

how individuals acted when they were leading a group or organization)

b) Another group of researchers were from a University of Michigan(that explored how

leadership functioned in small groups).

c) Blake and mouton in the early 1960s (explored how managers used task and

relationship behaviors in the organizational setting).

Although there are many research studies that could be categorize under the heading of the

behavior approach the ff studies are strongly representative of the ideas in this approach, or

can serve our purpose.

i. The Ohio State Studies

What motivate this approach/How it begins? It begins due to the failure of trait approach

52
(due to the fact that personality traits appeared fruitless.

Focus of Researchers:

The focus was to analyze how individuals acted when they were leading a group or

organization (By distributing question to subordinate). .i.e what they developed were

Leaders Behavior Description Questioner

Although leadership is defined as the behavior of an individual when directing the activities

of group toward goal attainment, they eventually narrowed the description of leader

behavior in to two dimensions: initiating structure and consideration.

a) Initiating structure behaviors: It refers to the task behaviors:  organizing work, giving
structure/arrangement/organizing to the work context,  Defining role, responsibilities and
scheduling work activates.

b) Consideration behaviors:

It refers to the relationship behaviors and including camaraderie

respect/friendship/solidarity, trust and liking between leaders and followers.

To sum up according to this approach: A. These two behaviors (initiating and consideration
behavior) are central to what

leaders do: i.e

 leaders provide structure for subordinates, and

 They nurture them.

B. These studies viewed these two behaviors as distinct and independent. They were not

thought of as two points along a single continuum, but as two different continua.

ii. The University of Michigan Studies

1. Here in exploring leadership behavior, they gave special attention to the impact of leaders’
behaviors on the performance of small groups.

2. Also the research has identified two types of leadership behaviors:  employee
orientation ,and  Production orientation.

53
a) Employee orientation:  Describes the behaviors of leaders who approach subordinates with a
strong human relation emphasis.

 Such leaders take an interest in workers as human beings, value their individuality,

and give special attention to their personal needs.  Employee’s orientation is very similar to the
cluster of behaviors identified in the

Ohio State University (OSU) studies as consideration.

b) Production orientation:  Stress the technical and production aspects of a job.  Here workers
are viewed as a means for getting work accomplished.  Production orientation parallels the
initiating structure cluster found in the Ohio

state studies (OSU). Activity:

what is the difference between Ohio and Michigan studies?

Unlike the OSU researchers, the Michigan researchers, in their initial studies, conceptualized

employee and production orientations as opposite ends of a single continuum?

As more studies were completed, however, the researchers re-conceptualized the two

constructs, similar to the Ohio state studies, as two behaviors were treated as

indecent/offensive/distinguishing orientations, leaders were see as being able to be

oriented to both production and employees at the same time.

In general, although, a multitude of studies conducted by both Ohio State and the University

of Michigan, in essence, the researchers were looking from a universal theory of

leadership that would explain leadership effectiveness in every situation. The results that

emerged from this large body of literature were found contradictory and unclear. iii. Blake and
Mouton’s Managerial (Leadership) Grid

Which of the ff leadership styles would you select as being the most effective? Why?  LG/MG
is most well-known model of managerial behaviors,  It appeared first in the early 1960s and
since that time it has been refined and revised

several times.  It is a model that has been used extensively in organizational training and
development.

The managerial Grid/leadership grid was designed to explain how leaders help

54
organizations to reach their purposes through two factors: Concern for production and

relationship leadership behaviors.

A. Concern for Production:  It refers to how a leader is concerned with achieving organization
tasks.  It involves a wide range of actives: attention to policy decisions, new product

development process issues, workload and sales volume, and so on.

NB:Not limited to things, it can refer to whatever the organization is seeking to

accomplish.

B. Concern for People:  It refers to how a leader attends to the people within the organization
who are

trying to achieve its goals.  It includes building organization commitment and trust, promoting
the personal

worth of employees, providing good working conditions, maintaining a fair

salary structure, and promoting good social relations.

The leadership (managerial) grid joins: concern for production and concern for people in

a model that has two intersecting axes.

 The horizontal axis represents the leader’s concern for production and  The vertical axis
represents the leader’s concern for people.  Each of the axes is drawn as a 9- point scale on
which a score of 1 represents

minimum concern and 9 represents maximum concern.

Thus, as indicted in the figure below by plotting scores from each of the axes, the

leadership grid portrays five major leadership styles:

1) Authority- Compliance (9,1)

2) Country Club Management (1,9),

3) Impoverished Management (1,1),

4) Middle- of the Road Management(5,5), and

5) Team Management (9,9)

55
1. Authority–compliance (9-1)  This style of leadership places heavy emphasis on task and
job requirements, and less

emphasis on people, except to the extent that people are tools for getting the job done.  i.e
Communicating with subordinates is not emphasized except for the purpose of

giving instruction about the task.  This style is results-driven, and people are regarded as tools
to that end.

 Also leader is often seen as controlling, demanding/serious, hard-driving, and

overpowering.

2. Country Club management (1,9)  It represents low concern for task accomplishment
coupled with a high concern

for interpersonal relationships.  Deemphasizing production, here leaders stress the attitudes and
feeling of people,

making sure the personal and social needs of followers are met.  They try to create a positive
climate by beings agreeable, eager to help, comforting,

and uncontroversial.

3. Impoverished management (1,1)  It representative a leader who is unconcerned with both

the task and interpersonal

relationships.  Acts uninvolved and withdrawn.  leaders often have little contact with
followers and could be described as

indifferent/irresponsive , noncommittal/, resigned, and apathetic/uninterested

4. Middle-of the Road management (5, 5)  It describes leaders who are compromisers, have
an intermediate concern for the task

and intermediate concern for the people  Their compromising style givens up some of the push
for production as well as some

of the attention to employee needs.  To arrive at equilibrium, such leader avoids conflict and
emphasizes moderate levels

of production and interpersonal relationships. This type of leader is often described as one who is
expedient/measure, prefers the middle group, soft–pedals disagreement, and swallows/down
convictions/confidence in the interest of “progress”

56
5. Team management (9,9)  Places a strong emphasis on both tasks and interpersonal
relationships.  It promotes a high degree of participation and teamwork in the organization, and

satisfies a basic need in employees to be involved and committed to their work.  Some of the
phrases that could be used to describe such styles of leader are:

stimulates participation, acts determined, gets issues into the open, makes priorities

clear, follows through, behaves open-mindedly, and enjoys working.

In addition other styles have been derived:

In addition to the 5 styles stated above, Blake and his colleagues have identified two other

styles that incorporate multiple aspects of the grid: Paternalism /Materialism and

opportunism

a) Paternalism /Materialism  It refers to a leader who uses both 1,9 and 9,1 styles but does not
integrate the two. This is the “benevolent/caring dictator” who acts gracious/pleasant/cordial but

does so for the purpose of goal accomplishment.  In essence this style treats people as if they
were disassociated with the task.

b) Opportunism

It refers to a leader who uses any combination of the basic five styles from the purpose of

personal advancement.

As Blake and mouton (1985such person usually has a dominant grid style, which he or she

uses in most situations, and a backup style.

The backup style is what leader reverts to when under pressure, when the usual way of

accomplishing things does not work.

To sum up, the leadership grid is an example of a practical model of leadership that is based on

the two major leadership behaviors: task and relationship. It closely parallels to the ideas and

findings that emerged in the OSU and UM studies. It is used in consulting for organizational

development throughout the world.

Strengths and Weakness of the behavior Approach

Some of the positive contributions: to better sense or for understanding of the leadership

57
process are :  It broadened the scope of leadership research to include the concern for behaviors
of

leaders and what they do in various situations,  Its doctrine has validated and given
creditability by wide range of studies.  On a conceptual level, researchers from the behavior
approach have ascertained/establishes that a leader’s style is composed of primarily two major
types

of behaviors: task and relationship occurs, the leader is acting out both task and

relationship behaviors; and the key to being an effective leader often rests on how

the leader balances these two behaviors.  The style approach is heuristic. It provides us with a
broad conceptual map that is

worthwhile to use in our attempts to understand the complexities of leadership.  Also based on
this approach, leaders can assess their action and determine how they

may wish to change to improve their leadership style.

Some of its limitations/weaknesses are:

 The research on behavior approach has not adequately shown leaders’ styles are

associated with performance outcomes.  Another criticism is that this approach has failed to
find a universal style of leadership that could be effective in almost every situation, and  A last
criticism is that the behavior approach research has implied that the most effective leadership
style is the high-high style (i.e. high task and high relationship).

However, certain situation may require different leadership styles; may be

complicated and require high task behavior, and other may be simple and require

supportive behaviors.

2.3.3.Style Approach: Styles Based on the Use of Authority

What is the difference b/n behavior approach and style approach in classifying leadership

behavior?

The behavior approach focus on decision making in the group or in group dynamics, while

styles approach focuses on how leaders use their authority.

According to style approach leaders are seen as applying three basic styles namely:

58
Autocratic, Democratic, andLaissez fair or free-rain authority.

1. Authoritarian Leadership:

What advantages do you think an autocratic leadership style might have?

According to the view of this style, leadership is characterized by :  Very directive and does
not allow participation in decisions.  They structured the complete work situation for their
subordinates, and they took full

authority (assumed full responsibility from initiation to task completion).

Disadvantages of autocratic leadership:

1) The knowledge, skills and experience of the staff cannot fully used. 2) This leadership style
suppresses staff members’ initiative.

3) Employees cannot develop to their maximum potential

4) Absence of the leader may mean that important work is not completed.

Some other Basic problem of this style is that:

Staff is made aware of what to do, but not why they should do it. It often results in :

(1) Low staff morale, and

(2) Staff following leader directions to the letter/communication, while knowing that the

directions are wrong.

2. Democratic Leaders:

Discussion Question: What advantages do you think a democratic leadership style might

have?

This leadership style is characterized by or viewed as :  Leaders encourage group discussion

and decision making and subordinates are

informed about condition affecting their jobs and encouraged to express their ideas

and make suggestions, and

Advantages of this style are:

1) Staff involvement can improve Staff morale (involvement in planning, decision making

and control.

59
2) Job satisfaction of staff maybe increased (because it allow them wider responsibilities

and making their work more interesting).

3) The expert knowledge and problem solving skills of members of staff can be utilized.

4) allow setting reasonable goals: because it involves the implementers during formulation.

Disadvantages are:

1. Decision making may be time consuming

2. Disagreements can occur and staff may not wish to become involved in a tug /pull

of war

3. Lack of positive and clear direction may hinder the attainment of objectives and

4. There might be some members of staff who are not capable of working without close

supervision.

3. Laissez-faire leadership:

What advantage do you think a laissez-faire leadership style might have?

This style leaders are characterized by or viewed as :

Leaders gave complete freedom to the group and left it up to subordinates to make

individual decisions on their own. Essentially, leaders provided no leadership. It summarizes

typical behaviors performed by leaders using the three different leadership styles in variety

of dimensions of leadership behavior.

Major advantages of the style:

1) Subordinates have complete freedom on their jobs

2) Staff morale can be high.

3) Managers save time which can be used for some other organizational purposes

4) Knowledge, skills and experience of staff fully used.

Disadvantages:

1. The manager may loose control

60
2. Objectives of the organization may not be achieved

3. The organization might lack order

As evidenced by various research studies:

1. Of the three styles of leadership, subordinate preferred the democratic style as the best,

which makes intuitive/sensitive sense.

In fact this day the trend is toward wider use of participatory management practices

(because it is consistent with the supportive and collegial modern organization).

2. Subordinates preferred the laissez-faire leadership style over the authoritarian one .For

subordinates; even chaos/disorder is preferable to rigidity.

3. Authoritarian leaders elicited either aggressive or apathetic behavior that deemed to by

reactions to the frustration caused by the authoritarian leader.

4. Apathetic behavior change to aggressive behavior when the leadership style changed

from authoritarian to laissez-faire, then the laissez-faire leader produce the greatest amount

of aggressive behavior.

5. Productivity is slightly higher under the authoritarian leader than under the democratic

one, but it is lowest under the laissez-faire leader.

2.3.4.Contingency Approach/Theory

The basic difference is that:

Situation: All the earlier approaches have seen that aspects of the situations determine the

role requirements for leaders. But those entire attempts were only an indirect approach for

discovering what type of leadership is optimal in a given situation.

For instance the comparative research/style approaches on the way managerial/leaders

behavior varies across situations provides some useful insights, but it is only an indirect.

NB: Therefore, a more direct approach is to determine how leader behaviors are related to

61
indicators of leadership effectiveness in different situations (which is the characteristic of

contingency/situational approaches).

According to the view of contingency theory: Aspects of the situation that enhance or invalidate
the effect of a leader’s behavior are called “situational moderator variables”. And

theories that explain leadership effectiveness in terms of situational moderator variables are
called “contingency theories” of leadership. This type of theory is most useful when it

includes intervening variables to explain why the effect of behavior on outcomes varies

across situation.

Note:Base or what motivate those researchers ? : In short, it was the failure of behavior

approach to find universal traits or behaviors that would always determine effective leadership
that led’s researchers in new directions (initiate contingency).

Focus: Although leader behavior is still examined, the central focus of this new research was

towards the situation in which leadership occurred.

Assumptions: The basic tenet/beliefs/ principles of this approach is that leadership behavior

effective in some circumstances might be ineffective under different conditions, i.e

effectiveness of the leader behavior is contingent up on organizational situations.

Classification of Contingency Approaches/Researches: There are several models of

contingency leadership approaches that can represent this approach. To suite some :

-Fiedlers Contingency/situational model

-House-Mitchell Path Goal theory

-Tannebaum-Schmidt Continuum of leadership behavior

-Veroom-Yetten Contingency Model

However, in this sub-section we will focus only on the most common and more popular

approach, which is Fiedlers Contingency Model/theories.

2.4.1.Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (LPC–Leas Preferred Co-workers Contingency Model).

62
Def1: Contingency means that one thing depends on other things, and for a leader to be effective
there must be an appropriate fit between the leader’s behavior and style and the

conditions in the situations.

Assumption: A leadership style that work in one situation might not work in another

situations, or there is no one best way of leadership. Def 2: Contingency means” it depends”.
Focus of the Fiedler’s contingency model:

Basically the focus of this model was to describe how the situation moderates the relationship
between leadership effectiveness and a trait/behavior measures called the “least Preferred
Coworker (LPC) score”. i.e it was an attempt to match leaders to appropriate

situations. Assumption: It suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s
style

fits the context. According to this approach:  to understand the performance of leaders it is
essential to understand the situations

in which they lead  Effective leadership is contingent on matching a leader’s style to the right
setting.

