USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Hello, I need very solid writing with no grammatical mistakes.
Instructions: 6 Page APA Post-Graduate (Master Level) Essay (6 pages of content not including title and reference pages). Assignment instructions and Required Resources and Materials attached.
You must use my attached documents as part of the reference
Number of Pages: 6 Pages
Deadline: 1 days
Academic Level: Post-graduate
Paper Format: APA
Instructions
For this assignment, analyze Kurt Lewin’s Model of Change and John Kotter’s Eight Stage Model for planned change. In your analysis:
· Differentiate the leader’s role in each of the models.
Determine how leaders can use each of the models to lead organizational change initiatives efficiently.
Support your analysis with a minimum of four (4) scholarly resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.
Length: 6 full pages, not including title and reference pages
Your synthesis should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.
Required Supporting Articles and Scholarly Sources are attached on Zip Folder
Rutgers: How NOT to Manage Organizational Change –
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbaldoni/2013/04/08/rutgers-a-lesson-in-how-not-to-manage-organizational-change/#1834f4a428fb
Week 4 Assignment Resources/Assignment Rubric Assessment
Learning_Outcome
Inadequate
0 points
Remember
1 point
Understand
2 points
Apply
3 points
Analyze
4 points
Evaluate
5 points
Create
6 points
Masters – Evaluate
own and others’
assumptions and
arguments.
This item
represents lower
academic
achievement than
foundational
undergraduate
knowledge.
Outlines issue /
problem to be
considered in authentic
context.
Issue/problem to be
considered is simply
stated without
clarification or
description of context.
Information is taken
from source(s) without
any
interpretation/evaluation.
Viewpoints of experts
and own/others’
assumptions are taken
as fact, without
question.
Conclusion is
inconsistently tied to
some of the information
discussed; related
outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
oversimplified.
Explains issue /
problem to be
considered in authentic
context.
Issue/problem to be
considered is stated but
context description
leaves some terms
undefined, ambiguities
unexplored, boundaries
undetermined, and/or
backgrounds unknown.
Information is taken
from source(s) with
some
interpretation/evaluation,
but not enough to
develop a coherent
analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts
and own/others’
assumptions are taken
as mostly fact, with little
questioning.
Conclusion is logically
tied to information
(because information is
chosen to fit the desired
conclusion); some
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
identified clearly.
Ascertains issue /
problem to be
considered in authentic
context.
Issue/problem to be
considered is stated,
described, and clarified
so that context
understanding is not
seriously impeded by
omissions.
Information is taken
from source(s) with
enough
interpretation/evaluation
to allow for application.
Viewpoints of experts
and own/others’
assumptions are
subject to questioning.
Conclusion is logically
tied to information and
most related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
identified clearly.
Analyzes issue /
problem to be
considered in authentic
context.
Issue/problem to be
considered is stated
clearly and described
comprehensively,
delivering relevant
information necessary
for full understanding of
context.
Information is taken
from source(s) with
enough
interpretation/evaluation
to develop a
comprehensive
analysis.
Viewpoints of experts
and own/others’
assumptions are
questioned relatively
thoroughly.
Conclusions and
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are logical
and reflect student’s
informed evaluation and
ability to place evidence
and perspectives
discussed in priority
order.
Evaluate issue /
problem to be
considered in authentic
context.
Issue/problem to be
considered is stated
clearly and context is
described
comprehensively,
delivering relevant
information necessary
for full understanding of
all sides/perspectives of
the issue/problem.
Information is taken
from source(s) with
enough
interpretation/evaluation
to develop a
comprehensive analysis
comparing and
contrasting viewpoints
of experts and
own/others’
assumptions.
Conclusions are
logically tied to a range
of information, including
opposing viewpoints;
related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
identified clearly.
Specify issue /
problem to be
considered in
authentic context.
Issue/problem to
be considered is
stated clearly and
context is
described
comprehensively,
delivering relevant
information
necessary for
deducing possible
solutions to
issue/problem.
Information is
taken from
source(s) with
thorough
interpretation/
evaluation to
develop a
comprehensive
synthesis of
experts’ viewpoints
and own/others’
assumptions, in
order to infer next
steps.
Conclusions are
logically tied to a
range of
information,
including a
synthesis of
viewpoints and
assumptions, in
order to produce
clear outcomes
(consequences
and implications).
Overall Score
Inadequate
0 or more
Remember
1 or more
Understand
2 or more
Apply
3 or more
Analyze
4 or more
Evaluate
5 or more
Create
6 or more
Week 4 Assignment Resources/Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change
The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change
Julie Battilana a,⁎, Mattia Gilmartin b,1, Metin Sengul c,2, Anne-Claire Pache d,3, Jeffrey A. Alexander e,4
a Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA 02163, USA
b Hunter-Bellevue School of Nursing, 425 East 25th Street, New York, New York 10010, USA
c Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA
d ESSEC Business School, Avenue Bernard Hirsch, 95021 CERGY PONTOISE, France
e University of Michigan, 109 S. Observatory, M3507 SPH II, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 617 495 6113.
E-mail addresses: jbattilana@hbs.edu (J. Battilana)
(A.-C. Pache), jalexand@umich.edu (J.A. Alexander).
1 Tel.: +1 212 481 4445.
2 Tel.: +1 617 552 4277.
3 Tel.: +33 1 34 43 30 00.
4 Tel.: +1 734 936 1194.
1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.007
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
This paper bridges the leadership and organizational change literatures by exploring the
relationship between managers’ leadership competencies (namely, their effectiveness at
person-oriented and task-oriented behaviors) and the likelihood that they will emphasize the
different activities involved in planned organizational change implementation (namely,
communicating the need for change, mobilizing others to support the change, and evaluating
the change implementation). We examine this relationship using data from 89 clinical
managers at the United Kingdom National Health Service who implemented change projects
between 2003 and 2004. Our results lend overall support to the proposed theory. This finding
suggests that treating planned organizational change as a generic phenomenon might mask
important idiosyncrasies associated both with the different activities involved in the change
implementation process and with the unique functions that leadership competencies might
play in the execution of these activities.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Leadership competencies
Organizational change
Change process
Change agent
One of the defining challenges for leaders is to take their organizations into the future by implementing planned organizational
changes that correspond to premeditated interventions intended to modify organizational functioning towards more favorable
outcomes (Lippit, Watson, & Westley, 1958). Although formal strategic assessment and planning are important elements of this
process, a far more challenging task is implementing change in the organization once a direction has been selected. Over the last
two decades, research about transformational and charismatic leadership has explored the relationship between leadership
characteristics or behaviors and organizational change (for reviews see Bass, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House & Aditya,
1997; Yukl, 1999, 2006). There is growing evidence that change agents’ leadership characteristics and behaviors influence the
success or failure of organizational change initiatives (e.g., Berson & Avolio, 2004; Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005; Eisenbach,
Watson, & Pillai, 1999; Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2000, 2005; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Howell &
Higgins, 1990; Struckman & Yammarino, 2003; Waldman, Javidan, & Varella, 2004).
Most of the leadership studies that account for the relationship between leadership and change do not, however, account for
the complexity of intra-organizational processes (Yukl, 1999), including the complexity of the organizational change
, mattia.gilmartin@hunter.cuny.edu (M. Gilmartin), metin.sengul@bc.edu (M. Sengul), pache@essec.fr
All rights reserved.
mailto:jbattilana@hbs.edu
mailto:mattia.gilmartin@hunter.cuny.edu
mailto:metin.sengul@bc.edu
mailto:pache@essec.fr
mailto:jalexand@umich.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.007
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10489843
423J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
implementation process, which involves different activities. That planned organizational change implementation involves
different activities in which leadership competencies might play different roles has thus largely been ignored by the leadership
literature (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). In contrast, the literature on organizational change addresses the complexity of the change
process (for a review, see Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999 and Van de Ven & Poole, 1995) as well as the role of managers in various
change implementation activities (for a review, see Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999 and Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992). Yet, an implicit
common assumption of most of these studies is that change agents already possess the requisite competencies, skills, and abilities
to engage in the different change implementation activities.
In this paper, building jointly on the leadership and organizational change literatures, we argue that managers’ likelihood to
emphasize the different activities involved in planned organizational change implementation varies with their mix of leadership
competencies. This exploratory study is, to our knowledge, the first work that theorizes and empirically examines the relationship
between managers’ leadership competencies and the emphasis they put on the activities involved in change implementation.
On leadership competencies, we adopt the task-oriented and person-oriented behaviors model (Bass, 1990; House & Baetz,
1979; Stodgill & Coons, 1957) also referred to as ‘the initiating structure and showing consideration’ model (House & Aditya, 1997).
