This book does not set out to become an encyclopedia of the enormous range of literature on leading organizational change. But if we are going to understand how leaders make sense of change we do need an overview of the literature which is likely to have influenced the current thinking of leaders prior to their engaging with change initiatives. The three chapters in Part One set the context for my research by examining the topics of leadership, change and sensemaking and then giving some practical examples of how these came together in interviews I conducted with leaders prior to engaging in my research.
Leadership
There is a wide field of literature on the nature and styles of leadership although most of it is focused on the implications for the role of leaders as sensegivers in organizations rather than how they themselves make sense of change before adopting their sensegiving role. This wide variety of literature on the topic of leadership does mean, as Northouse (2013; p.2) puts it, that âthere are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it.â Nevertheless, definitions of leadership can be broadly categorized as based on assumptions about traits, behaviors, situations and process.
Leadership Traits
It was in the second half of the 20th Century that the concept of leadership really took hold in popular business books, journals and articles. Much of the early research was on leadership traits i.e. inherent characteristics that people hold and which are good predictors of success in leadership roles. Writers produced an ever expanding and at times contradictory list of traits they argued were predictors of leadership success (Bird, 1940, Shaw, 1976, Stewart, 1963, Stogdill, 1974). Peters and Waterman (1982) re-invigorated the trait approach to leadership and other writers (Judge et al., 2004, Lord et al., 1986) continued to identify traits associated with leadership although there remained a lack of evidence that any correlation between traits and leadership was causal rather than correlational.
The trait approach has been criticized for being over simplistic and for failing to take account of situational and environmental factors that can influence the development of successful leaders. Bolden (2004) argues that despite extensive research no definitive list of traits of superior leadership performance has been established, and research by Zhang et al. (2009) has shown that situational factors play a much greater role in successful leader behaviors than any identifiable genetic factors. This failure to establish a causal link between leadership traits and successful leadership performance led writers to explore what it is successful leaders do, rather than what they are, by studying leadership behaviors.
Behavioral Leadership
Research into leader behaviors was studied by McGregor (1960) who argued that the assumptions made by leaders about employees in organizations drives their leadership behaviors and the subsequent behaviors of employees. Theory X leaders hold a fairly negative view of human nature, believing that the average employee dislikes work and will avoid it if possible. Leaders holding this view, believe that coercion and control is necessary to ensure that people work productively. However, employees treated this way will resent the coercion and control and so behave in a way that confirms the leaders view of them. It thus becomes a self-fulfilling hypothesis of employee behavior. Theory Y leaders, on the other hand, believe that the average employee wants to work, wants to do a good job and given the right leadership support will seek responsibility and autonomy. Such leaders will seek to enhance their employeesâ capacity to exercise a high level of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems. McGregor claims leaders holding different assumptions will demonstrate different approaches to leadership: Theory X leaders preferring an autocratic style and Theory Y leaders preferring a participative style.
The concept of leadership styles was further developed by Blake and Mouton (1964) who developed a Managerial Grid which focuses on task (production) and employee (people) orientations of leaders, as well as combinations between the two extremes. Their grid has concern for production on the horizontal axis and concern for people on the vertical axis and plots five basic management/leadership styles. Blake and Mouton propose that âTeam Managementââa high concern for both employees and productionâis the most effective type of leadership behavior.
Likert (1967) developed the âfour systemsâ typology of leadership style (exploitative authoritative, consultative leadership, benevolent authoritative, and participative leadership). This typology extends the dichotomy between task and relationship orientation to consider the degree of employee involvement in decision-making and the nature of communication with the leader. Likert creates a distinction between autocratic (task-oriented) and democratic (relationship-oriented) leadership.
However, as with traits theory, critics argue that there is insufficient evidence that behavioral leadership theories are any better predictors of leadership success than trait theories and that they fail to take account of situational factors which means that âmost researchers today conclude that no one leadership style is right for every manager under all circumstances (Bolden, 2004, p.10).
Situational/Contingency Leadership
Other writers have sought to understand these situational and environmental influences on leadership and the resulting contingency theories consider both individual and situational factors together in determining leader effectiveness. Fiedler (1964, 1967) argues that there is no single best way to lead; instead the leadersâ style should be selected according to the situation. His approach distinguishes between leaders who are task or relationship oriented. Task oriented leaders focus on the task in hand and tend to do better in situations that have good leader-member relationships, structured tasks, and either weak or strong position power. They also do well when the task is unstructured but position power is strong, and also when the leader member relations are moderate to poor and the task is unstructured. Task oriented leaders tend to display a more directive leadership style. Relationship oriented leaders do better in all other situations and exhibit a more participative style of leadership.