Fiedler was developed contingency theory by studying the styles of many different leaders

who worked in different contexts. He assessed:  Leader’s styles-traits or behavior,  The

situations in which they worked/ moderating variables, and  Leaders effectiveness-whether or
not leaders were effective. Finally after analyzing the styles of hundreds of leader’s which were
both good and bad, Fiedler’s and his colleagues were able to make empirically grounded
generations about which styles of the leadership were best and which styles were worst for a
given organizational context .

! To sum up, Fiedler’s situational contingency model was concerned with styles-traits or

behaviors & situations/environments-moderating situational variables and leadership

effectiveness. It provides the framework for effectively matching the leaders traits/behavior

&situation.

In short Least Preferred Co-Worker Theory /Fiedlers Contingency models have constructed

the first major theory to propose specific contingency relationships in the study of leadership.

Lacking a behavior component, the least preferred co-workers /Fiedlers models uses/based
63
on: leaders style as a trait, three indicators of situational control/moderating situational

variables, and effectiveness

i. Leadership Style: Leader’s style is used as trait. It is determined by the motivational system of
the leaders,

that is , the underlying needs structure that motivates behavior in various interpersonal

situations. The LPC scale is used to measure this trait.

Using, the LPC, respondent selects the person with whom he/she works least well(least

preferred co-worker) and then describes that individual on the scale. A person scoring high

on the LPC describes the least preferred co-workers positively as being pleasant, loyal,

warm, kind, efficient, and so forth. In contrast, the individual scoring low on the PLC

describes the least preferred co-workers negatively as being unpleasant, backbiting, cold,

unkind, inefficient, and so forth.

Therefore, the LPC score indicates the extent to which the individual sets a high priority or

value on task accomplishment (task-motivated) or on maintaining good interpersonal

relations (relationship-motivated). In short the two basic leadership styles are:

a) Task-motivated, or

b) Relationship-motivated.

The underlying assumption is that:

 Task-motivated leaders are concerned primarily with reaching a goal, or task

accomplishment.  Whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close

interpersonal relations, or maintaining relationship. To measure leader’s styles, Fiedler

developed the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale.

According to this theory leaders who score high on this scale are described as positively

relationship-motivated, and who score low on this scale negatively described as unpleasant

,inefficient ---.

ii. Situational Control /Moderating situational Variables:

64
It refers to the degree of power and influence that leaders have to implement plans,

decisions, and actions strategies. Situational control/variables is determined by three

factors, or three major situational variables determine whether a given situation is favorable

to leaders: a) Leader-member relations: leader’s personal relations with the members of their
groups.

Leader-member Relations: refer to the atmosphere and to the degree of confidence, loyalty,

and attraction that followers feel for their leader. i.e

If group atmosphere is positive and subordinates trust, like and get along with their leader,

the leader-member relations are defined as good; on other hand, if the atmosphere is

unfriendly and friction exists within the group, the leader-member relations defined as poor.

b) Task structure: the degree of structure in the task that their group has been assigned to

perform. Task structure: which is the second situational variable refers to the degree to

which the requirements of a task are clear and spelled out.

Tasks that are completely structured tend to give more control to the leader, whereas vague and
unclear tasks lessen the leader’s control and influence.

A task is considered structured when:  the requirements of the task are clearly stated and
known by the individuals

required to perform them,  the path to accomplishing the task has few alternatives,  the
completion of the task can be clearly demonstrated, and  only a limited number of correct
solutions to the task exist, and

C. Position power: the power and authority that their positions provide, or it is the third

characteristic of situations, refers to the amount of authority a leader has to reward

or to punish followers.

It includes the legitimate power individuals acquire as result of they hold in organization.

Position power is strong if an individual has the authority to hire and or give raises in rank or

pay; it is weak if a leader does not have the right to do these things.As Fiedlers has defined :
Favorableness of a Situation as “the degree to which the situation enables the leader to exert
influence over the group”. The most favorable situation for the leaders to influence

65
their groups is one in which they are well liked by the members (good leader-member

relations),have a powerful position(strong position power),and are directing a well-defined

job(high task structure);for example ,a well –liked general making an inspection in any army

camp.

On the other hand, the most unfavorable situations for the leaders is one in which they are
disliked, have little position power, and face an unstructured task–such as an unpopular head

of a voluntary hospital fund-raising committee. Because, running a fund-raiser would not

have any clear set of rules to follow; there would be many alternative ways of doing it, one

could not verify the correctness of the way you did it; and no single best way exists to do the

fund-raising.

iii. Effectiveness: In the LPC theory is straight forward –namely, the extent to which the group
accomplishes its

primary tasks. Objective measures are used to measure group effectiveness which include:

net profit, cost per unit, percentages of wins, number of problems solved and so forth. But in all
cases leaders’ effectiveness is determined by the degree to which the task is judged to be

achieved.

Finally in his examination, Fiedler was concluded that:

1. Task-oriented leaders tend to perform best in group situations that are either very

favorable/high control situation or very unfavorable/low control situations to the leader.

2. Relationship-oriented leaders tend to perform best in situations that are intermediate

in favorableness/control situations. NB:Based in expectancy motivation theory ,the model’s core

assumption is that followers

will be motivated if they are capable of doing the work, that their effort will produce desired

outcomes ,and that the rewards for doing the work will be worthwhile. In conclusion in this

his single continuum of leaders behavior, may be suggesting that there are only two basic

leadership behavior styles, task oriented and relationship oriented.

Most evidence indicates that leader behavior must be plotted on two separate axes rather

66
than on a single continuum. Thus, a leader who is high on task behavior is not necessarily

high or low on relationship behavior. Any combination of the two dimensions may occur.

Some of the major strengths of the Fiedler’s Contingency theory include:

The strength of contingency theory include that it is backed by a considerable amount of

research, it is the first leadership theory to emphasize the impact of situations on leaders not

to be effective in all situations, and it can provide useful leadership profile data.

On the negative side, contingency theory can be criticized because it has not adequately

explained the link between styles and situations, and it relies heavily on the LPC scale, which

has been questioned for its face validity and workability. What criticisms do you think a
Fiedler’s Contingency theory might have?

The following are criticisms /limitations of contingency theory:

First, it has been criticized because it fails to explain fully why individuals with certain

leadership styles are more effective in some situations than in others. The second criticism of

this theory concerns the LPC scale. The LPC scale has been questioned because it does not

seem valid on the surface, it does correlate well with other standard leadership measures; and

it is not easy to complete correctly. The LPC scale measures person to characterize another
person’s behavior.

Because projection is involved in the measure, it is difficult for responds to understand how

their descriptions of another individual on the scale are a reflection of their own leadership style.
It does not make sense on the Cates that leaders engaged in “situational engineering”

which means in essence changing situations to fit the leader.

Third criticism of contingency theory is that it is cumbersome to use in real-world settings. It is

cumbersome because it requires assessing the leader’s style as well as three relatively

complex situational variables (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power),

each of which require a different instrument. Administering a battery of questionnaires in

ongoing organizational can be difficult because it breaks up the normal flow of

organizational communication and operations.

67
The final criticism of contingency theory is that fails to explain adequately what

organizations should do when there is mismatch between the leader and the situation in

the workplace.

Because, contingency theory does not advocate teaching leaders how to adapt their styles to

various situations as means to improve leadership in an organization. Rather, it advocates that

leader engaged in “situational engineering” which means in essence changing situations

to fit the leader. In fact, situation is always easily changed to match the leader’s style. For
example, if a leader‘s style does not match an unstructured, low-power situation, it may be
impossible to make the task more structured and increase the position power to fit the leader’s
style.

Similarly, progression up management ladder in organizations may mean that a leader

moves in to a new situation in which her or his does not fit. Overall, changing the situations

can result in positive outcomes, but this does present significant workability problems for

organizations.

Basically contingency theory represents a shift in leadership research from focusing in on

only the leader to looking at leader in conjunction with the situation in which the leader works. It
is a leader-match theory that emphasizes the importance of matching a leader’s

style with the demand of situation.

In general, to measure leadership style, a personally-like measure least preferred co-workers

(LPC) scale is used in contingency theory. It delineates-individuals who are highly task

motivated (low LPC), those who are socio -independent (middle LPCs), and those are

relationship motivated (high LPCs). To measure situations, three variables are assessed:

leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. Taken together these variables

point to the style of leadership that has the best chance of being successful. In general,

contingency theory suggests that low LPCs are effective in extremes, and that high LPCs are

effective in moderately favorable situations. Contingency theory is not easily used on going

organizations.

68
Lastly, it does not fully explain how organizations can use the results off this theory in

situational engineering. Regardless of these criticisms, contingency theory has made a

substantial contribution to our understanding of the leadership process.

2.5. Transactional and transformational theories

Eric Berne first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of

Transactional Analysis. The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform

certain tasks and reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the opportunity to

the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a

predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate,

correct and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level and reward

effectiveness when expected outcome is reached.

The transformational leader (Burns, 1978) motivates its team to be effective and efficient.

Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing the group on the final desired

outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly visible and uses chain of command to get

the job done. Transformational leaders focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by

people who take care of the details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the

organization to reach the company's vision.

2.5.1. Transactional Leadership

People are motivated by reward and punishment. Social systems work best with a clear chain of

command. When people have agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority

to their manager. The prime purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to

do.

The transactional leader works through creating clear structures whereby it is clear what is

required of their subordinates, and the rewards that they get for following orders. Punishments

are not always mentioned, but they are also well-understood and formal systems of discipline

69
are usually in place.

The early stage of Transactional Leadership is in negotiating the contract whereby the

subordinate is given a salary and other benefits, and the company (and by implication the

subordinate's manager) gets authority over the subordinate.

When the Transactional Leader allocates work to a subordinate, they are considered to be fully

responsible for it, whether or not they have the resources or capability to carry it out. When

things go wrong, then the subordinate is considered to be personally at fault, and is punished

for their failure (just as they are rewarded for succeeding).

The transactional leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle that if

something is operating to defined (and hence expected) performance then it does not need

attention. Exceptions to expectation require praise and reward for exceeding expectation, whilst

some kind of corrective action is applied for performance below expectation.

Whereas Transformational Leadership has more of a 'selling' style, Transactional Leadership,

once the contract is in place, takes a 'telling' style.

Transactional leadership is based in contingency, in that reward or punishment is contingent

upon performance.

Despite much research that highlights its limitations, Transactional Leadership is still a popular

approach with many managers. Indeed, in the Leadership vs. Management spectrum, it is very

much towards the management end of the scale.

The main limitation is the assumption of 'rational man', a person who is largely motivated by

money and simple reward, and hence whose behavior is predictable. The underlying psychology

is Behaviorism, including the Classical Conditioning of Pavlov and Skinner's Operant

Conditioning. These theories are largely based on controlled laboratory experiments (often with

animals) and ignore complex emotional factors and social values.

In practice, there is sufficient truth in Behaviorism to sustain Transactional approaches. This is

70
reinforced by the supply-and-demand situation of much employment, coupled with the effects

of deeper needs, as in Maslow's Hierarchy. When the demand for a skill outstrips the supply,

then Transactional Leadership often is insufficient, and other approaches are more effective.

2.5.2. Transformational Leadership

People will follow a person who inspires them. A person with vision and passion can

achieve great things. The way to get things done is by injecting enthusiasm and energy.

Working for a Transformational Leader can be a wonderful and uplifting experience. They

put passion and energy into everything. They care about you and want you to succeed.

Transformational Leadership starts with the development of a vision, a view of the future

that will excite and convert potential followers. This vision may be developed by the

leader, by the senior team or may emerge from a broad series of discussions. The important

factor is the leader buys into it, hook, line and sinker.

The next step, which in fact never stops, is to constantly sell the vision. This takes energy

and commitment, as few people will immediately buy into a radical vision, and some will

join the show much more slowly than others. The Transformational Leader thus takes every

opportunity and will use whatever works to convince others to climb on board the

bandwagon.

In order to create followers, the Transformational Leader has to be very careful in creating

trust, and their personal integrity is a critical part of the package that they are selling. In

effect, they are selling themselves as well as the vision.

In parallel with the selling activity is seeking the way forward. Some Transformational

Leaders know the way, and simply want others to follow them. Others do not have a ready

strategy, but will happily lead the exploration of possible routes to the Promised Land.

The route forwards may not be obvious and may not be plotted in details, but with a clear

vision, the direction will always be known. Thus finding the way forward can be an

71
ongoing process of course correction and the Transformational Leader will accept that

there will be failures and blind canyons along the way. As long as they feel progress is

being made, they will be happy.

The final stage is to remain up-front and central during the action. Transformational

Leaders are always visible and will stand up to be counted rather than hide behind their

troops. They show by their attitudes and actions how everyone else should behave. They

also make continued efforts to motivate and rally their followers, constantly doing the

rounds, listening, soothing and enthusing.

It is their unswerving commitment as much as anything else that keeps people going,

particularly through the darker times when some may question whether the vision can ever

be achieved. If the people do not believe that they can succeed, then their efforts will flag.

The Transformational Leader seeks to infect and reinfect their followers with a high level

of commitment to the vision.

One of the methods the Transformational Leader uses to sustain motivation is in the use of

ceremonies, rituals and other cultural symbolism. Small changes get big hurrahs, pumping

up their significance as indicators of real progress.

Overall, they balance their attention between action that creates progress and the mental

state of their followers. Perhaps more than other approaches, they are people-oriented and

believe that success comes first and last through deep and sustained commitment.

Whilst the Transformational Leader seeks overtly to transform the organization, there is

also a tacit promise to followers that they also will be transformed in some way, perhaps to

be more like this amazing leader. In some respects, then, the followers are the product of

the transformation.

Transformational Leaders are often charismatic, but are not as narcissistic as pure

Charismatic Leaders, who succeed through a belief in themselves rather than a belief in

72
others.

One of the traps of Transformational Leadership is that passion and confidence can easily

be mistaken for truth and reality. Whilst it is true that great things have been achieved

through enthusiastic leadership, it is also true that many passionate people have led the

charge right over the cliff and into a bottomless chasm. Just because someone believes they

are right, it does not mean they are right.

Paradoxically, the energy that gets people going can also cause them to give up.

Transformational Leaders often have large amounts of enthusiasm which, if relentlessly

applied, can wear out their followers.

