Leadership Melaku A
Leadership Melaku A
Leadership Melaku A
(MGMT 442)
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:
2
Understand the basics of leadership in the era of globalization
Become adept at assessing leadership traits and qualities in ourselves and others
World
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO LEAEDERSHIP
Objectives After completing the learning of this unit, you should able to:
Define leadership
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
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
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
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 :
(Bennis, 1959).
An interpersonal relation in which others comply because they want to, not because
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
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, &
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
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.
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
• 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
influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
This is not to say that knowing something about leadership research is irrelevant to
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
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:
10
Managers maintain; leaders develop.
Managers ask how and when; leaders ask what and why
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Likes Action
15
Conflict Breaks Avoids
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."
Dear learners; can you mention attributes that makes leaders effective?
Scholars have forwarded their thoughts on what makes an effective leader. Passion, values,
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
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!
hard for a leader to be around enough other leaders to pick this up just through discussion,
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
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
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
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
19
o what they know (such as job, tasks, and human nature)
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
According to a study by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are key
o Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of
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
2. Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid
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,
4. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making,
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
6. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and
7. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them,
character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.
21
9. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished
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
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.
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
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
E. Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' hearts, while keeping
Leadership-Management Synergy
22
Leaders: Provide vision. Managers: Provide resources. ► Resulting synergy: Employee
empowerment... More
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.
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
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
In an effective leadership situation, the leader is a catalyst and servant whose leadership
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.
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.
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
they discover and communicate a vision. From the above discussion we can infer that good
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
Political accountability
Governance
judiciary to protect human rights, secure social justice, and guard against
24
exploitation
Administration
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."
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.
He motivates the employees with economic and non-economic rewards and thereby
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
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
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
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
with organizational goals. This synchronization can be achieved through proper and
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
"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,
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
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
Learning objectives
After successfully completing this chapter the students will be able to:
Describe leadership skills and competencies Identify good and bad leaders
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
o Authoritarian or autocratic
o Participative or democratic
Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant, bad leaders
2.1.1.Authoritarian(autocratic)
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
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
29
2. Manager seeks to have the most authority and control in decision making
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
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
Despite having many critics, the autocratic leadership styles offer many advantages to
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.
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
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.
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
! Following on from the merits and drawbacks listed above, the autocratic leadership style
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
3. Industries where employees need to perform low-skilled, monotonous and repetitive tasks
4. Projects where the work performed needs to be completed to exact specifications and/or
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.
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
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:
32
2. Manager effectively delegate tasks to subordinates and give them full control and
3. Manager welcomes feedback on the results of initiatives and the work environment.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
which is the noninterference in the affairs of others. [French: laissez, second person pl.
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
A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the
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.
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
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
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
o How well your employees are trained and how well you know the task.
o Internal conflicts.
o Stress levels.
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,
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.
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
2.2.1.Key Variables in the Theories of Leadership: Some of the key variables in leadership
theories include:
37
Characteristics of the situation Causal relationships among the primary types of leadership
processes
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
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:
The underlying assumption is that what level is emphasized will determine the type of
NB: The leadership literature-definition and evaluation of leadership has been affected by
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
includes aspects of leadership that are not adequately explained by the lower-level
It focuses on individual leaders behaviors (in conceptualizing leadership such theories has
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)
leadership theories that focus on processes within a single individual, because most
researchers have used psychological theories of decision making, motivation, and cognition
Example:
a) Theories that describe leader traits and skills associated with motivation to become a
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.
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
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.
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
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
Example:
cooperative alliance with shared objectives and mutual trust. Although the theory
recognizes that the leader has multiple dyadic relationships, the focus is clearly on
b) Much of the research on power and influence tactics is also conceptualized in terms
of dyadic processes.
Its contribution:
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:
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
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:
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
Here there are three Questions which should raised and answered:
a) what leadership functions are necessary to make these group meetings more
effective
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
Limitations of group process is that, it does not considered external environment factors i.e
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
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
evaluating likely constraints and threats (e.g., government regulations, input scarcity,
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
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
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
a) Trait approach,
b) Behavior approach,
d) Situational approach.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
1) Trait approach
2) Behavioral approach
4) Contingency approach
5) Situational 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
leadership researchers have tried to answer over the past 100 years is whether certain
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
Early in the century, leaders were generally regarded as superior individuals who, because of
abilities that differentiated them from other people in general. Trait approach is mainly
a) all human beings can be divided into two groups leaders and followers, and
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
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
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:
judgment
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.
components. The studies on the trait approach to leadership have not proved fruitful due to
various reasons:
b) they do not specify how much of each trait a leader should have and
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
47
Trait studies continue, but they now tend to explore the relationship between traits and
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
Northouse(1997) has identified some of the traits that are central to this list including:
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
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
Personality traits are relatively stable dispositions in particular ways. Personal traits and
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:
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,
Expectations
Note: Therefore, you can undertake self-evaluation against the trait views, so compare your
Are there any similarities? Would you regard yourself as a leader or a potentially successful
lead.
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
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
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
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
strengthen and weaknesses, to learn new skills and continue developing old ones, to enhance
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
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
Emphasized on how managers spend their time and the typical pattern of activities,
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
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
a) Task behaviors facilitate goal accomplishment: they help group members to achieve
their objectives.
each other, and with the situation in which they find themselves.
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.
a) The first studies were conducted at Ohio State University in the late 1940s (analyze
c) Blake and mouton in the early 1960s (explored how managers used task and
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
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
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
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:
To sum up according to this approach: A. These two behaviors (initiating and consideration
behavior) are central to what
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.
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
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
Unlike the OSU researchers, the Michigan researchers, in their initial studies, conceptualized
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
In general, although, a multitude of studies conducted by both Ohio State and the University
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
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
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
The leadership (managerial) grid joins: concern for production and concern for people in
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
Thus, as indicted in the figure below by plotting scores from each of the axes, the
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.