This classic model covers a vast majority of the day-to-day leadership activities in which leaders engage at the supervisory level
(Casimir, 2001) and still remains a powerful model to analyze leadership effectiveness (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Importantly, it
is particularly well suited to the study of leadership in the context of organizational change (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Nadler &
Tushman, 1999). On change activities, we emphasize three key activities involved in organizational change implementation:
communicating the need for change, mobilizing others to support the change, and evaluating the change implementation. Building
on Lewin’s (1947) three-phase model of change, prior conceptual and empirical work (despite differences among them)
recurrently emphasizes these three sets of activities, which cover most of the activities involved in change implementation (e.g.,
Beckhard & Harris, 1977; Beer, 1980; Ford & Greer, 2005; Kanter, 1983; Nadler & Tushman, 1989; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).
Our empirical analyses of 89 clinical managers at the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom who implemented
planned change projects in their organizations lend overall support to the proposed theory that managers’ likelihood to emphasize
each of the different activities involved in planned organizational change implementation (namely, communicating the need for
change, mobilizing others to support the change, and evaluating the change implementation) varies with their mix of leadership
competencies (namely, their effectiveness at task-oriented and person-oriented behaviors). This finding suggests that treating
planned organizational change as a generic phenomenon might mask important idiosyncrasies of both the activities involved in the
change implementation process and the unique functions leadership competencies might play in the execution of these activities.
1. Effective leadership and the enactment of planned organizational change
Notwithstanding a multitude of concepts advanced by leadership researchers (for a review, see House & Aditya, 1997), we
focus on the task-oriented and person-oriented behaviors model (Bass, 1990; House & Baetz, 1979; Stodgill & Coons, 1957), also
referred to as the initiating structure and showing consideration model (House & Aditya, 1997). In this model, task-oriented skills
are those related to organizational structure, design, and control, and to establishing routines to attain organizational goals and
objectives (Bass, 1990). These architectural functions are important not only for achieving organizational goals, but also for
developing change initiatives (House & Aditya, 1997; Huy, 1999; Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Yukl, 2006). Person-oriented skills
include behaviors that promote collaborative interaction among organization members, establish a supportive social climate, and
promote management practices that ensure equitable treatment of organization members (Bass, 1990). These interpersonal skills
are critical to planned organizational change implementation because they enable leaders to motivate and direct followers
(Chemers, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; Yukl, 2006).
The task-/person-oriented behaviors model is particularly relevant and suitable for this study, for three main reasons. First and
foremost, this model is particularly well suited to the study of leadership in the context of organizational change. Nadler and Tushman
(1999) highlighted that task-oriented behaviors and person-oriented behaviors are key to influence organizational change. Similarly,
Beer and Nohria (2000) made a distinction between “Theory E” leaders, who are more task-oriented and “Theory O” leaders, who are
more person-oriented. They proposed that these different categories of leaders adopt different approaches to change implementation.
Second, task-oriented and person-oriented leadership behaviors have been shown to cover a vast majority of the day-to-day
leadership activities in which leaders engage at the supervisory level (Casimir, 2001). The task-/person-oriented behaviors model is
thus particularly appropriate as we focus, in the context of this study, on change behaviors carried out by managers who were all in a
supervisory role. Finally, although the introduction of this model goes back to the 1950s, recent empirical research shows that the
task-/person-oriented behaviors model remains a powerful model to analyze leadership effectiveness (Judge et al., 2004; Keller,
2006).
Effectiveness at task-oriented and person-oriented behaviors requires different but related sets of competencies. Effectiveness
at task-oriented behaviors hinges on the ability to clarify task requirements and structure tasks around an organization’s mission
and objectives (Bass, 1990). Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors, on the other hand, relies on the ability to show
consideration for others as well as to take into account one’s own and others’ emotions (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Managers might be effective at both task-oriented and person-oriented leadership behaviors, or they
might be effective at only one or the other, or perhaps at neither. Such variation in leadership behaviors, we argue, has implications
for planned organizational change implementation. More specifically, we argue that, depending on their mix of leadership
competencies, leaders might differentially emphasize the activities involved in planned organizational change implementation.
424 J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
To implement planned organizational change projects, leaders undertake specific activities (Galpin, 1996; Judson, 1991; Kotter,
1995; Lewin, 1947; Rogers, 1962) and mistakes in the execution of any of these activities or efforts to bypass some of them are
detrimental to the progress of change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). In this paper, based on a detailed review of the literature, we
adopt a model that emphasizes three key activities involved in planned organizational change implementation: communicating,
mobilizing, and evaluating. Communicating refers to activities leaders undertake to make the case for change, to share their vision of
the need for change with followers. Mobilizing refers to actions leaders undertake to gain co-workers’ support for and acceptance
of the enactment of new work routines. Evaluating refers to measures leaders employ to monitor and assess the impact of
implementation efforts and institutionalize changes.
Although these three sets of activities do not do complete justice to the complexity of the change implementation process, they
have been identified in the literature on organizational change as key categories, which are conceptually distinct from each other
and which cover most of the activities involved in change implementation. Prior conceptual and empirical works (despite
differences among them) recurrently emphasize these three sets of activities (e.g., Beckhard & Harris, 1977; Beer, 1980; Ford &
Greer, 2005; Kanter, 1983; Nadler & Tushman, 1989; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Building on Lewin’s (1947) three-phase model of
change, these studies distinguish between these three types of change implementation activities, highlighting that understanding
how change unfolds requires understanding what induces a leader to emphasize these activities (for reviews see Armenakis &
Bedeian, 1999, and Kanter et al., 1992).
In the remainder of the paper, we examine the relationship between managers’ leadership competencies and their likelihood to
put emphasis on each of the three change implementation activities. More specifically, we propose that leaders who are more
effective in person-oriented behaviors are more likely to focus on the communicating and on the mobilizing activities than other
leaders, and less likely to focus on the evaluating activities than other leaders; and that leaders who are more effective in task-
oriented behaviors are more likely to focus on the mobilizing and the evaluating activities than other leaders, and less likely to
focus on the communicating activities than other leaders.
1.1. Communicating the need for organizational change
To destabilize the status quo and paint a picture of the desired new state for followers, change leaders must communicate the
need for change. Organization members need to understand why behaviors and routines need to change (Fiol et al., 1999; Kotter,
1995). Resistance to change initiatives is partly attributable to organization members’ emotional reactions, stemming, for
example, from threats to self-esteem (Nadler, 1982), confusion and anxiety (Kanter, 1983), or stress related to uncertainty (Olson
& Tetrick, 1988). Leaders skilled at interpersonal interaction are able to monitor and discriminate among their own and others’
emotions, and to use this information to guide thinking and action (Goleman, 1998; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). They are able to
recognize and leverage their own and others’ emotional states to solve problems and regulate behaviors (Huy, 1999). In the
context of planned organizational change, consideration for others makes them likely to anticipate the emotional reactions of
those involved in the change process and to take the required steps to attend to those reactions (Huy, 2002; Oreg, 2003). They are
likely to emphasize the communicating activities of planned organizational change implementation as a way to explain why the
change is needed, and to discuss the nature of the change and thereby reduce organization members’ confusion and uncertainty.
Being at ease with the interpersonal dimension that communication involves (Bass, 1990), person-oriented leaders are also more
inclined to put emphasis on communicating activities.
Hypothesis 1a. Leaders who are more effective at person-oriented behaviors are more likely than other leaders to focus on the
activities associated with communicating the need for change.
Leaders who are effective at task-oriented behaviors, on the other hand, are organizational architects (Bass, 1985, 1990). Rather
than communicating the need for change, task-oriented leaders are likely to concentrate their energies on developing the procedures,
processes and systems required to implement planned organizational change. Because they are also more likely to keep their distance,
psychologically, from their followers, task-oriented leaders may be less inclined to put emphasis on communicating activities (Blau &
Scott, 1962).
Hypothesis 1b. Leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behaviors are less likely than other leaders to focus on the
activities associated with communicating the need for change.
1.2. Mobilizing others to accept change
During implementation, leaders must mobilize organization members to accept and adopt proposed change initiatives into
their daily routines (Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Kotter, 1995; Oreg, 2003). Mobilizing is made difficult by the different personal and
professional objectives, and thus different outlooks on the change initiative, of those who are affected by it. Organization members
who have something to gain will usually rally around a change initiative; those who have something to lose resist it (Bourne &
Walker, 2005; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996).
The object of mobilizing is to develop the capacity of organization members to commit to and cooperate with the planned
course of action (Huy, 1999). To do this, leaders must create a coalition to support the change project (Kotter, 1985, 1995).
Creating such a coalition is a political process that entails both appealing to organization members’ cooperation and initiating
425J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
organizational processes and systems that enable that cooperation (Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997a, 1997b).
Mobilizing thus entails both person-oriented and task-oriented skills.
Securing buy-in and support from the various organization members can be an emotionally charged process (Huy, 1999).
Person-oriented leaders show consideration for others and are good at managing others’ feelings and emotions (Bass, 1990). They
value communication as a means of fostering individual and group participation, and explicitly request contributions from
members at different management levels (Vera & Crossan, 2004). Effective communicators and managers of emotions can marshal
commitment to a firm’s vision and inspire organization members to work towards its realization (Egri & Herman, 2000). Their
inclination to take others into account makes them more likely to pay attention to individuals’ attitudes towards change and to
anticipate the need to involve others in the change process.