Transformational Leaders also tend to see the big picture, but not the details, where the

devil often lurks. If they do not have people to take care of this level of information, then

they are usually doomed to fail.

Finally, Transformational Leaders, by definition, seek to transform. When the organization

does not need transforming and people are happy as they are, then such a leader will be

frustrated. Like wartime leaders, however, given the right situation they come into their

own and can be personally responsible for saving entire companies.

2.6. Leadership Skills and Competencies

What are the basic skills and competencies needed by leaders?

Leadership, as defined at the beginning of this material is, "to go before, or with, to show

the way; to induce." Every organization needs a leader (and preferably several leaders) to

"show the way" to others as the organization strives to define and achieve its goals. Whether
these goals are entrepreneurial or humanitarian — or both — the leader's work is to

instill a sense of purpose and passion to the work that the organization undertakes.

Identifying, developing and sustaining leadership in your organization must be one of your

strategic objectives. Without leaders at every level of your organization, your organization

73
may well under-perform. It may miss strategic opportunities, stifle innovation, underutilize

your employees, and fall short of its goals in customer service, quality, productivity, and

profitability.

Invest in leadership today to sustain your success for tomorrow and beyond. This involves

understanding the basic Leadership Skills and Competencies and work hard to equip oneself

with them.

Leadership Skills

Personal skills.

A leader has to have the ability to motivate and influence himself first. He has to impress

himself before he is able to impress others. His must focus is on self mastery, self

management and self direction. He has to have self discipline. He practices the skills

required until they become habits.

He works continuously on his personal growth by gathering more knowledge and skills. He

must believe strongly in his ability to achieve great heights and look for possibilities. The

effective leaders are both active and reflective. They know when to plan, think, study,

ponder or take action. They are able make use of the different skills that they have

developed to suit a particular task or situation.

Thinking skill.

He recognizes the desired condition and plans the strategies to reach the goals. He is aware

of the tools that he needs to accomplish his mission. He is also able to identify and

understand problems, think through them and see the big picture. A skillful leader learns

from his experience and assigns meanings to the ideas and understanding. He looks for what

works and explore more possibilities. He then charts the process of his actions.

Delegating skill.

A leader delegates a certain amount of his power to act or make decisions. He believes in

74
getting other people involved and empowering their growth. He provides clear information

and expectations. He makes the person understands the result the person has to produce. The

person who receives the authority is someone capable and motivated to get the job done.

Once he has delegated the task, he offers his assistance, opinions and feedback. He avoids

the need to have control. A responsible leader is aware that he gains his leadership skills

from the knowledge of other leaders. He then transfers his skills to others and trains them to

become skilled leaders.

Relationship and communication skills.

A leader who has developed his relationship and communication skills is able to empower

others to become resourceful and bring out their best. And these people will work together

to form a successful team. Relationship skills include the ability to influence. One effective

way is to lead by example. His conduct is his great influence. When he takes responsibility

and is accountable, he develops integrity.

He is sensitive and understands the need of others. He takes the time to listen and

communicates effectively. He encourages others to speak out and express their point of

views. His ability to listen enables him to provide the support so that they can manifest their

visions, identify their values and beliefs. It helps him identifies the skills of others, nurture

them and develop their alternatives.

Decision making skill.

One of the important leadership skills is the ability to make decisions. A person who

vacillates and make very slow decision won't make good leaders. He has to think and act

fast. Taking too much time to think through and come up with a solution will cause missed

opportunities. His followers will lose their faith in him and his ability. He must have the

courage make decisions even if it involves taking some risks. The more right decisions he

makes, the better he becomes in making more.

75
Leadership Competencies

To lead other individuals, one should have the core competencies plus the following

competencies listed below. Some of the competencies that have defined as core to the role

of leaders include:

 Strategic Thinking , Coaching , Problem Solving , Decision Making , Systems Thinking ,

Delegation , Performance Management and

Accountability , Inspiring a Shared Vision , Managing Conflict , Building and Sustaining

Teamwork, Leading Change , Quality and Productivity

Improvement , Servant Leadership , Emotional Intelligence , Innovation and Creativity ,

Customer Service , Employee Development , Develop Trust , Dealing with Ambiguity

2.5. Good Vs Bad Leaders

What factors makes leaders to be good or bad from the view point of the leaders you know?

A leader is someone who helps others do and become more than they ever thought possible.

Leadership is about unlocking potential, whether individual potential or that of a group,

company, or organization. It is not about telling people what to do, but inspiring them to see

what they are capable of, then, helping them get there. But the quality of leadership

determines the difference between a team passionate about what they're doing versus one

that is following orders.

Effective leaders know what's important to them, what their strengths and weaknesses are,

what drives them, and where to draw the line. Put it together and it boils down to a leader

who has self-confidence and clear values.

Leadership Quality 1: Good leaders know themselves.

Knowing oneself is necessary when faced with challenges or ethical choices,

communicating with those who have different ideas, making decisions, and identifying

sources of satisfaction.

"We need to be clear about our own values, priorities, and preferences and not let someone

76
else, or society, define them for us," said Marian Ruderman, a group director at the Center

for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. "By clearly identifying those values,

priorities, and preferences we can articulate what we want, develop benchmarks, and make

better choices."

For Girl Scouts, the Promise and Law provide a solid foundation. That's why it is critical

that every member start from the same basis. As Karen White, GSUSA Director of

Volunteer Development and Diversity, explained: "The values of an individual must match

the values of the Girl Scout Movement. We then encourage an individual's future growth

through training, mentoring, and coaching."

It's by providing learning opportunities, both formal and informal, that Girl Scouts helps

girls, volunteers, and staff members develop stronger self-awareness.

Willing to Commit

In addition to being self-aware, an effective leader is not afraid to take on responsibilities.

Sometimes it requires putting the organization or group first—and keeping it there.

Cynthia Thompson, Chair, National Board of Directors, GSUSA, said, "I believe a lot of

people understand what it means to be a leader, but the difference comes down to

commitment. True leadership requires you to make sacrifices, including putting others

before yourself."

Leadership Quality 2: Good leaders are committed.

"Sometimes our use of the word 'leadership' can put people off," said Gayle Davis, GSUSA

Senior Director, and Council Resource Development. "A potential volunteer may think 'I

can't do that; I've no experience or qualifications.' When really what we're looking for is a

mentor, a person who prompts others to be their best, someone who cares and listens,

someone confident in her beliefs and is willing to be there."

What Gayle describes is a committed leader. For Girl Scouts, that means being committed to

77
"inspiring girls with the highest ideals of character, conduct, patriotism, and service so that

they may become happy and resourceful citizens" (as stated in the Blue Book of Basic

Documents).

Spectacularly Unsuccessful

In his article, "Seven Habits of Spectacularly Unsuccessful Executives," which appeared

in Fast Company magazine in July 2003, Sydney Finkelstein chronicles the characteristics of
leaders who fail—not just ineffective leaders but those who have reversed the fortunes of

thriving corporations. Which bad leaders placed high on this notorious list? According to

Mr. Finkelstein, it's those individuals who think they have all the answers.

Leadership Quality 3: Good leaders know they don't know everything.

Believing that an effective leader is one who knows it all is one of the most dangerous

misconceptions about leadership. Human frailty comes into play whether sitting in a cubicle

or a corner office. So while the ultimate decision and responsibility may lie with one

individual, it is incumbent upon her or him to gather information and trust others' points of

view before developing a plan of action.

Cynthia Thompson reflected, "The most challenging element of leadership is to bring

individuals together to move forward, but that's also the most rewarding. It's so wonderful

when it does happen. To get there requires maturity to recognize that your way is never the

only way."

A Place to Try

Girl Scouts offers girls and teenagers a safe environment to give leadership a try, to test and

stretch themselves. Setting goals, planning trips and events, earning patches and awards, and

organizing service projects, there's no limit to the experiences a Girl Scout can have.

The critical component is girls doing it themselves, even if it means something does not get done
or is done differently. For some adults, the latter is very difficult—especially those

with tendencies towards perfectionism. But letting go is how mutual trust is built.

78
Leadership Quality 4: Good leaders are open to change.

Change is one of life's most obvious factors, yet remains one of the most strongly resisted.

As Peter Senge, an expert on managing organizations, says, "Everything is in motion,

continually changing, forever adapting." Effective leaders recognize the value of change.

Yet all too often, it's much more comfortable to ignore the inevitability of change and to

keep things the way they've always been. Unless a leader's goal is to bankrupt a business or

ensure no new members join an organization that approach cannot work. Changes need to

be anticipated and responded to if growth is going to continue. And that applies to minor

changes, as well as major ones.

With Small Acts Come Big Things

There may be a time when one is called upon to take on challenges greater than one can ever

imagine. Joan Weiner Jones, the current Overseas Committee Chair and leader of Junior

Girl Scout Troops 1 and 17 in Kuwait can attest to that. This year, she and her volunteers

have worked diligently to keep USA Girl Scouts Overseas active in the tumultuous Middle

East. "Some of the small, effective acts of leadership are going the extra mile, when you

think you can't," Joan wrote in an e-mail. "Setting the scene with small leadership acts gives

you credence and respect when big things happen."

Leadership Quality 5: Good leaders go the extra mile.

Some leaders have a lifetime of small acts of leadership as extraordinary encouragers, strong

organizers, good persuaders, or charismatic speakers. When it comes down to it, how we

lead is a reflection of the characteristics and values that define who we are. As Juliette Low's

brother, G. Arthur Gordon, told his audience at the 21st annual Girl Scout Convention in

1935, "Life revolves itself principally into what we do and what we are, the former largely

controlled by the latter."

A Leader Can Be…

79
Being an effective leader does not always require moving heaven and earth. A leader's role

can vary and be effective in small, yet extremely powerful ways.  A clarifier listens,
summarizes, and makes things clearer.  A coach encourages others to develop their skills.  A
facilitator helps the group set goals, make decisions, choose directions, and

evaluate progress.  A delegator helps each group member apply her talents and interests to the
group's

goals.  An initiator gets things moving.  A manager helps coordinate the parts of a project
and keeps an eye on progress.  A mediator helps resolve differences.  A networker connects
people with people and people with ideas to move the project

forward.  A problem-solver suggests solutions and ways to get things done.  A visionary sees
creative solutions, new directions, and possibilities.

"Setting the scene with small leadership acts gives you credence and respect when big things

happen."

Leadership is probably one of the most talked about business concepts, but the least.

understood. Leadership is about getting things done and helping people reach their potential.

The reason is they practice old-fashioned and out-dated leadership concepts--they practice

leadership mythology.

A myth is something that is false, but believed to be true. As in many things in life, there are

several myths surrounding the concept and practice of leadership. Unfortunately, these

myths prevent the most qualified people from rising to the top. By listing these leadership

myths, it is my hope to dispel many of the false beliefs.

Myth 1 - Leadership is a rare ability only given to a few. Many people still think leaders are

born not made. This can't be further from the truth. Most people have the potential to

become good leaders. Leadership is not like a diet pill. Like most learned skills, it takes

time, training, and lots of trial by error. The key ingredient making people good leaders is

the ability to care about others. The second ingredient is a sense of purpose, vision or

mission.

80
Myth 2 - Leaders are charismatic-Many leaders are charismatic, but closer scrutiny shows

that most leaders are not. Some of the world's most famous leaders had warts--some sort of

shortcoming or personality defect. In a leadership role, people skills are very important

more important than technical skills.

Myth 3 - The person with the title, most rank or the highest position is the leader. Ideally,

the senior person in the business should be a good leader. However, authentic leadership is

not based on position or rank. It is based on action, performance, ability and effectiveness.

We all relate to working for those people who were placed in leadership roles who did more

to demoralize and destroy the business than anything else.

Myth 4 - Effective leadership is based on control, coercion and manipulation. Leadership is

about the future, not the past. Joel Barker's has the best quote about leadership, "A leader is

someone you would follow to a place you would not go to by yourself." Good leaders gain

followers out of respect and their ability to cause people to work toward a particular goal or

achieve a destination. People follow because they can relate to the vision or goal.

personalized by the leader. A good leader helps people become better than they are. A good

leader creates a work environment that attracts, keeps and motivates its workforce.

Myth 5 - Good leaders have more education than other people. Educational degrees may

mean you have a good education, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are a good leader.

When it comes to leadership, experience is the best teacher. The U.S. military has the best

leadership development program in the world. In the military, you start out at the bottom.

You are placed in leadership positions and closely evaluated by superiors. As your

experience broadens, so does your responsibility. This practical experience is reinforced with
weeks and months of formal training throughout the individual’s career.

Summary

81
The major aspect considered in this unit is approach to the study of leadership. It begins with
trait approaches to leadership. A trait approach to the study of leadership was mainly interested
in identifying traits or qualities which leaders should possess. It was based on two major
assumptions, namely that: all human beings can be divided into two group’s leaders and
followers, and leaders possess certain qualities that followers do not.

In general the trait approach has its roots in leadership theory that suggested that certain people
were born with special traits that made them “great” leaders. Because it was believed that leaders
and non-leaders could be differentiated by a universal set of traits, throughout the centaury
researchers have been challenged to identify the definitive traits of leaders. On the negative side,
the trait approach has failed to delimit a definitive list of leadership traits. In analyzing the traits
of leaders, the approach has failed to take into account the impact of situations. The behavior
approach is strikingly different from the great-personal and trait approaches to leadership
because the attitudinal approach focuses on what leaders do rather than who leaders are. It
suggests that leaders engage in two primary types of behaviors; task behaviors and relationship
behaviors. How leaders combine these two type behaviors to influence others is the central
purpose of the style approach. This approach has originated from, three different lines of
research: the Ohio state University studies, the University Michigan studies, and work of Blake
and Mouton on the Managerial grid. Researchers at Ohio State developed a leadership
questionnaire called the LBDQ: initiation of structure and consideration as the core leadership
behaviors. The Michigan studies provided similar findings but called the leader behaviors:
Production orientation and employee orientation. Using the Ohio State and Michigan studies as a
basis, much research has been carried out to find the best way for leasers to combine task and
relationship behaviors. The goal has been to find a universal set of leadership behaviors capable
of explaining leadership effectiveness in very situation; however, the result from these efforts has
not been conclusive. Research has had difficulty identifying one best style of leadership. Blake
and Mouton developed a practical model for training managers that described leadership
behaviors along a grid with two axes: concern from production and concern from people. How
leaders combine these orientations results in a five major leadership styles: authority- compliance
(9,1), country-club management (1,9), impoverished Management (1, 1), middle- of the road
management (5, 5), and team management (9, 9) The behavior approach has several strengths
and weaknesses. On the positive side, it has broadened the scope of leadership research to

82
include the study of the behaviors of leaders rather than only their personal traits or
characteristics. Second it is a reliable approach because it is supported by a wide range of
studies. Third, the behavior approach is valuable because it underscore the importance of the two
core dimensions of leadership behavior: task and relationship fourth, it has heuristic value in that
it provides us with a broad conceptual map that is useful in gaining an understanding of our own
leadership behaviors. On the negative side, researchers have not been able to associate the
behaviors of leaders (task and relationship) with outcomes such as morale, job satisfaction and
productivity. In addition, researchers from the attitudinal approach have not been able to identify
a universal set of leadership behaviors that would consistently result in effective leadership.
Lastly the attitudinal approach implies, but fails to support fully, the idea that the most effective
leadership style is a high-high style (i.e. high task and high relationship). The style approach is
not a refined theory that provides neatly organized set prescriptions for effective leadership
behaviors. Rather, the behavior approach provides a valuable framework for assessing
leadership in a broad way-as assessing behavior with task and relationship dimension. Moreover,
the behavior approach contributes in reminding leaders that their impact on other occurs along
both dimensions.