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.
relationships. Acts uninvolved and withdrawn. leaders often have little contact with
followers and could be described as
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
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
The backup style is what leader reverts to when under pressure, when the usual way of
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
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
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).
complicated and require high task behavior, and other may be simple and require
supportive behaviors.
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
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:
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
1) The knowledge, skills and experience of the staff cannot fully used. 2) This leadership style
suppresses staff members’ initiative.
4) Absence of the leader may mean that important work is not completed.
Staff is made aware of what to do, but not why they should do it. It often results in :
(2) Staff following leader directions to the letter/communication, while knowing that the
2. Democratic Leaders:
Discussion Question: What advantages do you think a democratic leadership style might
have?
informed about condition affecting their jobs and encouraged to express their ideas
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
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:
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:
Leaders gave complete freedom to the group and left it up to subordinates to make
typical behaviors performed by leaders using the three different leadership styles in variety
3) Managers save time which can be used for some other organizational purposes
Disadvantages:
60
2. Objectives of the organization may not be achieved
1. Of the three styles of leadership, subordinate preferred the democratic style as the best,
In fact this day the trend is toward wider use of participatory management practices
2. Subordinates preferred the laissez-faire leadership style over the authoritarian one .For
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
2.3.4.Contingency Approach/Theory
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
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
Assumptions: The basic tenet/beliefs/ principles of this approach is that leadership behavior
contingency leadership approaches that can represent this approach. To suite some :
However, in this sub-section we will focus only on the most common and more popular
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
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
! To sum up, Fiedler’s situational contingency model was concerned with styles-traits or
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
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
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,
Therefore, the LPC score indicates the extent to which the individual sets a high priority or
a) Task-motivated, or
b) Relationship-motivated.
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 ---.
64
It refers to the degree of power and influence that leaders have to implement plans,
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
1. Task-oriented leaders tend to perform best in group situations that are either very
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
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.
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?
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”
complex situational variables (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power),
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
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.
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.
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Conditioning. These theories are largely based on controlled laboratory experiments (often with
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Paradoxically, the energy that gets people going can also cause them to give up.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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.
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
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
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
It's by providing learning opportunities, both formal and informal, that Girl Scouts helps
Willing to Commit
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."
"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,
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 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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
84
Appreciate why all organizations must 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
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
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:
becoming obsolete
Communication and computers have reduced the time needed to make decisions
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
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.
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.
1. There are two goals of planned change: • Improve the ability of the organization to adapt to
changes in its environment. • Change employee behavior.
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
Change management is a set of processes employed to ensure that significant changes are
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
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
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
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
Change is a shift in the externals of any situation, for example, setting up a new program,
89
the mental and emotional transformation that people must undergo to relinquish old
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
What is transformation?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
An organization changes its structure and practices as a result of the forces from internal
• Change Technology
Structure or Design
• Change People
Differentiation is the division of the organization into subsystems, e.g. research, sales,
92
requires the integration of these subsystems to achieve unity of effort and the
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
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
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
undischargeable manager. But most internal origins of change are in part self-generated, and
For example, a number of companies have set up departments designed to cope with
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).
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
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
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
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,
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
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?
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
In response to the information obtained through the above methods, the organizations make
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
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
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
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 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
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
To appreciate the complexity of the interdependence or domino effect of change, you need to
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,
People includes individuals who perform or fill various jobs within the organization.
Individuals vary in their attitudes, motivations and values which influence their perception
Technology includes those methods, techniques, and processes that collectively convert
inputs of the organization into its outputs. Finally, the structure embraces the job
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
focusing upon one of the change factors and failing to gauge its impact upon other factors, as
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
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
permitted to adjust thermostats. Another option is to put timers on all thermostats so that the
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.
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
response to a problem. This particular structural solution called for changing the power
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.,
behaviors that maintain the changes are put in place). Hence, the new attitudes and behaviors
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
objectionable manner, negative attitude, personal criticism, not having had input, bad timing,
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
Individual Barriers to Change. Researchers have noted several key factors that are known
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
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
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
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
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 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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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.
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:
110
The Politics of Change
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
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
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
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 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
Commitment to change, they say, follows from involvement in the total change process and
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
political organization may intuitively employ these concepts in defining and redefining what
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 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 agent - the individual or group who undertakes the task of introducing and
The Change Agent • Generators • Key Change Agents • Demonstrators • Patrons • Defenders •
Implementers • External • Internal • Adopters • Early Adopters • Maintainers
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
Physical Settings
3. People
Change agents help individuals and groups within the organization work more effectively
together.
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
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
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
Summary
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
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:
examples of each.
occur.
119
Typically, the phrase “organizational change” is about a significant change in the
change can seem like such a vague phenomena that it is helpful if you can think of change in
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
products or services.
• Major adjustments in the ways a firm does business – Incremental change • Evolution over time
• Many small routine changes
• Anticipatory Change: – Looking for better ways to stay – Ahead of the competition.
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.
Many times, organizations experience incremental change and its leaders do not recognize
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
Change can also be developmental – to make a successful situation even more successful, for
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
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
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
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
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.
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
functions most central to their mission, thereby freeing them from these peripheral support
functions.
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
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
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.
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,
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.
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.
as knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, needs, expectations etc. It is possible to bring about a total
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
'Forces for change arise out of an organization’s interaction with elements in its external or
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
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
The difference between reactive and proactive changes corresponds, by way of analogy, to
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
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
Summary
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
because of group norms and groupthink. Organizational level changes can be implemented
Driving forces and restraining forces must be evaluated while implementing change. Change
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.
131
THE END
132