Hypothesis 2a. Leaders who are more effective at person-oriented behaviors are more likely than other leaders to focus on the
activities associated with mobilizing organization members.
Mobilizing also implies redesigning existing organizational processes and systems in order to push all organization members to
adopt the change (Kotter, 1995; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997a, 1997b). For example, if a leader wants to implement a new system of
quality control but does not change the reward system accordingly, organization members will have little incentive to adopt the new
system. Redesigning existing organizational processes and systems so as to facilitate coalition building requires task-oriented skills.
Leaders who are effective at task-oriented behaviors are skilled in designing organizational processes and systems that induce
people to adopt new work patterns (Bass, 1990). Their focus on getting tasks done leads them to identify the different stakeholders
who need to be involved in the tasks associated with the change effort and build systems that facilitate their involvement. Because
they focus on structure, systems, and procedures, task-oriented leaders are more likely to be aware of the need to put in place
systems that facilitate people’s rallying behind new objectives. As skilled architects, they are also more likely to know how to
redesign existing organizational processes and systems so as to facilitate coalition building.
Hypothesis 2b. Leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behaviors are more likely than other leaders to focus on the
activities associated with mobilizing organization members.
1.3. Evaluating change project implementation
Finally, change leaders need to evaluate the extent to which organization members are performing the routines, practices, or
behaviors targeted in the planned change initiative. As champions of the organization’s mission and goals, leaders have a role in
evaluating the content of change initiatives and ensuring that organization members comply with new work routines (Yukl, 2006).
Before the change becomes institutionalized, change leaders often step back to assess both the new processes and procedures that have
been put in place and their impact on the organization’s performance. To this end, leaders employ measures to monitor and assess the
impact of implementation efforts and institutionalize changes. Such processes are typically based on formal systems of measurement
(Burke & Litwin, 1992; Ford & Greer, 2005; Galpin, 1996; Kotter, 1995; Simons, 1995). Person-oriented leaders have been shown to be
reluctant to place too much emphasis on method, productivity and on the imposition of impersonal standards (Bass, 1990). As a result,
they might be less likely to engage in the evaluating activities involved in change implementation and to pursue them.
Hypothesis 3a. Leaders who are more effective at person-oriented behaviors are less likely than other leaders to focus on the
activities associated with evaluating change project implementation.
Task-oriented leaders, on the other hand, tend naturally to focus on tasks that must be performed to achieve the targeted
performance improvements (Bass, 1990). Their attention to structure and performance objectives attunes them to the attainment
of these objectives. They are both aware of the need to analyze goals and achievements and comfortable with the need to refine
processes following evaluation.
Hypothesis 3b. Leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behaviors are more likely than other leaders to focus on the
activities associated with evaluating change project implementation.
2. Data and methods
2.1. Setting: The United Kingdom National Health Service
Our field of study was the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). The NHS is a public, state-funded health system with
one million employees and a budget of more than £60 billion that offers a wide range of preventive, primary, and acute health care
services. The government is responsible for financing and guaranteeing universal healthcare that is free at the point of service.
In 1997, under the leadership of the Labour Government, the NHS embarked on a ten-year modernization effort aimed at
improving the quality, reliability, effectiveness, and value of the healthcare services delivered to society (Department of Health,
1999). The goal set by the government was to “design a service centered on patients which puts them first; [the service] will be
faster, more convenient and offer [patients] more choice” (Department of Health, 2006). At the organizational level, the goal of
creating a patient and service oriented NHS entailed reducing waiting times for emergency and hospital services, improving the
426 J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
quality of services for people with chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, developing the range and complexity of
primary care services, and using the work force in a more effective manner.
The NHS is a particularly appropriate setting for testing our hypotheses because of its reliance on local leaders to implement
national policy (Department of Health, 1997). NHS managers play a key role in the implementation of changes because NHS
policies provide, rather than a narrowly defined blueprint, a broad outline that accommodates local innovation (Harrison & Wood,
1999; Peckham & Exworthy, 2003). Thus, although the government mandates initiatives for change, managers at the regional and
organizational levels are responsible for implementing changes appropriate to local needs and circumstances. In this type of
setting, local leaders’ strategies for managing the change process are less likely to be constrained by actors outside the local
context. These conditions make it possible to analyze the impact of leadership competencies on the way managers lead the
implementation of organizational change projects.
2.2. Data collection and sample
We test our hypotheses with data from change projects conducted by middle or top managers from the NHS between January
2003 and December 2004. Our data were gathered from 95 managers working in 81 different organizations within the NHS who
attended a two-week strategic leadership executive education program in 2003. Each program participant was required to design
and implement a change project in his/her organization. Participants were self-selected into the program and free to choose the
change project they implemented. Before attending the program, participants were required to write a comprehensive description
of the change project they intended to initiate. They started implementing their change project right after the program and were
asked to refine their change project description after three months of implementation to reflect any modification of their change
project. Participants were also asked to participate in a 360-degree leadership survey that was filled out three months before they
attended the executive education program. Leadership data were thus collected three months before they attended the program
and three months and a half before their started implementing their change project.
After twelve months of project implementation, we administered a telephone survey to collect information about how
program participants had implemented their change projects. The participants also granted us access to their resumes. Although
participation was voluntary, all program participants agreed to participate in the study. Data for six participants were incomplete,
leaving a final sample of 89 change projects implemented by 89 managers in 77 different organizations.
The 89 managers, 67 women and 22 men, ranged in age from 34 to 56 years (average age 43); 21 were physicians, 41 were
nurses, and the remaining 27 were allied health professionals (e.g., physiotherapists, podiatrists, dieticians, and occupational
therapists). All study participants had managerial responsibilities, ranging from service line manager within a single hospital to
regional quality improvement managers, and came from a variety of NHS organizations. Forty-four percent worked in outpatient
clinics, 45% in hospitals or other secondary care organizations, and the remaining 11% in NHS administrative bodies.
2.3. Dependent variables: Emphasis on change implementation activities
To collect information about how managers implemented their change projects, we developed and pilot tested a telephone
survey. This survey was designed to collect data about the three sets of activities involved in change implementation that we
identified through our literature review (i.e., communicating, mobilizing and evaluating). The survey was administered to the
managers after twelve months of project implementation. Survey items were uniformly structured on a 5-point Likert scale (from
(1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree). We constructed our three dependent variables of interest (communicating activities,
mobilizing activities, and evaluating activities) as the unweighted average of items that corresponded to each of the three
dimensions of the change implementation process.
2.3.1. Communicating
To measure the degree of emphasis that leaders put on the communicating activities, we used a scale comprising four items:
(1) communicating the vision for change was a critical aspect of the change process; (2) relative to other aspects of the change
process, the focal manager devoted significant time to communicating the need for change among other organizational members;
(3) to the focal manager, effectively communicating the ideas behind the change was much more important than other aspects of
the change process; and (4) the focal manager devoted a significant amount of time and energy to developing the vision for the
outcomes of the organizational change.
2.3.2. Mobilizing
To measure the degree of emphasis that leaders put on the mobilizing activities, we used a scale comprising four items: (1) the
focal manager specifically sought out others in his/her organization to help shape the vision of the organization following the
change; (2) the focal manager worked on this change project with considerable help and input from others in the organization;
(3) to the focal manager, seeking input from a wide variety of stakeholder groups in the organization was a key factor in smoothing
the way for the introduction of the change; and (4) the focal manager spent a significant amount of time in redesigning
organizational processes and systems to prepare his/her organization for the change.
427J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
2.3.3. Evaluating
Finally, to measure the degree of emphasis that leaders put on the evaluating activities, we used a scale comprising two items:
(1) the focal manager utilized a formal system of measurement to evaluate the impact of the change; and (2) the focal manager
used a formal system of measurement to evaluate the need for possible refinements to the way the change was implemented in
the organization.
We measured the reliability of these items using Cronbach’s alpha to assess the adequacy of the scales. Scale reliability
coefficients for each of the three scales were, respectively, 0.62 for communicating, 0.64 for mobilizing, and 0.86 for evaluating.
Note that all three scale reliability coefficients were greater than 0.60, which is the acceptable threshold value for exploratory
studies like ours (Nunnally, 1978). We also ran confirmatory factor analysis to further establish the validity and reliability of our
dependent variables. The result of this exercise improved our confidence in the measurement of our dependent variables. All test
statistics were significant and models fit were very high, supporting our claim that change activities are modeled correctly (i.e.,
items are correctly stratified into each category).5
2.4. Independent variables: Leadership effectiveness
Data about participants’ leadership competencies were collected using the Global Leadership Life Inventory (GLLI) (Kets de
Vries, 2002). In the institution in which we collected our data, GLLI was the standard and only tool used to collect psychometric
data on participants. GLLI was designed to examine “the psychodynamic processes that underlie […] leadership” and was
originally developed following a three-year study of participants in executive education programs (Kets de Vries, Vrignaud, &
Florent-Treacy, 2004: 777). Hence, it is well suited for the current study. It is typically used as a 360-degree feedback instrument.