Contingency theory represents a shift in leadership research from focusing in on only the leader
to looking at leader in conjunction with the situation in which the leader works. It is a leader-
match theory that emphasizes the importance of matching a leader’s style with the demand of
situation. The strength of contingency theory include that it is backed by a considerable amount
of research, it is the first leadership theory to emphasize the impact of situations on leaders not to
be effective in all situations, and it can provide useful leadership profile data. On the negative
side, contingency theory can be criticized because it has not adequately explained the link
between styles and situations, and it relies heavily on the LPC scale, which has been questioned
for its face validity and workability. Contingency theory is not easily used on going
organizations, and it does not fully explain how organizations can use the results off this theory
in situational engineering. Regardless of these criticisms, contingency theory has made a
substantial contribution to our understanding of the leadership process.

CHAPTER 3

OVERVIEW OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT

83
Introduction

This unit will provide students with an understanding of a range of theoretical models and

processes relating to change management and will enable analysis and critical evaluation of

these theoretical perspectives in context specific school settings and environments.

Furthermore, the unit identifies the centrality of strong leadership throughout the change

management process and seeks to equip students with the theoretical understandings of a

range of management styles and processes to facilitate change in effective and transformative

ways that are consistent with a dynamic business world.

Managers are the primary change agents in most organizations. By the decisions they make and
their role-modeling behaviors, they shape the organization’s change culture. For

instance, management decisions related to structural design, cultural factors, and human

resource policies largely determine the level of innovation within the organization. Similarly,

management decisions, policies, and practices will determine the degree to which the

organization learns and adapts to changing environmental factors. We found that the

existence of work stress, in and of itself, need not imply lower performance. The evidence

indicates that stress can be either a positive or negative influence on employee performance.

For many people, low to moderate amounts of stress enable them to perform their jobs better

by increasing their work intensity, alertness, and ability to react. However, a high level of

stress, or even a moderate amount sustained over a long period of time, eventually takes its

toll and performance declines. The impact of stress on satisfaction is far more

straightforward. Job-related tension tends to decrease general job satisfaction. Even though

low to moderate levels of stress may improve job performance, employees find stress

dissatisfying.

Learning objectives

Up on successful completion of this unit you should be able to:

84
 Appreciate why all organizations must change

 Differentiate between individual change and organizational change

 Describe how an organization grows

 Compare and contrast between degrees and nature of change

 Identify the major antecedent conditions for change

 Recognize the phases of any change process

 Outline different coping strategies for change

 Understand the process of resistance to change and means of overcoming resistance

 Devise an appropriate strategy to implement organizational change

3.1. Meaning and implications of Change

You are perhaps aware of the axiom that the only certainty in the world is that there will be

change. "The old order changed, yielding place to new." In this process of change, the

Darwinian principles of adaptation and natural selection are as true for the corporate world as

they are for the animate. If you compare closely, you will find that in many respects an

organization is akin to a living organism. Just as any living organism needs to keep harmony

with the ever-changing environs for its survival, or does an organization need to respond to

changes in the market, governments, creditors, communities, even the weather. `Survival of

the fittest' is the unwritten but the radical rule of this game.

The environment which engulfs an organization provides the resources and opportunities for

the organization’s existence. At the same time, the environment itself imposes sanctions

determining what an organization can or cannot do. If an organization is to survive, grow and

remain prosperous, it must adapt to the demands of the environment. Since these demands

are constantly changing, organizations must also change.

Organizational change is the movement of an organization away from its present state and

toward some future state to increase its effectiveness. Forces for organizational change

85
include competitive forces, economic, political, global, demographic, social, and ethical

forces. Organizations are often reluctant to change because resistance to change at the

organization, group, and individual levels gives rise to organizational inertia.

When we speak of change, we mean an alteration in organization design, strategy or processes,

or some other attempt to influence an organization’s members to behave

differently.

What are some of the changes which affected almost all organizations in the past few.

decades? A short list is given here, but you can lengthen it from your own observation of

events:

 Technological innovations have multiplied; products and know-how are fast

becoming obsolete

 Basic resources have progressively become more expensive

 Competition has sharply increased

 Communication and computers have reduced the time needed to make decisions

 Environmental and consumer interest-groups have become highly influential

 The drive for social equity has gained momentum

 The economic inter-dependence among countries has become more apparent.

The need for change has been implied throughout this text. “A casual reflection on change

should indicate that it encompasses almost all our concepts in the organizational behavior

literature. Think about leadership, motivation, organizational environment, and roles. It is

impossible to think about these and other concepts without inquiring about change.” If
environments were perfectly static, if employees’ skills and abilities were always up to date

and incapable of deteriorating, and if tomorrow were always exactly the same as today,

organizational change would have little or no relevance to managers. The real world,

however, is turbulent, requiring organizations and their members to undergo dynamic change

86
if they are to perform at competitive levels. • Sources of organizational-level resistance to change
include power and conflict, differences in functional orientation, mechanistic structure, and
organizational culture. Sources of group level resistance to change include group norms, group
cohesiveness, groupthink, and escalation of commitment. Sources of individual-level resistance
to change include uncertainty and insecurity, selective perception and retention, and habit. •
According to Lewin’s force-field theory of change, organizations are balanced between forces

pushing for change and forces resistant to change. To get an organization to change, managers

must find a way to increase the forces for change, reduce resistance to change, or do both

simultaneously. • Types of change fall into two broad categories: evolutionary and revolutionary.
The main instruments of evolutionary change are socio-technical systems theory and total quality
management.

Forces for change

1. The changing nature of the workforce: • A multicultural environment. • Human resource

policies and practices changed to attract and keep this more diverse workforce. • Large
expenditure on training to upgrade reading, math, computer, and other skills of employees

2. Technology is changing jobs and organizations: • Sophisticated information technology is also

making organizations more responsive. As organizations have had to become more adaptable, so
too have their employees. • We live in an “age of discontinuity.” Beginning in the early 1970s
with the overnight quadrupling of world oil prices, economic shocks have continued to impose
changes on organizations.

3. Competition is changing: • The global economy means global competitors.

• Established organizations need to defend themselves against both traditional competitors

and small, entrepreneurial firms with innovative offerings. • Successful organizations will be the
ones that can change in response to the competition.

4. Social trends during the past generation suggest changes that organizations have to

adjust for: • The expansion of the Internet, Baby Boomers retiring, and people moving from the
suburbs back to cities • A global context for OB is required. No one could have imagined how

87
world politics would change in recent years. • September 11th has caused changes organizations
have made in terms of practices concerning security, back-up systems, employee stereotyping,
etc.

3.1.1.Managing Planned Change

Some organizations treat all change as an accidental occurrence, however, change as an

intentional, goal-oriented activity is planned change.

1. There are two goals of planned change: • Improve the ability of the organization to adapt to
changes in its environment. • Change employee behavior.

2. Examples of planned-change activities are needed to stimulate innovation, empower

employees, and introduce work teams. 3. An organization’s success or failure is essentially due
to the things that employees do or fail to do, so planned change is also concerned with changing
the behavior of individuals and groups within the organization.

4. Who in organizations are responsible for managing change activities? • Change agents can be
managers, employees of the organization, or outside consultants. • Typically, we look to senior
executives as agents of change.

5. For major change efforts, top managers are increasingly turning to temporary outside

consultants with specialized knowledge in the theory and methods of change. • Consultant
change agents can offer a more objective perspective than insiders can. • They are disadvantaged
in that they often have an inadequate understanding of the organization’s history, culture,
operating procedures, and personnel. • Outside consultants are also more willing to initiate
second-order changes. • Internal change agents are often more cautious for fear of offending
friends and associates.

These and scores of other changes compel an organization to cope with the environment and

become more adaptive. In fact, as a response to the change in the environment, the attributes

of the organizations are changing.

3.2. Process of organizational change

Change management is a set of processes employed to ensure that significant changes are

implemented in a controlled and systematic manner. Change management is the process of

88
continually renewing an organization's direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever

changing needs of external and internal customers. Mastering strategies for managing change

is more important today since the rate of change is greater than at any time in history. The

marketplace is changing overnight. Organizational alliances and structures are shifting

rapidly. Everything in the organization is open to scrutiny. Basic operating assumptions are

questioned.

Traditions are challenged. The risk of failure is greater than ever before and the tension

within the workforce is great and needs constant attention.

One of the goals of change management is the alignment of people and culture with strategic

shifts in the organization, to overcome resistance to change in order to increase engagement and
the achievement of the organization’s goal for effective transformation. Achieving

sustainable change begins with a clear understanding of the current state of the organization,

followed by the implementation of appropriate and targeted strategies. The focus of change
management is on the outcome the change will produce – the NEW arrangements that must

be understood. Change processes usually apply to a task and/or structural change, and can be

either:

 Incremental or Transformational

 Situational

A comprehensive change management strategy should lead to the desired objectives and

create a sense of ownership, enable sustained and measurable improvement and build

capability to respond to future change.

William Bridges (2003:3) explains there are significant differences between change and

transition. Change is the way things will be different, and transition is how you move people

through the stages to make change work.

Change is a shift in the externals of any situation, for example, setting up a new program,

restructuring a business, moving to new location, or a promotion. By contrast, transition is

89
the mental and emotional transformation that people must undergo to relinquish old

arrangements and embrace new ones1.

There are other distinctions too. Change is made up of events, while transition is an on-going

process. Change is visible and tangible, while transition is a psychological process that takes

place inside of people. Change can happen quickly, but transition, like any organic process,

has its own natural pace. Change is all about the outcome we are trying to achieve; transition

is about how we'll get there and how we'll manage things while we are en route. Getting

people through the transition is essential if the change is actually to work as planned.

It is important to ensure that change management strategies are driven by the changes that

need to occur, but not to lose focus on the more personal transition activities needed to

ensure the success of the program.

What is transformation?

Transformation occurs as a result of a well-orchestrated and well-led change strategy and

transition plan. The result is a metamorphosis to the desired state in which there is a deep

seated adoption of the changes and the associated values, principles and/or processes. This

leads to an embedded, and marked, change in organizational culture and reinforces a journey

of continuous improvement.

Leading and managing change

The implementation of any significant change process usually succeeds or fails because of

the leadership of that change process. Management as a discipline focuses on processes and

systems that keep the operations of the University operating smoothly, while leadership

engages people to create, adapt and meet the demands of the anticipated future. Management
plays an essential part in making the changes happen; it empowers the ‘doing’. Leadership

inspires the transition, it is what energizes people and sustains a change in behavior and

approach. Leadership engages the hearts and minds of staff.

90
Leading strategy differs from managing operations. Leadership and management are two

distinct and complimentary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic

activities (Kotter, 1999:51).The table below outlines some of the characteristics essential to

driving significant change initiatives at the University of Adelaide.

Kotter’s eight stage process for creating major Change

There are several models available to understand, frame thinking and help lead change. One

of the pre-eminent thinkers in change management is John P. Kotter who teaches leadership at
Harvard Business School. The University of Adelaide has adopted Kotter’s Eight-Stage

Process for Creating Major Change. Each step acknowledges a key principle identified by Kotter
relating to people’s response and approach to change, in which people see, feel and then embrace
change. Kotter holds that “the methods used in successful transformations are

all based on one fundamental insight: that major change will not happen for a long list of
reasons” (Kotter, 1996:21). Kotter’s process is designed to address this “long list of reasons” and
is illustrated below. Possible tools of ‘how to’ work through the various aspects of Kotter’s
model are added for your interest. Activity As a newly appointed manager in any work setting,
you are liable to identify things that “ could be done better” and to have many “new ideas” that
you would like to implement.

There are several models available to guide thinking on how people cope with the emotive

cycle of change. William Bridges, PhD, was formerly a Professor of English, a consultant

and lecturer; he made the shift to transition management in the mid 1970s. A review by

Linkage (2009) identified that Bridges is ranked in the top 10 independent executive

development specialists in the USA as observed by the Wall Street Journal.

Bridges holds that transition has three phases: an ending/losing/letting go of the current

position, a disorienting neutral zone and a new beginning. If people do not deal with each of
these phases, the change will be just a rearrangement of the current status quo…and then we
wonder why it didn’t work. “It isn’t the changes that do you in, it’s the transitions!” Anonymous

In Managing Transitions, Bridges offers advice in assisting employees to make the transition

from one state to another and how to deal with the resistance. Bridges provides the

91
following insights with respect to launching a new beginning: Clarify and communicate the
purpose/vision

Provide a picture of the outcome so that people can imagine it (storytelling tool) Then create the
accompanying plan and publish it broadly Ensure all staff are involved in the plan to implement
the purpose Finally, reinforce the new beginning by :

o Being consistent

o Ensuring quick wins

o Symbolizing the new identity

o Celebrating the successes

Antecedents of Organizational Change

You can well imagine that there must be many reasons for which organizations change. In

this section we will discuss some such major antecedent conditions which serve as stimuli for

changes to be undertaken in an organization.

Changing Forces in Internal and External Environment

An organization changes its structure and practices as a result of the forces from internal

origins as well as from external pressures arising in the environment.

Areas Where Change Can Occur

• Change Technology

• Change the Organization’s

Structure or Design

• Change Job Responsibilities or tasks performed

• Change People

There are two primary aspects of organizational structure-differentiation and integration.