Hersey and Blanchard (1977, 1988, Hersey et al., 2001) adopted a similar approach but build it around the development needs of employees at any given time. They also reject the either/or approach of task or relationship leadership styles by suggesting that a leader can be both task and relationship focused by adapting their style to the situation and needs of employees. Hersey and Blanchard argue that as the skill and maturity level of employees increases, the leader will need to adapt his/her task relationship style from directing to coaching, supporting and delegating. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) suggest a similar model with a continuum of leadership styles from autocratic to democratic.
Another popular situational leadership model was developed by John Adair (1973, 2003) who argued that the leader must balance the needs of the task, team and individual. An effective leader carries out the functions and behaviors depicted by the three circles, varying the level of attention paid to each according to the situation.
Critics argue that whilst situational theories have explanatory power that helps understanding about what makes a leader effective, they are difficult to apply in practice (e.g. when attempting to change leadership behavior). As a result, researchers have tended to move on to developing new leadership theories which focus on leadership in a turbulent organizational environment.
Process Theories of Leadership
A more enduring leadership theory is that of transformational leadership. Burns (1978) is credited with developing the process led concept of leadership in which he promotes the idea of transforming leadership, with its emphasis on the leadersâ ability to motivate and empower his/her followers and also the moral dimension of leadership. Burnsâ ideas were subsequently developed from his transforming leaders into a stronger process ontology of transformational leadership by Bass (1985, 1999, Bass and Avolio, 1994). The goal of transformational leadership is:
⌠to âtransformâ people and organisations in a literal sense â to change them in mind and heart; enlarge vision, insight, and understanding; clarify purposes; make behaviour congruent with beliefs, principles, or values; and bring about changes that are permanent, self-perpetuating, and momentum buildingâ.
(Bass and Avolio, 1994)
The focus of transformational leadership is on the need to understand leadership within the context of a business environment characterized by continuous disruption, crisis and change. It is claimed that transformational leadership is better able to account for the leaderâs ability to cope with radical change and manage the turnaround of under-performing organizations. This is supported by a growing body of research which gives empirical support for positive associations between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness (Judge et al., 2004, Judge and Piccolo, 2004, Lowe et al., 1996).
Sensemaking (see Chapter 2) is a social process and the leaders in my research were observed as they interacted with other leaders, stakeholders and staff during âtransformationalâ change interventions. My research and findings therefore adopted a process ontology of transformational leadership when trying to understand leader sensemaking of a postmodern influenced mindset change methodology. It involved a process view of leadership which seeks to understand the extent to which leadership is an undetermined outcome of organizational processes as opposed to being the agent of those processes. My research looks at how the sensemaking stories of leaders are framed through these organizational social processes. As Wood puts it:
⌠normative studies recognise the objective value of leadership as an intervening process between background context and later change, while treating the individual leader as a âblack boxâ between input and output factors. In order to open this objectivity up to conjecture, leadership research must begin to spotlight these concealed black boxes and examine the other socio-political âactorsâ and their collective role in shaping a particular leadership phenomenon.
(Wood, 2005; p.23)
Notwithstanding that the definitions and aspects of leader and leadership are wide, for the purpose of my research I defined leaders as decision makers whose job roles and position in the organization gave them significant influence over the structure and strategy of the organization. They sat on the Boards or Executive Teams of the respective organizations. They were the people who had collective authority to determine and implement changes to strategy. This includes people in the organization who did not have formal or structural leadership authority but whose informal influence indicated that they were key players in the leadership sensemaking that I was observing. They included internal organizational development specialists and professionals with expertise who were brought into the leadership decision-making forums. As an active participant researcher, I include myself in this definition of leadership. As a leadership coach I had no direct reports or control of any particular business function, but I exerted considerable influence over the individual and collective leadership decisions of the research organizations.
Addressing the issue of leadership in the literature is one essential element of my research, but another is the issue of change and what it means in an organizational setting. Collins (1998) argues that any study of change, if it ...