This instrument is employed to (1) help to obtain not only self-assessment of the focal manager but also feedback from colleagues,
superiors, and others who are familiar with his or her leadership style, and (2) measure competencies on multiple dimensions.
Thus, it provides a comprehensive assessment of managers’ behaviors (Atwater & Waldman, 1998; Levy & Williams, 2004). All
responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale. Psychometric analyses (including exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses) have shown that the GLLI has high reliability and internal consistency (see Kets de Vries et al., 2004).
2.4.1. Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors
To measure effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors we use the “emotional intelligence” GLLI scale (Kets de Vries, 2002: 13).
This scale is structured around two main sets of items. The first set of items aims to capture the extent to which the focal manager
“engages in an ongoing process of self-reflection, and is both self monitoring and self regulating” and “uses feedback to improve
him/herself” (Kets de Vries, 2002: 13). This dimension reflects the fact that leaders who are effective at person-oriented behaviors
are characterized by a strong concern for human relations as well as a strong need for affiliation (McClelland, 1961). Their interest
for others leads them to develop an acute sense of self and others combined with an acute sense of how the two interact. They are
expressive and tend to develop social and emotional ties with their subordinates (Bales, 1958). The strong focus of person-
oriented leaders on interpersonal interactions makes them particularly aware of not only other’s but also their own emotional
needs and states. This dimension is captured by seven items measuring the extent to which the focal manager (1) considers how
his or her feelings affect others; (2) can read other people’s feelings quite well; (3) understands the reasons why he or she feels the
way he or she does in a particular situation; (4) analyzes his or her feelings before acting on them; (5) makes sure that his or her
behavior is appropriate to the situation; (6) engages in an ongoing process of self-reflection; and (7) analyzes his or her mistakes
in order to learn from them.
The second set of items aims to capture the extent to which the focal manager trusts his/her subordinates and provides a
respectful and supportive environment (Kets de Vries, 2002). This dimension reflects the fact that leaders who are effective at
person-oriented behaviors tend to display a high level of trust towards their subordinates (McGregor, 1960) and consideration for
their welfare. This mutual trust and consideration is fostered through open channels of interpersonal communication as well as
through the leader’s willingness and ability to make people feel at ease (Bass, 1990; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;
Seltzer & Bass, 1990). This dimension of the construct is captured by 5 items measuring the extent to which the focal manager
(1) gives others his or her full attention when talking to them; (2) makes sure that people feel at ease with him or her; (3) actively
shows respect for and interest in others; (4) works to generate trust among his or her people; and (5) gets people to open up by
talking freely about himself or herself.
2.4.2. Effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors
To measure effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors we use the “design and controlling” GLLI scale (Kets de Vries, 2002: 9).
This scale is structured around two sets of items. The first set of items aims to capture the extent to which the focal manager
“makes people accountable and holds them to commitments and deadlines” (Kets de Vries, 2002: 9). This dimension reflects the
fact that leaders who are effective at task-oriented behaviors demonstrate a strong concern for the group’s goals as well as for the
5 The chi-squared statistic, a standard measure of model fit, is 35.398, with df=32 and p-value=0.311. This strongly shows that the model fits well. Because
the chi-squared statistic is strongly dependent on sample size, a number of other measures are used in the literature to substantiate the model fit (and establish
its robustness), including GFI (goodness-of-fit index—0.90 or better is considered good), CFI (comparative-fit-index—0.90 or better is considered good), and
RMSEA (root-mean-square error or approximation—0.05 or less is considered good). On these grounds, too, the model demonstrates a good fit (GFI, CFIN0.9,
RMSEAb0.05).
428 J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
systems to put in place to achieve these goals (Bass, 1990). Their strong focus on performance (Misumi, 1985) leads them to set
deadlines, to monitor goal achievement and to enforce sanctions, if necessary (Bales, 1958). This dimension is captured by three
items measuring the extent to which (1) the focal manager sets clear performance standards and goals; (2) makes sure that
performance standards are adhered to; and (3) makes people accountable for their commitments and deadlines.
The second set of items is aimed to capture the extent to which the focal manager “builds alignment between values, attitudes,
behaviors on the one hand, and systems on the other” (Kets de Vries, 2002: 9). This dimension reflects the fact that task-oriented
leaders are characterized by their ability to clarify task requirements and structure tasks around an organization’s mission and
objectives (Bass, 1990). They create alignment between collective and individual goals, between the values and the systems
designed to achieve these goals (Bass, 1990). This dimension is captured by four items measuring the extent to which the focal
manager (1) works to develop organizational systems that reflect corporate values, attitudes, and behaviors; (2) is actively
involved in designing management systems to facilitate effective behavior; (3) develops corporate values that serve to unite
people in the organization; and (4) ensures that people respect the basic values of the corporate culture.
The leadership effectiveness measures are average scores derived from evaluations of focal managers’ superordinates,
subordinates, and peers (Kets de Vries et al., 2004). For each manager, we obtained between four and twelve evaluations (average,
7.9). Scale reliability coefficients (i.e. standardized Cronbach’s alpha values) for each of the two effectiveness measures were 0.60
and 0.74, respectively, across category (superordinates, subordinates, and peers) averages.6 Both leadership effectiveness
variables were mean-centered in all regression analyses. Because the leadership survey was administered three months before the
change projects were implemented, the risk of reverse causality was minimized. Furthermore, the potential common method
variance bias does not materialize in this study as we gathered data for the independent variables (leadership effectiveness) and
dependent variables (emphasis on planned change implementation activities) from different sources at different points in time.
2.5. Control variables
Because managers mightput varyingdegrees ofemphasis on thedifferentactivities associatedwith theimplementation ofplanned
organizational change for reasons other than their leadership competencies, we controlled for a number of project-specific,
organization-specific, and career-specific characteristics identified in prior work.
2.5.1. Project type
The type of change project might affect the degree of emphasis managers place on particular implementation tasks. Creating a
new service, for example, usually requires more energy and effort than redesigning an existing service (Van de Ven, Angle, & Poole,
1989). Hence, managers who implement change projects that create a new service might put more emphasis on each of the three
planned organizational change implementation activities. Accordingly, if we do not control for what type of project is
implemented, we risk incorrectly attributing the associated variation on the dependent variables (i.e., emphasis on different
activities involved in the change implementation) to leadership qualities. We thus included in our regression models a dummy for
creation of a new service.
To create this variable, we coded each project into different project type categories using the change project descriptions
prepared by the participants after three months of project implementation. We distinguished between projects aimed at creating
new administrative or patient care services and projects aimed at redesigning existing administrative or patient care services. Two
authors and two independent coders, blind to the study’s hypotheses, coded the change project description that all the managers
included in our sample wrote after three months of project implementation. To facilitate resolution of discrepancies, they noted
passages in the change project descriptions deemed relevant to the codes (Larsson, 1993). Inter-rater reliability, as assessed by the
kappa correlation coefficient, was greater than 0.90, suggesting a high degree of agreement among the four raters (Fleiss, 1981;
Landis & Koch, 1977).
Change projects that sought to establish new administrative services addressed topics such as creating computerized patient
records or clinical care databases. Projects aimed at redesigning existing administrative services addressed topics such as pay or
certification improvement programs. Change projects that sought to establish new patient care services targeted, for example,
vulnerable populations such as prisoners and the frail elderly. Finally, projects aimed at redesigning existing patient care services
addressed, for example, redefinition of the roles of nurses, allied health professionals, and physicians in the delivery of rehabilitation
services for stroke patients in a given hospital.
2.5.2. Organization size
Another potential explanation for the degree of emphasis managers accord the three activities of planned organizational
change implementation is the size of the organization. Compared to smaller organizations, large organizations might have more
standard operating procedures related to change implementation and more resources to devote to the process (Huber, Sutcliffe,
Miller, & Glick, 1993). Size having also been shown to be a factor that inhibits organizational change (e.g., Blau & Shoenherr, 1971;
Child, 2005; Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Kimberly, 1976), managers in larger organizations might have to put more emphasis on
6 Note that we did not use individual evaluations, but category averages as we constructed our leadership effectiveness proxies. Given confidentiality
agreements, this was the finest level at which we were able to obtain data. Reduction in number of observations and aggregation naturally resulted in relatively
lower reliability coefficients. Using individual evaluations, Kets de Vries and his colleagues (2004) reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91 for emotional intelligence
and 0.84 for designing and controlling in their sample of over 600 executives.