Differentiation is the division of the organization into subsystems, e.g. research, sales,

production etc. Each differentiated subsystem develops particular attributes in responding to

the requirements posed by its relevant external environment. However, differentiation

92
requires the integration of these subsystems to achieve unity of effort and the

accomplishment of the organization’s goals.

The more turbulent environment would be associated with a higher degree of differentiation

among the organization’s sub-parts and also a correspondingly high degree of integrative

effort. Similarly, an organization faced with a stable environment would have less

differentiated subsystems and require fewer integrative procedures. The success of an

organization depends upon an appropriate amount of differentiation to cope with the

environment and also the right amount of integrative or coordinating effort. Researches by

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) provide evidence for such a generalization. For example, in the

plastics industry, facing a turbulent environment of rapid change in technology and

unpredictable customer demand, the high-performing organizations had the greatest

differentiation and integration. In the standardized container industry, facing a stable

environment of unchanging technology and steady demand, the highest performing

organizations had the least differentiation and consequently the least need for integration.

So, you can see that, depending upon the kind of environment an organization is placed in,

the organization has to change its structure. Of course, a certain amount of organizational

change may. occur almost entirely from internal origins. For example, someone may decide

that a particular department is so big, and unwieldy that it should be split into two separate

units. Internal change may also occur in furtherance of individual or group strategies for self

enhancement or the aggrandizement of power. For example, a new unit may be established to

provide a job for a favored relative or to shelve an incompetent, obsolescent but

undischargeable manager. But most internal origins of change are in part self-generated, and

in part represent response to external pressures perceived by the members of an organization.

For example, a number of companies have set up departments designed to cope with

problems of consumer complaints.

93
In the beginning of the unit, we have outlined some changes which have taken place in the

last few decades. They represent the external environment forces which influence

organizations. Organizations face the need for both to adapt internally to external forces and

to initiate changes in the external environment. These needs explain, for example, why

companies engage in lobbying for legislation they favors (external influence, proactive

change), but comply when laws not favored are passed (internal adaptation, reactive

change).

Growth and Decay

You have seen that an organization’s growth presents many problems and opportunities for

change. Decay too poses change problems. It leads to defensive, restorative changes aimed at

survival and the es; ntial resumption of growth.

When growth occurs through internal vigor of pro' 'act lines, services or market penetration,

change is gradual. Change is more extensive when growth occurs from mergers, acquisitions

or exceptionally rapid success of organizational activities.

Mergers and acquisitions are undertaken for many reasons such as consolidating or

increasing capital, pooling management talent using facilities more efficiently, increasing

production and marketing capacity and achieving vertical integration. Organizational Climate

and Change Changes due to merger and acquisition lead to substantial impacts on people.

There is high potential for generating feelings of anxiety, fear of insecurity among all

organisational members from top echelons to rank-and-file workers. Sometimes, these

anxieties, if not properly handled, turn into hostility towards the organization.

New Personnel

Some change is inevitable because of internal factors such as death, retirement, transfer,

promotion, discharge, or resignation and constantly changing elements in the external

environment. No two managers, you will agree, have the same styles, skills, or managerial

94
philosophies, or the same personal needs. Managerial behavior is always selective, so that a

newly appointed manager may favors different organizational designs, objectives, tasks,

procedures and policies than a predecessor. The new, executive will not be exactly like the

previous one, nor even like those already present. In matters of intelligence, personality and

temperament the new manager may be quite different and still possess the "qualifications for

the position".

One of the most frequent reasons for major changes in company structure is a change of

executives at the top. They usually begin by examining the structure below them to see if it

corresponds to their ideas of what will be needed to do their job effectively. Upon taking

over a position at the top, a new manager may make sweeping changes. Moreover, some who

opposed the appointment are likely to resign. The filling of these top vacancies, particularly

where the new person comes in from outside, presents a strategic opportunity for a re

examination of the entire structure.

Change Agents

Change Agent is the technical term for an organizational member whose role involves the

strategies and procedures for bringing about change. Any individual can be a change agent at

one time or another, but many people have positions, tasks, or formal roles in which their

main assignments involve dealing with change. A change agent's formal role is primarily to

plan and initiate changes rather than to implement them. Change agents serve as catalysts,

interpreters, and synthesis’s. They often work quietly behind the scenes to promote change.

An interesting kind of change agent is often referred to as "The Young Turk". Young Turks

are new, usually young employees, eager and ambitious, full of ideas for improvement, and

willing to be a bit pushy, and obnoxious, or at least persistent, in trying their ideas.

Organizations sensing the need for change often deliberately appoint Young Turks to

challenge the status quo. They are not always popular with colleagues or even their bosses.

95
The best of the Young Turks are those who have real talent combined with a measure of tact and
patience. Do you think Young Turks are ‘a good idea’ for initiating organizational

change?

Barometers of Declining Effectiveness

Organizations have a number of ways of "taking their pulse" by looking at indicators from

their own information systems. A business firm monitors data on sales, absenteeism,

turnover, scrap rates, manufacturing costs and numerous ratios of financial measures. Some

firms also conduct regular opinion surveys of their work force. Others have systematic

methods of obtaining feedback from customers.

In response to the information obtained through the above methods, the organizations make

the required changes in organization to maintain the desired level of efficiency.

Change in Corporate Strategy

An organization may undertake comprehensive changes even when no indicators would

suggest immediate problems in its performance. However, current and past performance have

been based on conditions that organization officials believe to be changing. Forecasts of long

run trend may prompt a decisions to enter new markets, to pursue a strategy of growth, to

become less dependent on government, to switch from a centralized to a decentralized

structure, or to adopt new technologies. All these strategic decisions have implications for

changing the behavior of people in their organization. Nothing less than a `new order' is

required to put such strategies into operational effect.

Crises

Not infrequently, the occasion for organizational change is an unforeseen crisis which makes

continuation of the status quo unthinkable. The sudden death of a Chief Executive Officer,

the resignation of key members of a top management team, a strike by a critically important

group of specialized workers, loss of major client or suppliers on whom the company has

96
been dependent, a drastic cutback in budget, even spontaneous civil disturbances directed

against an organization force a reorientation of the corporate posture and initiate a total

revamping of policy, practice and behavior. Crises create an unstable condition which is

likely to become the stimulus for a thorough-going self-assessment and reform.

Personal Goals

Leaders, interest groups and coalitions have their own goals: to see the company become

more aggressive, to shape the organization around some distinctive theme, to cast a particular

corporate image, to further some ideology or philosophy. Seldom are these goals stated in

precisely those forms, at least for the record or for public consumption. More frequently, they

are clothed in rationalizations about their presumed effect on profit and service.

The Domino Effect

The last main source of change is change itself. There is often a domino effect in which one

change touches off a sequence of related and supporting changes, e.g., creating a new

department may cause the creation of a new managerial or non-managerial positions or

change in assignments within other departments, budgeting reallocations and office space.

Other departments may need to realign their missions, structure, tasks and staffing.

It is quite common for people to fail to consider the domino effect. Such an oversight leads to

problems of coordination and control, and necessitates effective planning processes that limit

the tendency of individual units to change only in accordance with their own needs. Before

any significant change is made, its possible consequences must be examined to see whether

an undesired chain reaction will occur.

To appreciate the complexity of the interdependence or domino effect of change, you need to

consider more closely what is included in the work environment. Actually., in an

organizational change, four factors are involved: task, people, technology and structure.

These factors are interrelated and interdependent, a change in one produces alterations in one

97
or more of the other work environment factors .

Task refers to the job, which can vary in several ways or dimensions such as variety,

autonomy, task identity, feedback, and significance.

People includes individuals who perform or fill various jobs within the organization.

Individuals vary in their attitudes, motivations and values which influence their perception

and evaluation of change. This can complicate the implementation of change.

Technology includes those methods, techniques, and processes that collectively convert

inputs of the organization into its outputs. Finally, the structure embraces the job

responsibilities and relationships of organizational members.

Structure is reflected in the number of hierarchical levels, span of control (number of persons

supervised), and the way in which parts are organized and related to one another.

Communication, decision, and power systems are significantly influenced by such structural

arrangements.

Organizational changes can be introduced through the alteration of any one of these four

variables or a combination of these factors. One of the pitfalls of organizational change is

focusing upon one of the change factors and failing to gauge its impact upon other factors, as

they are related.

The Process of organizational Change : Four basic questions

When it comes to organizational change, several basic questions warrant consideration. First,

what are the targets of organizational change efforts? Second, when will organizational

change occur? Third, why is organizational change resisted? Fourth, how can resistance to

change be overcome? We will now address these questions.

Targets: What Is Changed?

Imagine that you are an engineer responsible for overseeing the maintenance of a large office

building. The property manager has noted a dramatic increase in the use of heat in the

98
building, causing operating costs to skyrocket. In other words, a need for change exists

specifically, a reduction in the building's heat usage. You cannot get the power company to

lower its rates, so you realize you must bring about changes in the use of heat. But how? One

possibility is to rearrange job responsibilities so that only maintenance personnel are

permitted to adjust thermostats. Another option is to put timers on all thermostats so that the

building temperature is automatically lowered during periods of nonuse. Finally, you

consider the idea of putting stickers next to the thermostats, requesting that occupants do not

adjust them. These three options represent excellent examples of the three potential targets of
organizational change we will consider—changes in organizational structure, technology,

and people.

Changes in Organizational Structure. In Chapter 11 we described the key characteristics

of organizational structure. Here, we note that altering the structure of an organization may

be a reasonable way of responding to a need for change. In the above example, a structural

solution to the heat-regulation problem came in the form of reassigning job responsibilities.

Indeed, modifying rules, responsibilities, and procedures may be an effective way to manage

change. Changing the responsibility for temperature regulation from a highly decentralized

system (whereby anyone can make adjustments) to a centralized one (in which only

maintenance personnel may do so) is one way of implementing organizational change in

response to a problem. This particular structural solution called for changing the power

structure (i.e., who was in charge of a particular task).

Different types of structural changes can take form. For example, changes can be made in an

organization's span of control, altering the number of employees for which supervisors are

responsible. Structural changes also may take the form of revising the basis for creating
departments – such as from product-based departments to functional departments. Other

structural changes may be much simpler, such as clarifying someone's job description or the

written policies and procedures followed.

99
Changes in Technology. In our thermostat example, we noted that one possible solution

would be to use thermostats that automatically reduce the building's temperature while it is

not in use. This is an example of a technological approach to the problem of conserving heat

in the building. Placement of regulating devices on the thermostats that would thwart

attempts to raise the temperature also would be possible. The thermostats also could be

encased in a locked box, or simply removed altogether. A new, modem, energy-efficient

furnace could be installed in the building. All of these suggestions represent technological

approaches to change.

Changes in People. You've probably seen stickers next to light switches in hotels and office

buildings asking the occupants to turn off the lights when not in use. These are similar to the

suggestion in our opening example of affixing signs near thermostats asking occupants to

refrain from adjusting them. Such efforts represent attempts to respond to the needed

organizational change by altering the way people behave. The basic assumption is that the

effectiveness of organizations is greatly dependent on the behavior of the people working

within them.

As you might imagine, the process of changing people is not easy—indeed, it lies at the core

of most of the topics discussed in this book. However, theorists have identified three basic

steps that summarize what's involved in the process of changing people. The first step is

known as unfreezing. This refers to the process of recognizing that the current state of affairs

is undesirable and in need of a change.

Realizing that change is needed may be the result of some serious organizational crisis or

threat (e.g., a serious financial loss, a strike, or a major lawsuit), or simply becoming aware

that current conditions are unacceptable (e.g., antiquated equipment, inadequately trained

employees). In recent years, some executives have gotten employees to accept the need to

100
change while things are still good by creating a sense of urgency. They introduce the idea that
there is an impending crisis although conditions are, in fact, currently acceptable—an

approach referred to as doomsday management. This process effectively unfreezes people,

stimulating change before it's too late to do any good.

After unfreezing, change may occur. This step occurs when some planned attempt is made to

create a more desirable state for the organization and its members. Change attempts may be

quite ambitious (e.g., an organization wide restructuring) or only minor (e.g., altering a

training program). A thorough discussion of such planned change techniques will be

presented in the next major part of this chapter. Finally, refreezing occurs when the changes

made are incorporated into the employees' thinking and the organization's operations (e.g.,

mechanisms for rewarding

behaviors that maintain the changes are put in place). Hence, the new attitudes and behaviors

become a new, enduring aspect of the organizational system.

Readiness for Change: When Will Organizational Change Occur?

As you might imagine, there are times when organizations are likely to change, and times

during which change is less likely. In general, change is likely to occur when the people

involved believe that the benefits associated with making a change outweigh the costs

involved.

The factors contributing to the benefits of making a change are as follows:

 the amount of dissatisfaction with current conditions,

 the availability of a desirable alternative, and

 the existence of a plan for achieving that alternative.

Theorists have claimed that these three factors combine multiplicatively to determine the

benefits of making a change. Thus, if any one of these factors is zero, the benefits of making

a change, and the likelihood of change itself, will be zero. If you think about it, this makes

101
sense. After all, people are unlikely to initiate change if they are not at all dissatisfied, or if

they don't have any desirable alternative in mind (or any way of attaining that alternative, if

they do have one in mind). Of course, for change to occur, the expected benefits also must

outweigh the likely costs involved (e.g., disruption, uncertainties).

3.3. Resistance to Change

McKinsey & Co (2006), Shaffer & Thomson (1998), and Corporate Leadership Council

(CLC, 2001) site studies of hundreds of companies that entered significant change programs.

Their research indicates that 60% -70% of significant and complex change management

programs grind to a halt because of their failure to produce the hoped-for results. The research
identified that failure isn’t necessarily due to poor technical solutions; it was the

result of poor project planning and change management.

Generally speaking, organizations face strong resistance to change. People are afraid of the
unknown, many think things are fine the way they are and don’t understand the need for

change. Recognizing the need to change, and acting on it, can be difficult decisions for

leaders and managers to make.

Managers are taught to manage processes and resources effectively. Change however requires
the ‘management’ of people’s anxiety and confusion, or conversely their excitement

and engagement. These are emotions that most managers find difficult to deal with or

address. Managing the change process and transition emotions is fundamental to the success

of a change oriented project.

Many people are inherently cynical about change, many doubt there are effective means to

accomplish major organizational change. Often there are conflicting goals within the

organization, for example, increasing resources to accomplish goals yet cutting costs to

remain viable. Organizational change often goes against the very values held dear by people,

that is, the change may go against how they believe things should be done or diminish ownership
of ‘how we do things around here’.