7 In supplementary analyses not reported here, we also tested Hambrick and Fukutomi’s (1991) suggestion that change is curvilinearly related to tenure in the
current organizational position, that is, it is greatest at intermediate lengths of tenure, after the ability to implement change has increased but before the
inclination to initiate change has declined. The same relationship might exist between managers’ tenure in their current positions and the emphasis they are
likely to accord each of the three key activities involved in planned change implementation. We found no support for such a curvilinear relationship in ou
sample.
8 Sixty-seven organizations are represented once in our sample, 8 organizations twice, and 2 organizations three times.
Table 1
Sample statistics and bivariate correlations.
Variable M SD [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] Communicating 3.86 0.57 1.00
[2] Mobilizing 3.88 0.67 0.44 1.00
[3] Evaluating 3.31 1.12 0.27 0.46 1.00
[4] Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors 5.19 0.58 0.21 0.14 0.05 1.00
[5] Effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors 5.11 0.51 0.21 0.22 0.29 0.56 1.00
[6] Creation of a new service 0.36 0.48 0.03 0.07 0.08 −0.19 −0.03 1.00
[7] Organization size 2.49 2.42 0.19 0.03 −0.04 −0.03 0.16 −0.17 1.00
[8] Tenure in the current position 2.69 2.14 −0.10 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.19 −0.10 0.15 1.00
[9] National or regional leadership role 0.79 0.41 0.13 0.25 0.32 −0.09 −0.05 0.16 0.07 0.01 1.00
[10] Management education 0.64 0.48 0.02 −0.21 −0.02 −0.10 0.07 −0.02 0.19 0.03 −0.11 1.00
Note: N=89.
429J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
each of the planned organizational change implementation activities to effectively impose change. We measure organizational size
in thousands of total full time equivalents.
2.5.3. Career-specific characteristics
Career-specific characteristics too might influence the degree of emphasis managers put on the three key activities associated
with planned organizational change implementation. One such characteristic is tenure in the current position, measured as the
number of years spent in the current position. Managers with longer tenure in their positions have more in-depth knowledge of
the tasks they are expected to accomplish and how to accomplish them (Huber et al., 1993). Consequently, they might be able to
access more easily resources that can be used in the change implementation process. For this reason, they might, as suggested by
expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), more readily make the decision to engage in the key change implementation activities and put
more emphasis on each of them.7
Management education could also affect the likelihood that leaders will emphasize the three key change implementation
activities. Having more in-depth knowledge of the challenges associated with change implementation might dispose them to place
more emphasis on these activities than might managers without advanced management education (Shipper, 1999). To control for
such an explanation, we also included in our regressions a dummy for management education, which we measured as having
completed an MBA degree.
Finally, whether leaders have a regional or national leadership role in the NHS might affect the degree to which they emphasize the
three key change implementation activities. Having a perspective that extends beyond the home organization to NHS’s overarching
strategic and operational agenda might affect how managers implement change strategy in their local settings (Ferlie & Shortell,
2001). Those whooccupy a regional or national leadership role, havingaccess toinformation related toservice innovations, funding for
particular types of organizational development projects, and training programs, are more likely to be both aware of the challenges of
implementing change in the NHS and able to leverage all available resources within and outside their organizations to implement
change. As a result, they may put more emphasis on the three sets of activities involved in planned organizational change
implementation. To control for this potential effect, we included a regional or national leadership role dummy (which takes the value of
1 if the manager has a regional or national leadership role within the NHS, 0 otherwise) in our regressions.
2.6. Estimation
We used cluster-adjusted ordinary least squares (OLS) estimations in all models. Because a non-trivial number of our
observations (22 of 89) are clustered in the same organizations,8 baseline OLS estimates might be biased, as these observations
might not be independent within groups. We therefore adjusted baseline OLS estimations by clustering data with repeated
observations of organizations in order to obtain robust variance estimates that adjust for within-cluster correlation (Williams,
2000). In all models, we report heteroskedasticity-adjusted (i.e., robust) standard errors.
3. Results
We report the sample statistics and bivariate correlations in Table 1. Although there are no critically collinear variables (i.e.,
over 0.8 in absolute value [Kennedy, 2003]) in our data set, we nevertheless calculated variance inflation factors (VIFs) for all
regression models. All VIFs were less than two, much lower than the critical value of ten, indicating no serious multi-collinearity.
r
Table 2
The relationship of leadership effectiveness to the communicating activities of planned organizational change implementation.
Variable (hypothesis) (1) (2) (3) (4)
Constant 3.69** 3.64** 3.73** 3.67**
(0.15) (0.15) (0.16) (0.16)
Creation of a new service 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.08
(0.12) (0.12) (0.11) (0.12)
Organization size 0.05* 0.05* 0.04† 0.05*
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
Tenure in the current position −0.03 −0.04 −0.04 −0.04
(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)
National or regional leadership role 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.18
(0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13)
Management education −0.01 0.02 −0.01 0.01
(0.14) (0.13) (0.13) (0.14)
Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors ( H1a) 0.25** 0.18†
(0.10) (0.12)
Effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors ( H1b) 0.24** 0.12
(0.09) (0.14)
R-squared 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.13
F-test 1.34 3.06** 2.05* 2.88**
Notes: N=89; robust standard errors in parentheses.
For independent variables, statistical significance is based on one-tailed tests.
† pb0.10; * pb0.05; ** pb0.01.
Table 3
The relationship of leadership effectiveness to the mobilizing activities of planned organizational change implementation.
Variable (hypothesis) (1) (2) (3) (4)
Constant 3.62** 3.58** 3.66** 3.89**
(0.22) (0.22) (0.20) (0.21)
Creation of a new service 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.07
(0.13) (0.15) (0.13) (0.15)
Organization size 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)
Tenure in the current position 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03
(0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)
National or regional leadership role 0.36* 0.38* 0.39* 0.39*
(0.17) (0.16) (0.16) (0.16)
Management education −0.27* −0.25* −0.28* −0.27**
(0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12)
Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors ( H2a) 0.18 0.04
(0.14) (0.17)
Effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors ( H2b) 0.30* 0.28†
(0.15) (0.18)
R-squared 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.16
F-test 2.13† 2.27* 2.83** 2.44*
Notes: N=89; robust standard errors in parentheses.
For independent variables, statistical significance is based on one-tailed tests.
† pb0.10; * pb0.05; ** pb0.01.
430 J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
3.1. Communicating the need for planned organizational change
Table 2 reports results from analyses of the communicating activities associated with planned organizational change implementation.
The results support Hypothesis 1a, which states that leaders who are more effective at person-oriented behaviors are more likely than
other leaders to focus on the activities associated with communicating the need for change (see models 2 and 4). Hypothesis 1b, which
states that leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behaviors are less likely than other leaders to focus on the activities associated
with communicating the need for change, is not supported. The relationship between effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors and focus
on communicating activities is significant, but takes the opposite sign in model 3, and is not significant in model 4 (in fact, in robustness
checks that we report below, it was significant in model 4 as well under a different specification). Among control variables, we find a
significant and positive relationship between managers’ likelihood to focus on the activities associated with communicating the need for
change and organization size.
3.2. Mobilizing others to implement planned organizational change
Table 3 reports results from analyses of mobilizing others in support of planned organizational change. Our results support
Hypothesis 2b, which states that leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behaviors are more likely than other leaders to
431J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
focus on the activities associated with mobilizing organization members (see models 3 and 4). We did not however find support
for Hypothesis 2a, which states that leaders who are more effective at person-oriented behaviors are more likely than other
leaders to focus on the activities associated with mobilizing organization members (see models 2 and 4). These results suggest that
managers who are effective at task-oriented behaviors will put more emphasis on the mobilizing activities involved in planned
organizational change implementation, but that there are no significant differences between those who are more effective at
person-oriented behaviors and others.
Among control variables, there is a significant relationship between management education and the likelihood that managers
will focus on the activities associated with mobilizing organization members. But, contrary to our expectations, management
education is negatively related to the likelihood that managers will focus on mobilizing activities (see models 1 to 5). Finally, as
expected, we find a significant and positive relationship between the likelihood that managers will focus on the activities
associated with mobilizing organization members and the national or regional leadership role variable (see models 1 to 5).
3.3. Evaluating planned organizational change implementation
Results of our analyses of evaluating planned organizational change implementation are reported in Table 4. These results
strongly support Hypothesis 3b, which states that leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behaviors are more likely than
other leaders to focus on the activities associated with evaluating planned organizational change implementation (see models 3
and 4). Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors, although consistently taking the negative sign, as predicted, is not significant in
any of the models. Thus, there is no support for Hypothesis 3a, which states that leaders who are more effective at person-oriented
behaviors are less likely than other leaders to focus on activities associated with planned organizational change implementation
(see models 2 and 4). These results suggest that managers who are effective at task-oriented behaviors will put more emphasis on
the evaluating activities involved in planned organizational change implementation, but that there are no significant differences
between those who are more effective at person-oriented behaviors and others.
Among control variables, tenure in the current position is statistically significant in two models (see models 1 and 2) and only
borderline insignificant at the 10% level in the others (see models 3 and 4). Therefore, we can speculate that managers with longer
tenure in their positions are more likely than their counterparts to emphasize the activities associated with evaluating planned
organizational change implementation. Finally, again as expected, there is a significant and positive relationship between
managers’ likelihood to focus on the activities associated with evaluating planned organizational change implementation and the
national or regional leadership role variable (see models 1 to 4).
3.4. Robustness checks and supplementary analyses
A related question is whether leadership competencies have independent effects on change implementation or they act as
complements/substitutes. To address this inquiry, we ran supplementary analyses, including interaction terms between the two
leadership competencies for each phase. Below, we report the results of these supplementary regressions (Table 5).
The results first show that the interaction term is insignificant on communicating. Hence, it appears that effectiveness in task-
and person-oriented behaviors has independent effects on the emphasis put on the communicating activities. Second, the
interaction terms are significant on both mobilizing and evaluating, indicating that the competency in one dimension has an
Table 4
The relationship of leadership effectiveness to the evaluating activities of planned organizational change implementation.
Variable (hypothesis) (1) (2) (3) (4)
Constant 2.43** 2.41** 2.54** 2.63**
(0.32) (0.31) (0.30) (0.31)
Creation of a new service 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.03
(0.24) (0.26) (0.22) (0.23)
Organization size −0.04 −0.04 −0.06 −0.06
(0.04) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04)
Tenure in the current position 0.09* 0.09† 0.06 0.06
(0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04)
National or regional leadership role 0.88** 0.89** 0.92** 0.90**
(0.30) (0.30) (0.28) (0.28)
Management education 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.01
(0.20) (0.21) (0.19) (0.20)
Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors ( H3a) −0.14 −0.31
(0.21) (0.25)
Effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors ( H3b) 0.66** 0.86**
(0.23) (0.28)
R-squared 0.14 0.14 0.22 0.24
F-test 3.33** 3.33** 5.50** 4.72**
Notes: N=89; robust standard errors in parentheses.
For independent variables, statistical significance is based on one-tailed tests.
† pb0.10; * pb0.05; ** pb0.01.
Table 5
Interactions effects examining the emphasis on each of the three activities of planned organizational change implementation.
Variable Communicating Mobilizing Evaluating
Constant 3.67** 3.60** 2.55**
(0.16) (0.20) (0.29)
Creation of a new service 0.08 0.06 −0.05
(0.12) (0.14) (0.24)
Organization size 0.05* 0.00 −0.08†
(0.01) (0.03) (0.04)
Tenure in the current position −0.04 0.02 0.06
(0.03) (0.03) (0.04)
National or regional leadership role 0.18 0.39* 0.90**
(0.13) (0.16) (0.27)
Management education 0.01 −0.26* 0.00
(0.14) (0.12) (0.20)
Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors 0.19† 0.08 −0.25
(0.13) (0.16) (0.24)
Effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors 0.12 0.38** 1.01**
(0.15) (0.17) (0.26)
Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors×effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors 0.01 0.39* 0.55*
(0.15) (0.17) (0.33)
R-squared 0.13 0.20 0.27
F-test 2.63** 3.10** 5.93**
Notes: N=89; robust standard errors in parentheses.
For independent variables, statistical significance is based on one-tailed tests.
† pb0.10; * pb0.05; ** pb0.01.
432 J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
influence on how the other dimension is associated with the degree of emphasis put on each of these two sets of activities. Third,
both of these interaction terms (that is, on mobilizing and evaluating) are significant and positive. This is convergent with the
finding of a number of studies (e.g., Bass, 1990) suggesting that leaders who are highly skilled in both person-oriented and task-
oriented behaviors are likely to be more effective than other leaders.
A potential concern regarding the robustness of the reported results is related to the observed moderately high correlation among
our independent variables (i.e. leadership competencies) and its potential influence on model testing. Yet, some positive correlation
among dimensions of leadership is not an artifact of our data and should in fact be expected. As highlighted in a number of studies,
shared organizational, historical, and dispositional factors might affect the level and evolution of a wide range of leadership
competencies at the same time (e.g., Bartone, Snook, & Tremble, 2002; Bass, 1990; Goleman 2000; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Parker
& Ogilvie, 1996). Judge and his colleagues’ (2004) meta-analysis of the showing consideration-initiating structure model is in line with
these studies and our data. They report that the correlation between the two leadership dimensions is close to 0.50 in two of the most
widely used questionnaires (LBDQ and LBDQ-XII) in a combined sample of over 5000 observations. By means of comparison, note that
the correlation coefficient we report is 0.56 (in a sample of 89 observations). Also note that potential multi-collinearity is not a serious
concern in our empirical examination, because (1) the correlation is sizable, but not critically high (i.e., over 0.8 in absolute value;
Kennedy, 2003); (2) calculated variance inflation factors (VIFs) is less than two for all regression models, much lower than the critical
value of ten, indicating no serious multi-collinearity; and (3) hierarchically nested regressions are reported for all dependent variables,
leaving all effects visible and open to interpretation by the reader.
To further amplify our confidence in the results, we reran our regressions using ‘orthogonal’ measures of leadership
competencies. More concretely, we ran principal-component factors analysis on leadership competencies and applied orthogonal
varimax rotation on the resulting factors. Then, based on varimax rotated factors, we calculated scoring coefficients (assuming
regression scoring). We thus forced our measures to be as distinct from each other as possible within the confines of our data. In
this empirical exercise, our aim was to see whether the results were robust to this treatment. The result of this analysis shows that
‘orthogonal’ measures slightly increase model fit, but overall do not affect sign and significance of control variables. The results on
the independent variables remain unchanged (with the exception of model 4 on communicating—wherein task-oriented
competencies keeps its signs and now remains significant even when entered with person-oriented competencies).
A separate concern with our empirical analysis is related to the fact that we use managers’ declarations to measure the emphasis
they put on the different change implementation activities. Hence, potential self-report bias (i.e., tendency of respondents to respond
in socially desirable ways) is a legitimate concern. Earlier work highlights that an individual’s likelihood to give a biased answer can be
identified as a function of (i) the sensitivity of construct of interest (e.g. drug-use vs. coffee-consumption at work), (ii) situational
pressures to give socially desirable answers (e.g., risk of getting fired and social isolation), and (iii) individuals’ disposition to give
answers in any particular direction (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002; Himmelfarb & Lickteig, 1982; Moorman & Podsakoff, 1992;
Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Schwartz, 1999; Spector, 1994; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). The first two concerns (sensitivity and situational
factors) are not a problem in our study, by its very design. How much emphasis put on a given issue is hardly ‘sensitive’ and it is not
clear what the ‘socially desirable’ level is. Further mitigating these concerns is the way we administrated the phone survey: direct, one-
to-one phone interview with the manager, under strict confidentiality (which guarantees non-release of individual data to third
parties, including the members of the focal managers’ organization).
433J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
But, still, we cannot rule out individual’s disposition to give biased answers. While we do not have any solid priors to expect a
bias, we conducted further examination. In an attempt to sort out this issue within the confines of our data, we checked for the
possible influence of managers’ over-confidence. Over-confident managers are likely to experience a self enhancement bias
(Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998). As a result, they are more likely to develop a falsely positive sense of
accomplishment and thereby to give biased answers. Hence, self-report bias (if there is any) must be, at least partially, captured
by the inclusion of this variable in the regressions. To create a measure of over-confidence, we took advantage of the 360°
leadership data. We first calculated leadership scores (as unweighted averages of task- and person-oriented skills), based on
both the managers’ and others’ evaluations, and then took the difference between these two scores (i.e., self minus others’
evaluation).9 When included, this variable (over-confidence) invariably took a positive sign (indicating that over-confident
managers are potentially more likely to report more emphasis on each dimension), but its inclusion did not affect the sign and
significance of our independent variables in any model.
Finally, in supplemental regression models (not reported here) we included gender, professional background (i.e.,
physicians, nurses or allied health professionals) and hierarchical position in the organization as additional control variables.
These variables (both when added separately and together) were not significant in any model, nor did they affect the sign or
significance of any variables of interest. Further, we checked for alternative measures of organization size (large vs. small
organization dummy), tenure (tenure in management position and tenure in the organization), and educational background
(highest management degree achieved). It thus appears that our results are not an artifact of the way we measured the variables
in our study.
4. Discussion and conclusion
In this paper, we examined the relationship between two managers’ leadership competencies and the likelihood that they
would focus on three main activities associated with implementing planned organizational change. Supporting our expectations,
the results suggest significant, yet different, relationships between effectiveness at task-oriented and person-oriented leadership
behaviors and the three change implementation activities of communicating, mobilizing, and evaluating.