Resistance is a natural defence mechanism for those ‘losing’ something. The closer we are to

102
something or someone, the greater the grief or loss. Reasons for resisting change are varied.

The reasons could include perceived loss of security, money, pride or satisfaction, friends,

freedom, responsibility, authority, good working conditions, status, lack of respect,

objectionable manner, negative attitude, personal criticism, not having had input, bad timing,

challenge to authority or second hand information.

Why Is Organizational Change Resisted?

Although people may be unhappy with the current state of affairs confronting them in

organizations, they may be afraid that any changes will be potentially disruptive and will

actually make things worse. Indeed, fear of new conditions is quite real and it creates

unwillingness to accept change. Organizational scientists have recognized that resistance to

change stems from both individual and organizational variables.

Individual Barriers to Change. Researchers have noted several key factors that are known

to make people resistant to change in organizations.

1. Economic insecurity: Because any changes on the job have the potential to threaten one's
livelihood—either by loss of job or reduced pay – some resistance to change is inevitable.

2. Fear of the unknown: Employees derive a sense of security from doing things the same

way, knowing who their co-workers will be, and whom they're supposed to answer to from

day to day. Disrupting these well-established, comfortable patterns creates unfamiliar

conditions, a state of affairs that often is rejected.

3. Threats to social relationships: As people continue to work within organizations, they form

strong bonds with their co-workers. Many organizational changes (e.g., the reassignment of

job responsibilities) threaten the integrity of friendship groups that provide valuable social

rewards.

4. Habit: Jobs that are well learned and become habitual are easy to perform. The prospect of

changing the way jobs are done challenges people to develop new job skills. Doing this is

103
clearly more difficult than continuing to perform the job as it was originally learned.

5. Failure to recognize need for change: Unless employees can recognize and fully appreciate

the need for changes in organizations, any vested interests they may have in keeping things

the same may overpower their willingness to accept change.

Organizational Barriers to Change. Resistance to organizational change also stems from

conditions associated with organizations themselves. Several such factors may be identified.

1. Structural inertia: Organizations are designed to promote stability. To the extent that

employees are carefully selected and trained to perform certain jobs, and rewarded for doing

them well, the forces acting on individuals to perform in certain ways are very powerfully
determined – that is, jobs have structural inertia. Thus, because jobs are designed to have

stability, it is often difficult to overcome the resistance created by these forces.

2. Work group inertia: Inertia to continue performing jobs in a specified way comes not only
from the jobs themselves but also from the social groups within which people work – work

group inertia. Because of the development of strong social norms within groups, potent pressures
exist to perform jobs in certain ways. Introducing change disrupts these

established normative expectations, leading to formidable resistance.

3. Threats to existing balance of power: If changes are made with respect to who's in charge,

a shift in the balance of power between individuals and organizational subunits is likely to

occur. Those units, which now control the resources, have the expertise, and wield the power,

may fear losing their advantageous positions resulting from any organizational change.

4. Previously unsuccessful change efforts: Anyone who has lived through a past disaster

understandably may be reluctant to endure another attempt at the same thing. Similarly,

groups or entire organizations that have been unsuccessful in introducing change in the past

may be cautious about accepting further attempts at introducing change into the system. Over

the past decade, General Electric (GE) has undergone a series of widespread changes in its

basic strategy, organizational structure, and relationship with employees. In this process, it

104
experienced several of the barriers just identified. For example, GE managers had mastered a

set of bureaucratic traditions that kept their habits strong and their inertia intact. The prospect

of doing things differently was scary for those who were so strongly entrenched in doing things
“the GE way." In particular, the company's interest in globalizing triggered many fears

of the unknown. Resistance to change at GM also was strong because it threatened to strip

power from those units that traditionally possessed most of it (e.g., the Power Systems and

Lighting division). Changes also were highly disruptive to GE's "social architecture";

friendship groups were broken up and scattered throughout the company. In all, GE has been

a living example of many different barriers to change all rolled into a single company.

The Three Greatest Barriers to Organizational Change By Gayla Hodges

The need for rapid organizational change is a fact of life in today.s business environment.

While there may be a few companies whose leaders are committed to a belief that it is good for

everyone to .shake things up. from time to time, most organizational change is undertaken to

accomplish key strategic goals. No matter how necessary change seems to upper management,

many barriers must be broken down if a planned strategic change is to be implemented

successfully. The key to successful change is in the planning and the implementation. The

three greatest barriers to organizational change are most often the following.

1. Inadequate Culture-shift Planning. Most companies are good at planning changes in

reporting structure, work area placement, job responsibilities, and administrative structure.

Organizational charts are commonly revised again and again. Timelines are established,

benchmarks are set, transition teams are appointed, etc. Failure to foresee and plan for

resultant cultural change, however, is also common. When the planning team is too narrowly

defined or too focused on objective analysis and critical thinking, it becomes too easy to lose

sight of the fact that the planned change will affect people. Even at work, people make many

decisions on the basis of feelings and intuition. When the feelings of employees are

105
overlooked, the result is often deep resentment because some unrecognized taboo or tradition

has not been duly respected.

2. Lack of Employee Involvement. People have an inherent fear of change. In most

strategic organizational change, at least some employees will be asked to assume different

responsibilities or focus on different aspects of their knowledge or skill. The greater the change a
person is asked to make, the more pervasive that person’s fear will be. There will be

fear of change. More important, however, there will be fear of failure in the new role.

Involving employees as soon as possible in the change effort, letting them create as much of

the change as is possible and practical is key to a successful change effort. As employees

understand the reasons for the change and have an opportunity to try the change on for size

they more readily accept and support the change.

3. Flawed Communication Strategies. Ideal communication strategies in situations of

significant organizational change must attend to the message, the method of delivery, the

timing, and the importance of information shared with various parts of the organization.

Many leaders believe that if they tell people what they (the leaders) feel they need to know

about the change, then everyone will be on board and ready to move forward. In reality,

people need to understand why the change is being made, but more importantly, how the

change is likely to affect them. A big picture announcement from the CEO does little to help

people understand and accept change. People want to hear about change from their direct

supervisor. A strategy of engaging direct supervision and allowing them to manage the

communication process is the key to a successful change communication plan. There are

other barriers, to be sure, but the three outlined above are extremely common and highly

likely to create havoc in the organization. By planning and dealing with these three areas

thoroughly, carefully, and sensitively, people will be most likely to get on board and help

implement the change and adapt to organizational change far more readily and supportively.

106
3.4. Managing Resistance to Change

Michael Adams, president of Environics Research Group in Toronto, has noted that

Canadians have become more resistant to change in recent years.58 Between 1983 and the

mid-1990s, Canadians reported that they “felt confident in their ability to cope with change.”
This trend has reversed in recent years. Half of Canadians aged 15 to 33 now “feel left behind
and overwhelmed by the pace of life and the prevalence of technology.” Those who

feel left behind tend to be those who are not college- or university-educated, highly skilled,

or adaptive. It probably cannot be emphasized enough that in order to break down resistance

to change, it is essential to communicate a sense of urgency in the need for change. Doing so

provides a framework for people to understand why the change is occurring.

How Can Resistance to Organizational Change Be Overcome?

Because organizational change is inevitable, managers should be sensitive to the barriers to

change so that resistance can be overcome. This, of course, is easier said than done.

However, several useful approaches have been suggested, and the key ones are summarized

here.

1. Shape political dynamics. For change to be accepted, it often is useful, if not absolutely

necessary, to win the support of the most powerful and influential individuals in the

company. Doing so builds a critical internal mass of support for change. Demonstrating that

key organizational leaders endorse the change is an effective way to get others to go along with it
– either because they share the leader's vision or because they fear the leader's

retaliation. Either way, their support will facilitate acceptance of change.

2. Educate the work force. Sometimes, people are reluctant to change because they fear what

the future has in store for them. Fears about economic security, for example, may be put to

rest by a few reassuring words from power holders. As part of informing employees of what

organizational changes may mean for them, top management must show a considerable

amount of emotional sensitivity. Doing so makes it possible for the people affected by

107
change to help make it work. Some companies have found that simply answering the

question, "what's in it for me?" can help allay a lot of fears.

3. Involve employees in the change efforts. It is well established that people who participate

in making a decision are more strongly committed to the outcomes of that decision than those

who are not involved. Accordingly, employees who are involved in responding to unplanned

change, or who are made part of the team charged with planning a needed organizational

change, may be expected to have very little resistance to change. Organizational changes that

are "sprung" on the work force with little or no warning might be expected to encounter
resistance simply as a knee-jerk reaction until employees have had a chance to assess how the
change affects them.

In contrast, employees who are involved in the change process are better able to understand

the need for change, and are therefore less likely to resist it.

4. Reward constructive behaviors. One rather obvious, and quite successful, mechanism for

facilitating organizational change is rewarding people for behaving in the desired fashion.

Changing organizational operations may necessitate changing the kinds of behaviors that

need to be rewarded by the organization. This is especially critical when an organization is in

the transition period of introducing the change. For example, employees who are required to

learn to use new equipment should be praised for their successful efforts. Feedback on how

well they are doing not only provides a great deal of useful assurance to uncertain employees,

but also helps shape the desired behavior.

5. Create a "learning organization." Like it or not, all organizations change and some do so

more effectively than others. Those organizations that have developed the capacity to adapt

and change continuously are known as learning organizations. In learning organizations,

people set aside old ways of thinking, freely share ideas with others, form a vision of the

organization, and work together on a plan for achieving that vision. Examples of learning

organizations include Yahoo, General Electric, and Motorola.

108
Specifically, for a firm to become a continual learner, management must take the following

steps.

 Establish commitment to change- Unless all employees clearly see that top management is
strongly committed to changing and improving the organization, they will be unlikely to make
the changes necessary to bring about improvements.

 Adopt an informal organizational structure- Change is more readily accepted when

organizational structures are flat, cross-functional teams are created, and the formal boundaries
between people are eliminated.

 Develop an open organizational culture, managers play a key role in forming organizational
culture. To effectively adapt to changes in their environments, organizations should have cultures
that embrace risk taking, openness, and growth. Companies whose leaders are reluctant to

confront the risk of failure are ones that will be unlikely to grow and develop.

Although these suggestions may be easier to state than to implement, efforts at following

them will prove rewarding. Given the many forces that make employees resistant to change,

managers should keep these guidelines in mind.

Also, it is important to communicate and celebrate early successes to keep the momentum

going, as change is a lengthy process. Kotter and Schlesinger have identified six tactics

organizations use to deal with resistance to change: • Education and communication. Resistance
can be reduced through communicating with

employees to help them see the logic of a change. Communication can be achieved through

one-on-one discussions, memos, group presentations, or reports. • Participation and involvement.

It is difficult for individuals to resist a change decision in

which they have participated. Before making a change, those opposed can be brought into the

decision process. Assuming that the participants have the expertise to make a meaningful

contribution, their involvement can reduce resistance, obtain commitment, and increase the

quality of the change decision. • Facilitation and support. Organizations undergoing change can
offer a range of supportive

efforts to reduce resistance such as employee counseling and therapy, new-skills training, or

109
a short paid leave of absence. • Negotiation and agreement. Another way for organizations to
deal with potential resistance

to change is to exchange something of value for less resistance. For instance, if the resistance

is centered in a few powerful individuals, a specific reward package can be negotiated that

will meet their individual needs

• Manipulation and co-optation. Manipulation refers to covert influence attempts. Twisting

and distorting facts to make them appear more attractive, withholding undesirable

information, and creating false rumors to get employees to accept a change are all examples

of manipulation. Co-optation, on the other hand, is a form of both manipulation and

participation. It seeks to “buy off” the leaders of a resistance group by giving them a key role

in the change decision. • Explicit and implicit coercion. Coercion is the application of direct
threats or force upon the resisters. If the corporate management is determined to close a
manufacturing plant should employees not acquiesce to a pay cut, then coercion would be the
label attached to its change tactic. Other examples of coercion are threats of transfer, loss of
promotions, negative performance evaluations, and poor letters of recommendation.

The New World of Work

Dear learners, in this age of globalization, traditional management approaches will no more

applicable in the new world of work. You might have heard about or being part of BPR, BSC
and KAIZEN, don’t be surprised these are tools for change in this era of globalization.

Because the new world of work exhibits the following characteristics unlike that of previous

periods:

• Peoples’ roles change– from controlled to empowered)

• Job preparation changes – from training to education

• Focus of performance measures and compensation shifts – from activities to results

• Advancement criteria change -from protective to productive

• Managers change– from supervisors to coaches

• Organization structures change - from hierarchical to flat

• Executives change - from scorekeepers to leaders

110
The Politics of Change

No discussion of resistance to change would be complete without a brief mention of the

politics of change. Because change invariably threatens the status quo, it inherently implies

political activity. Politics suggests that the demand for change is more likely to come from

employees who are new to the organization (and have less invested in the status quo) or

managers who are slightly removed from the main power structure. Those managers who

have spent their entire careers with a single organization and eventually achieve a senior

position in the hierarchy are often major impediments to change. Change itself is a very real

threat to their status and position. Yet they may be expected to implement changes to

demonstrate that they are not merely caretakers.

By trying to bring about change, senior managers can symbolically convey to various
constituencies—stockholders, suppliers, employees, customers—that they are on top of

problems and adapting to a dynamic environment. Of course, as you might guess, when

forced to introduce change, these long-time power holders tend to introduce changes that do

not fundamentally challenge the status quo. Radical change is too threatening. This,

incidentally, explains why boards of directors that recognize the need for the rapid

introduction of fundamental, radical change in their organizations often turn to outside

candidates for new leadership.

Strategies for Overcoming Resistance to Change

3.6. Strategies for Planned Organizational Change

Ask any experienced manager how organizational change should be implemented and likely

to get an earful. Most managers who have been responsible for implementation have

developed personal perspective consisting of assumption and feelings about how change

should be introduced. These philosophies fall into camps, either "tops- down" or "bottoms

up".

111
The Tops-down Strategy

The advocates of this strategy believe that, in general, people resist changes and require

direction and structure for their well being as well as to work efficiently and effectively. The

basic psychological contract between employees and management, it is assumed, is one in

which the employee provides work, effort and commitment and expects in return pay,

benefits, and a clear definition of what is expected to be done. It follows that it is the

management's responsibility to design the changes it deems appropriate and to implement these
thoroughly but quickly by directives from the top.