4.1. Relationship between leadership competencies and change implementation activities
This study yields two important findings of note, (1) leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behaviors are more likely
to focus on both the mobilizing and evaluating activities associated with planned organizational change implementation (than
other leaders), and (2) leaders who are more effective at person-oriented behaviors are more likely to focus on the communicating
activities of planned organizational change implementation (than other leaders).
Regarding the communicating activities of planned organizational change implementation, our theory posited that managers
whose leadership strengths emphasize person-oriented behaviors would place more emphasis on communicating the need for
organizational change, whereas leaders whose strengths lay in task-oriented behaviors would place less emphasis on this
implementation activity than other leaders. Although our analyses provided empirical support for our hypothesis regarding person-
oriented leadership, we found no support for our hypothesis regarding task-oriented leadership. The results even offered partial
support for the opposite prediction according to which task-oriented leaders would emphasize communicating activities. One
explanation for this finding might relate to the notion that leaders who are effective at task-oriented behaviors are aware that they
need to share their visions with others, keep members’ attention on goals, and guide them through the implementation of new
organizational designs (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Thus, leaders who are effective at task-oriented behaviors might need to
interact with peers and followers to initiate an intended new structure. Furthermore, we found that managers implementing projects
in large organizations were more likely to emphasize the communicating activities associated with planned organizational change
projects. This supported our expectation that larger organizations might both have more standard operating procedures and resources
devoted to change programs (Huber et al., 1993) and be more resistant to change (e.g., Blau & Schoenherr, 1971; Child, 2005; Hannan
& Freeman, 1984; Kimberly, 1976).
As expected, task-oriented leaders were found to emphasize the mobilizing activities that are associated with the implementation
process for planned organizational change. Surprisingly, person-oriented leaders were not found to do so. This finding might be due to
the fact that mobilizing is first and foremost a political process that entails building a coalition to support the change project (Kotter,
1985, 1995). Such a coalition must include the different groups of organizational stakeholders, who are involved in and/or affected by
the change project, not only the ones who belong to the change agent’s team. Although person-oriented leaders are good at inspiring
and mobilizing the members of their own teams, task-oriented leaders are able to mobilize both their team members and other
stakeholders by redesigning organizational processes and systems according to the change. Furthermore, the finding that leaders in
our sample with advanced management education unexpectedly placed less emphasis on the mobilizing tasks of change
implementation provides some support for growing concern over the limitations of advanced management education and its impact
on managers’ effectiveness in organizational settings (Boyatzis, Stubbs, & Taylor, 2002; Mintzberg, 2004; Porter & McKibbin, 1988;
Shipper, 1999).
9 Based on this measure, we also created a dummy variable which is equal to one if the difference is more than one standard deviation, and zero otherwise.
This is a more crude but also more strict measure of over-confidence. Results were insensitive to use of one measure or another.
434 J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
With respect to the evaluating activities of planned organizational change implementation, our results support our predictions
that leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behaviors focus more than other leaders on this set of activities. Because of
their attention to structure as well as performance objectives (Bass, 1990), task-oriented leaders are more likely to consider
evaluation to be necessary to the analysis of achievements. Leaders who were more effective at person-oriented behaviors placed
neither more nor less emphasis than other leaders on evaluation.
Finally, as expected, there is a positive and significant relationship between managers’ likelihood to focus on both the mobilizing
and evaluating activities associated with planned organizational change implementation and the national or regional leadership role
variable. This is a consequence of these managers being aware of the challenges of implementing change in the NHS and able to
leverage all available resources both within and outside their organizations to implement change.
4.2. Contributions
This study contributes to the leadership literature by providing empirical evidence of the role of different leadership competencies
in different activities involved in planned organizational change implementation. Our findings show that leadership competencies
might differentially influence emphasis on the three key activities involved in planned organizational change, suggesting that when
dealing with the role of leadership in change implementation, change should be considered as a complex multi-dimensional task
composed of different activities.
This study also makes two main contributions to the organizational change literature. First, it develops understanding of the
process of change (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001) by identifying some new correlates (namely, leadership competencies) of
key activities for implementing planned organizational change. By showing different activities to have different correlates in terms of
leadership competencies, our results support the notion of organizational change as a complex, dynamic process (Armenakis &
Bedeian, 1999; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).
Second, this study contributes to the stream of research about organizational change by linking the work of organizational
theorists and more practice-oriented scholars. The field of research about change has been hampered by the schism between
theory and practice (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Durand, 2006; Woodman, 1989), and although many (e.g., Beer & Eisenstat, 1996;
Pettigrew et al., 2001; Woodman, 1989, 1993) have called for studies to try to resolve this dichotomy, organizational theorists and
practice-oriented scholars have continued to work in rather isolated worlds, examining different aspects of organizational change.
Organizational theorists have shown that achieving organization-level change cannot be reduced to a linear process (e.g., Amis,
Slack, & Hinings, 2004; Ferlie, Fitzgerald, Wood, & Hawkins, 2005; Hinings & Greenwood, 1988; Kanter, 1984; Pettigrew, Ferlie, &
McKee, 1992). It is rather a complex and, at times, chaotic process of delays and oscillations that often yields unintended outcomes
(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). On the other hand, practice-oriented scholars (e.g., Galpin, 1996; Judson,
1991; Kotter, 1995; Lewin, 1947; Rogers, 1962) have developed normative process models to guide managers’ implementation
efforts and reduce the uncertainty of the change process.
In this study, although we used normative process models of change as a foundation for our empirical work, we relied on the
work of organizational theorists to challenge two of the fundamental assumptions of those models, namely, the linearity of the
process of change, and managers’ ability to engage in the different activities involved in the implementation of change. Instead of
assuming a linear process and focusing on phases of planned organizational change implementation, we focused on different
activities associated with the process of planned organizational change implementation. We then examined whether managers’
leadership competencies influenced the likelihood that they would emphasize each of these activities. Some practice-oriented
scholars (e.g., Beer & Eisenstat, 1996) have acknowledged that one limitation of normative process models of change is that they
do not consider whether managers possess the skills needed to engage in the activities involved in planned organizational change
implementation. Our study addresses this limitation.
4.3. Limitations and future research
Severallimitations ofthis study deserveelaboration and pointto future research directions. First and foremost, ouranalysis mustbe
considered exploratory given the small, non-random sample of managers in the NHS. This poses challenges to the generalizability of
our results. Our setting, the NHS, is a large, public sector organization that was undergoing massive changes during our study period.
Although this makes the NHS an ideal setting for our study, it also raises question about the generalizability of our results to other
contexts (e.g., the private sector or more stable industries).
Nor can we fully discount the possibility of sampling bias, since our study group consisted of self-selected individuals who
applied, and were then selected for, advanced leadership executive training. One might also ask whether the findings obtained for
mostly middle managers in our study would be equally likely for managers at other levels of organizations. To address these
concerns will require comparisons across contexts and probabilistic samples that will enable researchers to better account for the
potential interactive effects of leadership skills and contextual factors on the way leaders manage the key activities associated with
planned organizational change implementation.
Another limitation is that we treat managers’ leadership behaviors as fixed during our study. Although our analysis treated
leadership behavior as the major independent variable, it must be acknowledged that leaders themselves (especially effective
ones) adapt and change in response to the requirements of a given implementation activity. Leaders might have unobserved
attributes that predispose them to exhibit particular leadership characteristics, and influence which of the activities of planned
organizational change implementation they choose to emphasize. To the extent that this occurs, our results would not reflect the
435J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
true causal effect of leadership characteristics on attention to specific activities. Dealing with such endogeneity issues in cross-
sectional studies is always challenging. These concerns are mitigated in this study by the fact that our leadership data were
collected prior to the change projects and using a different instrument. The fact that leadership data were collected prior to the
executive education program does not, however, enable us to control for the possible influence of this experience on participants’
leadership competencies. Further work, either with instrumental variables or with alternative study designs that approach
endogeneity in other ways (e.g., analysis of changes over time), could help clarify these issues.
While the choice of both the leadership and change models used in this study was justified by theoretical considerations that we
detailed early on in the paper, it might be interesting to replicate this study using different leadership and/or change models. On
leadership competencies, it would also be interesting to examine the relationship between other leadership competencies and change
agents’ likelihood to emphasize different activities involved in the planned organizational change implementation process. In
particular, it would be interesting to explore the influence of transformational leadership—including individualized consideration,
intellectual stimulation, idealized influence and inspirational motivation (Bass & Avolio, 1990)—and/or charismatic leadership, which
have already been shown to influence change initiatives in general and the communicating activities involved in the change process in
particular (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). A number of measurement instruments, such as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
(Bass & Avolio, 1990; Howell & Avolio, 1993), could be used to do so.10 Similarly, although the choice of the communicating–
mobilizing–evaluating model was based on a careful literature review, we recognize that it does not do complete justice to the
complexity of thechange process that involves a multitude of activities. In future research, it might be interestingtouse change models
comprising more than three sets of activities (e.g., Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Kotter, 1995) and to analyze the relationship
between leadership competencies and these different sets of activities.