The Bottoms-up Strategy

The advocates of this approach profess what to them is a more enlightened view of human

nature. They argue that people welcome change and the opportunity to contribute to their

own productivity, especially if the change gives, them more variety in their work and more

autonomy. These managers assume people have a psychological contract which includes an

expectation that they be involved in designing change as well as in implementing it.

Commitment to change, they say, follows from involvement in the total change process and

is essential to successful implementation.

Planning for Change

Before embarking on an organizational change initiative, it is wise to carefully plan strategies

and anticipate potential problems. One useful method of planning comes from an early

researcher on change, Kurt Lewin (1947), who developed the concept of force-field analysis.

The term describes analysis that is deceptively simple and can be used to help plan and

manage organizational change. Lewin believed that behavior within an organization was a

result of the dynamic balance of two opposing forces. Change would only occur when the

balance shifted between these forces. Driving forces are those forces which positively affect

and enhance the desired change. They may be persons, trends, resources, or information.

112
Opposing them are the restraining forces, which represent the obstacles to the desired

change. As these two sets of forces exist within an organization, they create a certain

equilibrium. That is, if the weights of the driving and restraining forces are relatively equal,

then the organization will remain static. As changes occur and affect the weight of either one

of the forces, a new balance will occur, and the organization will return to what Lewin called

“quasi-stationary equilibrium.” Individuals practicing their vocation in the context of a

political organization may intuitively employ these concepts in defining and redefining what

change is possible. Judicial educators operate in such a context.

What is the usefulness of this perspective? Force-field analysis assists in planning in two

major ways: (a) as a way for individuals to scan their organizational context, brainstorming and

predicting potential changes in the environment; and (b) as a tool for implementing change.

In the former, force field analysis becomes a method of environmental scanning (which is

useful in strategic planning), whereby organizations keep abreast of impending and potential

changes -- from societal trends and potential budget constraints to staff turnover and

purchases of new office equipment. The more change can be anticipated, the better

individuals and organizations are prepared to deal with the resulting effects. The second use

of force-field analysis is similar, offering a way to systematically examine the potential

resources that can be brought to bear on organizational change and the restraining forces that

can be anticipated. This advance planning and analysis assists in developing strategies to

implement the desired change.

An example may help illustrate this point. A judicial educator wishes to introduce a computer

class for a particular group of judges. In her role as a change master, she identifies the

driving forces as follows: (a) most judges are presently obtaining the necessary equipment,

(b) software and databases are available that are user-friendly and appropriate, (c) computers

can help judges handle information quickly and efficiently, and (d) the use of computers as

113
information sources allows court personnel to perform other functions. On the other hand,

restraining forces may include the following: (a) judges have limited time for attending

additional courses; (b) they appear to be intimidated by computers, so they passively resist

using them; and (c) they feel more comfortable utilizing human resources for their judicial

research rather than a computer and databases.

Force-field analysis provides the necessary information for the judicial educator to plan most

effectively for change. If he or she is more aware of some of the potential pitfalls that can

accompany the planned change, steps can be taken in advance to overcome them. One

strategy for successfully implementing change is to confront the potential obstacles at the

outset. In order for the educator to be proactive, however, the positive driving forces and the

negative restraining forces must be listed, so that a strategy for change can include enhancing

or adding to the positive forces, while decreasing or minimizing the negative forces. In this

process, skills such as coalition building, networking, conflict resolution, and the appropriate

utilization of power are necessary.

The Process of Change

A method such as force-field analysis is the beginning step of any planned change. There are

many different models for the change process in the literature; the following is a simple,

straightforward one proposed by Egan (1988, p. 5). He delineates three steps: • The assessment
of the current scenario. • The creation of a preferred scenario. • Designing a plan that moves the
system from the current to the preferred scenario.

It is evident Egan has been influenced by Lewin, in the emphasis on both planning and

assessment. Additionally, Egan argues that planning must lead to an action that produces

valued outcomes or results for the organization. Thus, both planning and change must be directed

toward a specific goal. Once the need for change has been determined, one follows the steps

of the model in sequence. While these steps could each be examined in detail, only step three
will be discussed in an in-depth manner here. The first step, “assessing the current scenario,”

114
can be accomplished through a mechanism such as force-field analysis. It provides the

necessary information on the forces that can facilitate the desired change and the forces that will
resist and deter the change. Step two, “creating a preferred scenario,” is often

accomplished through team effort in brainstorming and developing alternative futures. While

the need that precipitates the change is clearly compelling, there may be several ways in

which the change could actually occur within the organization. It is important to examine the

various alternatives thoroughly.

The third step of the process, “devising a plan for moving from the current to the preferred
scenario,” includes the strategies and plans that educators and managers must develop to

overcome the restraining forces in an organization. This is a political process, requiring

individuals to harness and utilize power. Power is necessary for change to occur. It is neither

inherently good nor bad; it simply assists individuals in accomplishing their goals. In his

recent book Mastering the Politics of Planning, Benveniste (1989) notes that even well

thought-out plans for change can be derailed when the politics of implementation are not

considered. Change masters must gather support for the desired change throughout the
organization, using both formal and informal networks. The multiplier or “bandwagon”

effect, he notes, is often necessary to rally enough support for the change.

Key Roles in the Change Process

During this stage of planning, it is useful to distinguish the different roles associated with the

change process. These roles must remain distinctive in order to implement planned change

effectively. However, within different settings or systems, a judicial educator may play more

than one role. The various roles that individuals can play, as described by Conner (1990), are:

Change Sponsor: Individual or group who legitimizes the change.

Change Advocate: Individual or group who wants to achieve a change but does not possess

legitimization power.

Change Agent: Individual or group who is responsible for implementing the change.

115
Change Target: Individual or group who must actually change.

One of the most critical tasks for the educator in implementing change is to harness the

support of an effective change sponsor. The sponsor is in a position to legitimize the change.

Sponsorship is critical to implementing the desired change. Directly or indirectly, pain can

motivate the sponsor to foster the planned change. Within the state judicial system, this

sponsor may be the chief justice, the head of the education committee, or the state court

administrator. Conner (1990) argues that weak sponsors should be educated or replaced, even

by someone at a lower level in the organization, or, he emphasizes, failure will be inevitable.

Educators and managers are often in the position of change advocates, who perceive the

need for change and desire and advocate the change, but who do not have the necessary

organizational power to implement the change. Alternatively, these individuals may function

as the change agent, with the responsibility (but again, not the power) to implement change.

And, of course, in an organizational change effort, educators and managers may be part of

the group affected by the change, or the change target. It is useful to consider each of these

roles in planning strategies not only for implementation, but for gathering support for the

change effort. The Change Agent’s Role

Change agent - the individual or group who undertakes the task of introducing and

managing a change in an organization

The change agent can be internal or external

The Change Agent • Generators • Key Change Agents • Demonstrators • Patrons • Defenders •
Implementers • External • Internal • Adopters • Early Adopters • Maintainers

What Can Change Agents Change?

1. Structure

Change Agents can alter one or more of the key elements in an organization's design.

2. Technology

116
Competitive factors or innovations within an industry often require change agents to

introduce new equipment, tools, or operating methods.

Physical Settings

3. People

Change agents help individuals and groups within the organization work more effectively

together.

Strategies for Implementing Change

In order to move an OD effort from the idea stage into implementation, educators and

Managers must also rally the resources and support of the organization. Kanter (1983) describes
how the following three sets of “basic commodities” or “power tools” can be acquired by

members of an organization to gain power:

• Information (data, technical knowledge, political intelligence, expertise).

• Resources (funds, materials, staff, time).

• Support (endorsement, backing, approval, legitimacy).

The first strategy in implementing a change would be to collect as many of these power tools

as possible. As this occurs, individuals can “plant seeds of support” for the planned change.

This is particularly important in helping others see the critical need for the planned change. It
may be possible to plant these seeds before sponsorship of the change is sought so that the
sponsor feels he or she is proactively responding to a critical need. Another strategy is to
“package” the change in a way that makes it less threatening and, therefore, easier to sell. For
instance, it is easier to implement change of a product or a project when it is: (a) conducted on a
trial basis; (b) reversible, if it doesn’t succeed; (c) done in small steps; (d) familiar and consistent
with past experience; (e) a fit with the organization’s current direction; or (f) built on the prior
commitments or projects of the organization (Kanter, 1983). This packaging should be
completed prior to submitting the OD

effort to the designated change sponsor, although that person needs to be involved in further

assisting in the packaging and selling of the planned change.

Building coalitions is a strategy that often occurs throughout the entire phase of

implementing the change. Support must be gathered from all areas which will be affected by
117
the desired change, across different levels of the organization. It is always advisable to get

the support of an immediate supervisor early on, although this may not always be possible. In

such instances, other support could be gathered across the organization to influence the

supervisor to reconsider lending support to the change efforts. Effective change masters use

their informal networks and deal with any concerns or questions of supporters individually rather
than in formal meetings. “Pre-meetings” can provide a safer environment for airing

concerns about implementing change. In such settings, an individual may have the opportunity to
“trade” some of the power tools that he or she has acquired in order to

generate support. Additionally, some individuals will support a project or change effort for
reasons that are fairly reactive: “If so-and-so supports it, then I will, too," or “If such-andsuch
state is moving in that direction, then we should, too.” Obviously, the more change

masters know about how particular individuals may react, the better able they are to plan for

ways to garner support.

Summary

Change is an inevitable phenomenon for any organization operating in the environment.

Change refers to the movement of organizations from the current situation which is

undesirable to a more desirable proper condition. It can be caused by different factors. These

factors are mainly classified as internal and external.

External forces of change include the forces generated outside of the organization

environment. Internal forces of change emanate from internal pressures and needs.

Kurt Lewin recommends that any planned change effort be viewed as a three phase process:

unfreezing, preparing a system for change, changing-making actual changes in the system

and refreezing-stabilizing the system after change. Organizational change doesn’t always go
strait. It may face resistance from employees or work units. Resistance to change may be
individual or organizational.

CHAPTER FOUR

TYPES OF CHANGE

118
Introduction

A century ago, advances in machine technology made farming so highly efficient that fewer

hands were needed to plant and reap the harvest. The displaced laborers fled to nearby cities,

seeking jobs in newly opened factories, seizing opportunities created by some of the same

technologies that sent them from the farm. The economy shifted from agrarian to

manufacturing, and the industrial revolution was under way. With it, came drastic shifts in

where people lived, how they worked, how they spent their leisure time, how much money

they made, and how they spent it. Today's business analysts claim that we are currently
experiencing another industrial revolution—one driven by a new wave of economic and

technological forces.

With so many companies making such drastic changes, the message is clear: either adapt to

changing conditions or shut your doors. As technology and markets change, organizations

face a formidable challenge to adapt. However, not all organizational changes are the result of

unplanned factors. Some organizational changes are planned, and quite intentional. A

dynamic and complex organizational environment faces constant change, so the level of

uncertainty increases. The more uncertainty an organization faces, the more organic the

structure should be. Organic organizations tend to be flexible and adaptive to change.

Learning Outcomes:

After reading this chapter you will be able to:

o Distinguish between different types of change in organizations, giving

examples of each.

o Identify the three main ways in which organizations may change.

o Identify the general conditions under which organizational change is likely to

occur.

4.1.Major Types of Organizational Change

119
Typically, the phrase “organizational change” is about a significant change in the

organization, such as reorganization or adding a major new product or service. This is in

contrast to smaller changes, such as adopting a new computer procedure. Organizational

change can seem like such a vague phenomena that it is helpful if you can think of change in

terms of various dimensions as described below:

4.1.1.Organization-wide Versus Subsystem Change

Examples of organization-wide change might be a major restructuring, collaboration or

“rightsizing.”Usually, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a

different level in their life cycle, for example, going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial

organization to one that has a more stable and planned development. Experts assert that
successful organizational change requires a change in culture – cultural change is another

example of organization-wide change.

Examples of a change in a subsystem might include addition or removal of a product or

service, reorganization of a certain department, or implementation of a new process to deliver

products or services.

Strategic Change • Major transformations in the structure, size, or functioning of an organization

for the purpose of achieving strategic objectives

• Degree of Change: – Radical change

• Major adjustments in the ways a firm does business – Incremental change • Evolution over time
• Many small routine changes

Timing of Change • Reactive Change:

– Responding to changes in the external or internal environment.

• Anticipatory Change: – Looking for better ways to stay – Ahead of the competition.

4.1.2.Transformational Versus Incremental Change

An example of transformational (or radical, fundamental) change might be changing an

organization’s structure and culture from the traditional top-down, hierarchical structure to a

large amount of self-directing teams. Another example might be Business Process Re

120
engineering, which tries to take apart (at least on paper, at first) the major parts and processes

of the organization and then put them back together in a more optimal fashion.

Transformational change is sometimes referred to as quantum change.

Examples of incremental change might include continuous improvement as a quality

management process or implementation of new computer system to increase efficiencies.

Many times, organizations experience incremental change and its leaders do not recognize

the change as such.

4.1.3.Remedial Versus Developmental Change

Change can be intended to remedy current situations, for example, to improve the poor

performance of a product or the entire organization, reduce burnout in the workplace, help

the organization to become much more proactive and less reactive, or address large budget

deficits. Remedial projects often seem more focused and urgent because they are addressing

a current, major problem. It is often easier to determine the success of these projects because

the problem is solved or not.

Change can also be developmental – to make a successful situation even more successful, for

example, expand the amount of customers served, or duplicate successful products or

services.

Developmental projects can seem more general and vague than remedial, depending on how

specific goals are and how important it is for members of the organization to achieve those

goals.

Some people might have different perceptions of what is a remedial change versus a

developmental change. They might see that if developmental changes are not made soon,

there will be need for remedial changes. Also, organizations may recognize current remedial

issues and then establish a developmental vision to address the issues. In those situations,

projects are still remedial because they were conducted primarily to address current issues.

121
4.2. Planned Vs Unplanned Change

Planned Change

Planned change occurs when leaders in the organization recognize the need for a major

change and proactively organize a plan to accomplish the change. Planned change occurs

with successful

implementation of a Strategic Plan, plan for reorganization, or other implementation of a

change of this magnitude. Note that planned change, even though based on a proactive and

well-done plan, often does not occur in a highly organized fashion. Instead, planned change

tends to occur in more of a chaotic and disruptive fashion than expected by participants.

A great deal of organizational change comes from strategic decisions to alter the way an

organization does business or the very nature of the business itself.

Changes in Products or Services. Imagine that you and a friend begin a small janitorial

business. The two of you divide the duties, each doing some cleaning, buying supplies, and

performing some administrative work. Before long, the business grows and you expand,

adding new employees, and really begin "cleaning up." Many of your commercial clients

express interest in window cleaning, and so you and your partner think it over and decide to

expand into the window-cleaning business as well. This decision to take on a new direction

to the business, to add a new, specialized service, will require a fair amount of organizational

change. Not only will new equipment and supplies be needed, but also new personnel will

have to be hired and trained, new insurance will have to be purchased, and new accounts will

have to be secured. In short, the planned decision to change the company's line of services

necessitates organizational change.

Changes in Administrative Systems. Although an organization may be forced to change its

policies, it is not unusual for changes in administrative systems to be planned in advance

strategically. Such changes may stem from forces such as the desire to improve efficiency or

122
to change the company's image. As an example of this, consider the decision by PepsiCo to

structurally reorganize. For many years, PepsiCo had a separate international food service

division, which included the operation of 62 foreign locations of the company's Pizza Hut

and Taco Bell restaurants. Because of the great profit potential of these foreign restaurants,

PepsiCo officials decided to reorganize, putting these restaurants directly under the control of

the same executives responsible for the successful national operations of Pizza Hut and Taco

Bell. This type of departmentalization allows the foreign operations to be managed under the

same careful guidance as the national operations .

Changes in Organizational Size and Structure. Just as organizations change their

products, services, or administrative systems to stay competitive, so too do they alter the size and
basic configurations of their organizational charts – that is they restructure. In many cases, this
has meant reducing the number of employees needed to operate effectively—a

process known as downsizing. Typically, this involves more than just laying off people in a

move to save money. It is directed at adjusting the number of employees needed to work in

newly designed organizations, and is, therefore, also known as rightsizing. Whatever you call

it, the bottom line is painfully clear: Many organizations need fewer people to operate today than
in the past—sometimes, far fewer.

Another way organizations are restructuring is by completely eliminating parts of themselves

that focus on noncore sectors of the business, and hiring outside firms to perform these functions
instead—a practice known as outsourcing. For example, companies like

ServiceMaster, which provides janitorial services, and ADP, which provides payroll

processing services, make it possible for organizations to concentrate on the business

functions most central to their mission, thereby freeing them from these peripheral support

functions.

Introduction of New Technologies. As you know, advances in technology have produced

changes in the way organizations operate. Senior scientists and engineers, for example, can

probably tell you how their work was drastically altered in the mid-1970s, when their

123
ubiquitous plastic slide rules gave way to powerful pocket calculators. Things changed again

only a decade later, when calculators were supplanted by powerful desktop microcomputers,

which have revolutionized the way documents are prepared, transmitted, and filed in an

office. Manufacturing plants also have seen a great deal of growth recently in the use of

computer-automated technology and robotics. Each of these examples represents an instance

in which technology has altered the way people do their jobs.

Advances in Information Processing and Communication. Although we now easily take

for granted everyday events such as fax machines and e-mail, these things were merely

exotic dreams not too many years ago. If you've ever seen an old western film in which the

Pony Express rider struggled through uncharted territories to deliver messages to people in

distant western cities, you are well aware of the difficulties that people faced communicating

over long distances. Of course, with today's sophisticated satellite transmission systems,

fiber-optic cables crisscrossing the planet, digital cellular phones, teleconferencing facilities,

and the like, it is easier than ever for businesses to communicate with each other and with

their clients. The key point is that as such communication systems improve, opportunities for

organizational growth and improvement follow.

Unplanned Change

Not all forces for change are the result of strategic planning. Indeed, organizations also must

be responsive to changes that are unplanned. Such forces include changes in the demographic

composition of the work force, performance gaps, government regulation, and international

competition.

Unplanned change usually occurs because of a major, sudden surprise to the organization,

Which causes its members to respond in a highly reactive and disorganized fashion. Unplanned

Change might occur when the Chief Executive Officer suddenly leaves the organization,
significant public relations problems occur, poor product performance quickly results in loss of

124
customers, or other disruptive situations arise. The following are some unplanned changes in

a given organization: Changing Employee Demographics. It is easy to see how, even within your
own lifetime, the composition of the work force has changed. As noted in Chapter 4, the
American workforce is now more highly diverse than ever. To people concerned with the long-
term operation of organizations, these are not simply curious sociological trends, but shifting

conditions that will force organizations to change. For example, questions regarding how

many people will be working, what skills they will bring to their jobs, and what new

influences they will bring to the workplace are of key interest to human resources managers.

Performance Gaps. If you've ever heard the phrase "If it's not broken, don't fix it," you

already have a good feel for one of the most potent sources of unplanned internal changes in
organizations – performance gaps. A product line that isn't moving, a vanishing profit margin, a
level of sales that isn't up to corporate expectations—these are examples of gaps

between real and expected levels of organizational performance. Few things force change

more than sudden and unexpected information about poor performance. Organizations

usually stay with a winning course of action and change in response to failure; in other

words, they follow a win-stay/lose-change rule. Indeed, a performance gap is one of the key

factors providing an impetus for organizational innovation. Those organizations that are best

prepared to mobilize change in response to unexpected downturns are expected to be the ones

that succeed.

Government Regulation. One of the most commonly witnessed unplanned organizational

change results from government regulations. In the 1990s, restaurant owners in the United

States had to alter the way they report the income of waiters and waitresses to the federal

government for purposes of collecting income taxes. More recently, the U.S. federal

government has been involved in both imposing and eliminating regulations in industries

such as commercial airlines (e.g., mandating inspection schedules, but no longer controlling

fares) and banking (e.g., restricting the amount of time checks can be held before clearing,

but organizations change in many ways and for many reasons.

125
The following diagram summarizes planned and unplanned changes. Organizational changes

may be considered either planned or unplanned. Some examples of each are listed here.

4.3.Individual Change and Organizational Change

When the issue before you is management of change, it may be useful to note the difference

between individual change and organizational change, although the two are interwoven.

Individual change is behavioral-determined by individual characteristics of members such

as knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, needs, expectations etc. It is possible to bring about a total

change in an organization by changing behaviors of individual members through

participative-educative strategy. Of course, the degree of difficulty involved in the change

and the time taken to change will be primarily dependent upon what exactly is your target of

change. For example, let us assume that you did not know much about "management of change
in an organization". However, if you spend a couple of hours on this Unit, you will know several
aspects of this topic.

Changing attitudes is usually considered more difficult and time taking when compared to

changing knowledge. For some, organizational change is beneficial, but for others it is a

threat, a signal of danger and a source of fear. Some view change as a vital life force. Others

may perceive it as a disturbance to be avoided or borne with stolidity and patience. The

`attitudes toward change' are largely dependent on the context of the situation, the nature and

the extent of change and the manner in which changes are initiated and executed, and these

attitudes are more difficult to modify than the knowledge about the change.

Changing individual behaviour is a still more time-taking and difficult task. We often

assume that having enough knowledge and a positive attitude towards something will

naturally result in changing behavior or modification towards that direction, but it does not

necessarily happen. For example, we know that honesty is the best policy. We might have

favorable attitudes towards people who are honest and dislike those who are dishonest, but

in certain situations we still may act in a less honest manner. The linkage between attitude

126
and behavior is not so straight-forward and for this reason changing behavior is more

difficult than changing knowledge or attitudes.

You can possibly reason why changing the behavior of a group is usually a more

prolonged and harder task. Every group has its own dynamics of push and pull which

attempts to neutralize the change in an individual and continuous efforts are expended to

maintain `norm'. Due to this group dynamics, individual member's "changed behavior" may

revert to earlier normative behavior so that the status quo is maintained. However, due to

the same reasons of a group's over-riding influence on individual members, sometimes it may

be easier to tackle the group as a whole rather than trying to change a member's behavior in

an isolated manner. Bringing total behavioral change in all the groups and members in an

organization usually entails the most difficult long-range effort. More often than not, it is a

slow painful process to usher in a total cultural change in an organization.

Total organizational change can be brought about by modifying the organization’s structures,

policies, procedures, techniques etc. These types of change alter prescribed relationships and

roles assigned to members and eventually modify the individual member's behavior and

attitudes. Thus a focus of through attempts to change the structure, policies, procedures,

techniques, personnel; or it can be both. As these two kinds of changes are interdependent,

the complexity of managing change makes it necessary for you to understand both the

behavioral and non-behavioral approaches to change.

4.4,Evolutionary Change and Revolutionary Change

When you compare an organization with any other open system organism, you can describe it

in terms of its birth, growth, maturity, senility, decline, entropy or death. Any organisation,

like any other organism, passes through these stages and in the process changes itself from

one form to another form. But is this change smooth, gradual and evolutionary? Or violent,

radical and revolutionary? Probably it is both. Times of tumultuous turbulence surface

127
between the smooth periods of evolution. Look at the following exhibit on the stages of

organization’s change and development. You will find that in each stage there are some

critical concerns and key issues which must be addressed to and satisfactorily solved. The

exhibit also shows the consequences if he concerns are not met with satisfaction.

In order to meet the critical concerns of each stage, organizations go through some rapid,

visible, shake-ups of their structure, policies, procedures, techniques, personnel, etc. These

changes in calmer moments of steady growth, may be viewed as revolutionary changes. You

will be able to appreciate the difference between the two degrees of change through yet

another model of organization’s growth given by Larry Greiner (1972). Greiner postulates

that as an organization grows from young to mature stage, tiny sized to giant size, it passes

through five phases of evolution each of which ends with a period of crisis and revolution.

Evolutionary periods are characterized by the dominant management styles used to achieve

growth, while revolutionary periods are characterized by the dominant problems that must be

solved before growth continues.

The first phase of a newly-born organization is characterized by creating a viable product in a

promising market. The founders, who are usually technically brilliant and entrepreneurially

oriented, manage their endeavors themselves in an ad hoc manner with little respect to any

formal system of communication and control. Their physical and mental energies are entirely

absorbed in making and selling. But as the organization starts growing from its tiny

embryonic stage, many managerial problems crop up, forcing the founders to wonder as to

who is going to lead the organization out of confusion. By the end of the first phase, the crisis

of leadership has emerged. The solution usually lies in locating and installing a strong

business; manager who is acceptable to the founders and who can pull the organization

together.

When leadership crisis forces the founders to relinquish some of their power to a professional

128
manager, organizational growth is achieved by direction through systematization of operating

procedures. The manager is usually given a free hand and zealously accepts most of the

responsibility for initiating direction. But the lower level supervisors are treated merely as

functional specialists devoid of any decision-making authority. In course of growth for the

organization, the lower level managers demand more autonomy in decision-making and the

stage is set for the crisis of autonomy to come to the fore. The second phase of the

organization’s growth is capped by this turmoil for autonomy.

The crisis of autonomy is resolved through the delegation of authority which helps in gaining

expansion through heightened motivation at lower rungs. But one serious problem that

eventually evolves is the loss of top management control over highly diversified field of

operations. The crisis of control emerges at the conclusion of phase three where field

managers run their own shows without aligning plans, money, technology, or manpower with

the rest of the organization.

In order to achieve more efficient allocation of organization’s limited resources, an elaborate

network of coordinating mechanisms is usually introduced at phase IV of 'the organization’s

growth.

The organization becomes typically much more formalized; rules, regulations and rigidities

increase almost exponentially. For some time, the new systems prove useful for achieving

growth through coordinated efforts. But soon procedure takes precedence over problem

solving, the chronic conflict between line and staff becomes acute. The organization becomes

too large and complex to be managed through formal programmers and rigid systems. Thus

begins the crisis of reshape.

The fifth phase of an organization’s growth is characterized by strong inter-personal

collaboration in order to overcome the crisis of redtape and the widespread conflicts between

several subsystems. Developing the team becomes the theme, social contra' and self-discipline

129
take over from formal control, more flexible and behavioral approaches are adopted to attack

the problems of managing a large organization. What crisis do you anticipate at this phase of

organization’s growth? Nobody seems to know the exact nature of this future shock, as no

organization has traversed so far. Larry Greiner, the author of this model, feels that some

problems may emerge centering around the psychological saturation of employees who grow

emotionally and physically exhausted by the intensity of teamwork and the heavy pressure for

innovative solution. Do you agree with Greiner?

4.5.Reactive and Proactive Changes

'Forces for change arise out of an organization’s interaction with elements in its external or

internal environment. The action of competitors, suppliers, government units, or public

groups may have substantial impacts on change. Social and cultural factors such as life

styles, values or beliefs also lead to important changes. Forces of change may also arise from

within an organization depending upon different phases of growth or demands made by

different interest groups.

Reactive changes occur when these forces make it necessary for a change to be implemented.

It is passive compliance to the demands. Proactive change takes place when some forces to

change lead an organization to conclude that a particular change is desirable and goes about

in initiating the change in a planned manner.

The difference between reactive and proactive changes corresponds, by way of analogy, to

that between reflexive behavior and purposive behavior. An individual responds

reflexively to a sudden intense light by eye-blinking or pupillary contraction. This is an

immediate, automatic response without any thought. A purposive response to the same

stimulus would mean devising a plan to shield the eyes or removing the. light. It would

require coordination of central nervous system and psychomotor capacities.

Reactive change, like reflexive behavior, involves a limited part of the system whereas

130
proactive change and purposive behavior coordinate the parts of the system as a whole.

Also, reflexive behavior and reactive changes share the characteristics of responding to

immediate symptoms, while purposive behavior and proactive change respond to

underlying forces producing the symptoms

Summary

Change is a permanent phenomenon. It is necessary due to external forces like technology,

systems, and social changes interacting with the internal variables of the organization. To
implement change Kurt Lewin’s model of unfreezing the situation, implementing a change

and refreezing must be implemented. Individual, group and organizational changes takes

place continuously. Individual change refers to change in attitude, perception and also

acquiring new skills to cope up with external environment. Group is the important unit of

organization. In the present scenario group undertakes work. It is successfully completed

because of group norms and groupthink. Organizational level changes can be implemented

by clearly defining objectives and plans for change.

Driving forces and restraining forces must be evaluated while implementing change. Change

is structured when planned and unstructured when change is implemented as a reaction to

some situation. There is great resistance to change because of the fear of unknown. Workers

in the organization, therefore must be educated, trained, made party to change and benefit of

change must be divided between the employees and the organization. It is handling of

employee emotions and making them psychologically ready to implement change that will

ultimately work.

Types of change can be categorized as transformational, transactional, transitional,

incremental. Planned , unplanned and reactive as well as proactive changes.

131
THE END

132