Separately, it would be interesting to know more about the strategies leaders with different leadership competencies use to
execute each of the key implementation activities. Now that we know more about the relationship between individuals’ leadership
competencies and the likelihood that they will emphasize particular activities associated with planned organizational change
implementation, we might inquire into the relationship between the degree of emphasis change agents accord the different
change implementation activities and the outcome of the change process. The normative process models of change (Galpin, 1996;
Judson, 1991; Kotter, 1995; Lewin, 1947; Rogers, 1962) are based on the assumption that leaders must get involved in all the
change implementation activities to successfully implement change, and that efforts to bypass some of them are detrimental to the
progress of change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). This assumption needs to be questioned. Do leaders need to emphasize all
change implementation activities to successfully implement change? Are the leaders who do so the most successful? Answers to
these questions are likely to vary depending on the type of change being considered and the type of organization in which change
is implemented. There is thus a need for studies examining the influence of emphasis on change activities on project
implementation success and the extent to which such emphasis mediates the link between leadership competencies and the
project implementation success.
We would like to also note that our definition (“measures leaders employ to monitor andassess theimpact of implementation effort
andinstitutionalizechange”) andoperationalization of evaluatingfocused on formalsystemsof measurement. While most studies (e.g.,
Burke & Litwin, 1992; Ford & Greer, 2005; Galpin, 1996; Kotter, 1995; Simons, 1995) that examine the evaluating activities involved in
change implementation emphasize formal feedback systems (corresponding to formal systems of measurement), evaluating might
also involve less formal forms of evaluation—such as one-on-one discussions with employees (Tichy, 1983; Zand & Sorensen, 1975).
Future research should explore the influence that different leadership competencies have on both types of evaluating activities (formal
as well as more informal ones).
Finally, our finding that their mix of leadership competencies might influence the amount of emphasis leaders put on each of
the three key activities associated with the implementation of planned organizational change might have important managerial
implications, which require further investigation. First, one can speculate that, in certain situations, using a team-based approach
that takes account of managers’ competencies related to leading change efforts might be a good strategy. In particular, in the
absence of leaders who are effective at both task-oriented and person-oriented behaviors, employing multiple change leaders with
complementary competencies might be an effective way to ensure that all aspects of the implementation process are addressed.
Managers might be chosen, for example, based on the appropriateness of their competencies to the particular activities of the
planned change implementation in which the organization is involved or that require the most attention. Different types of change
projects or different change environments might require that one activity be emphasized over another. Using a team-based
approach to bring complementary competencies to bear on leading change efforts might inform discussion about how leaders can
divide tasks and share roles in leading change in organizations more generally (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004, 2006; Denis, Lamothe, &
Langley, 2001; Gronn, 1999, 2002; House & Aditya, 1997; Miles & Watkins, 2007). Such team-based approach might, however, be
complicated to implement not only because of the challenges associated with team leadership (Gronn, 2002; Roberts & Stiles,
1999) but also because of the non-linear nature of the change process. Alternatively, organizations might anticipate and
adequately design other support interventions to compensate for a change leader’s potential under-emphasis or over-emphasis of
some change implementation activities. For example, specific leadership development programs such as in-house and outsourced
10 In parallel, cross-validation of the results with alternative survey instruments will be informative. Although the GLII (Kets de Vries, 2002) was an appropriate
tool to use to capture effectiveness at task-oriented and person-oriented behavior, it would be interesting to test our model using other established measurement
instruments such as the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII (LBDQ-XII), or the Leader
Opinion Questionnaire (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 2004) to measure effectiveness at task-oriented and person-oriented behaviors.
436 J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
educational programs, rotation systems, and training initiatives might be used to increase managers’ awareness of the importance
of activities they might be disposed to under- or over-emphasize.
To conclude, this study explores the relationship between leadership competencies and the way leaders manage the different
activities of planned organizational change implementation. Our finding that their mix of leadership competencies might lead
managers to differentially emphasize the key activities of planned organizational change implementation fuels growing
appreciation that organizational change is a nuanced and highly differentiated process. An important question, of course, is what
are the consequences of attending selectively to the three key activities of planned organizational change implementation? Is it
suggested, for example, that the change will not be fully institutionalized, that the process will be more protracted, or that
outcomes will be other than the intended outcomes? All of these questions merit further exploration.
Acknowledgments
We are especially grateful to Mike Beer, Tom D’Aunno, Herminia Ibarra, Nitin Nohria, Scott Snook and Mike Tushman who read
and gave feedback on different versions of this manuscript. For excellent assistance in assembling data, we thank Peter Bracken
and Tal Levy. We are grateful to the INSEAD Healthcare Management Initiative for financial support of this research.
References
Amis, J., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2004). The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 15−39.
Armenakis, A., & Bedeian, A. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293−315.
Atwater, L., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Self-other agreement, does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577−598.
Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998). 360-degree feedback and leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 423−427.
Bales, R. F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 437−477).,
3rd ed New York: Hot, Rinehart & Winston.
Bartone, P. T., Snook, S. A., & Tremble, T. R. (2002). Cognitive and personality predictors of leader performance in West Point cadets. Military Psychology, 14, 321−338.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9−32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1977). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Beer, M., & Eisenstat, R. A. (1996). Developing an organization capable of implementing strategy and learning. Human Relations, 49(5), 597−619.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Berson, Y., & Avolio, B. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunication firm. Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 625−646.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Blau, P. M., & Shoenherr, R. (1971). The structure of organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism
about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733−753.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. (2005). Visualizing and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43(5), 649−660.
Boyatzis, R., Stubbs, E., & Taylor, S. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence competencies. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2), 150−162.
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523−545.
Casimir, G. (2001). Combinative aspects of leadership style. The ordering and temporal spacing of leadership behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 245−278.
Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group
processes (pp. 376−399). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Child, J. (2005). Organization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857−880.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211−216.
Denis, J. -L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(4), 809−837.
Department of Health (1997). The new NHS — Modern, dependable. London: HMSO.
Department of Health. (1999). Agenda for change: Modernizing the NHS pay system—Joint framework of principles and agreed statement on the way forward. Crown
Copyright.
Department of Health. (2006). About the NHS. Available at: www.nhs.uk/England/aboutTheNHS. Accessed 1 November 2006.
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245−262.
Durand, R. (2006). Organizational evolution and strategic management. London: Sage publications.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles and contexts of environmental leaders and their
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571−604.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2),
80−88.
Ferlie, E., & Shortell, S. M. (2001). Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: A framework for change. The Milbank
Quarterly, 79(2), 281−315.
Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. (2005). The non spread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1),
117−134.
Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 449−482.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.
Ford, M., & Greer, B. (2005). The relationship between management control system usage and planned change achievement: An exploratory study. Journal of
Change Management, 5(1), 29−46.
Galpin, T. (1996). The human side of change: A practical guide to organization redesign. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gerstner, C., & Day, D. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6),
827−844.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
437J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results.Harvard Business Review, 78−90 March–April.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years —
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219−247.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of
Management Review, 21(4), 1022−1054.
Gronn, P. (1999). Substituting for leadership: The neglected role of the leadership couple. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 41−62.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423−451.
Hambrick, D. C., & Fukutomi, G. S. (1991). The seasons of a CEO’s tenure. Academy of Management Review, 16, 719−742.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149−164.
Harrison, S., & Wood, B. (1999). Designing health service organization in the UK 1968–1998: From blueprint to bright idea and ‘manipulated emergence’. Public
Administration, 77(4), 751−768.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2000). Building change leadership capability: ‘The quest for change competence’. Journal of Change Management, 1(2), 116−130.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 121−151.
Himmelfarb, S., & Lickteig, C. (1982). Social desirability and the randomized response technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 710−717.
Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. (1988). The dynamics of strategic change. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493−504.
House, R., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409−473.
House, R., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 341−423.
House, R., Spangler, W., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the US presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36(3), 364−396.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, loss of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of
consolidated business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891−902.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317−341.
Huber, P., Sutcliffe, K., Miller, C. C., Glick, W. H., Huber, P., Sutcliffe, K., Miller, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1993). Understanding and predicting organizational change. In P.
Huber, W. H. Glick, P. Huber, & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 215−265). Oxford University Press.
Huy, Q. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325−345.
Huy, Q. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31−69.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530−541.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 36−51.
Judson, A. (1991). Changing behaviors in organizations: Minimizing change resistance. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. (1984). Managing transitions in organizational culture: The case of participative management at Honeywell. In J. R. Kimberly, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Managing organizational transitions (pp. 195−217). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Kanter, R., Stein, B., & Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
Kark, R., & van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management
Review, 32(2), 500−528.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project
team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202−210.
Kennedy, P. (2003). A guide to econometrics, 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kets de Vries, M. (2002). Global Leadership Life inventory : Interpreting the Twelve Dimensions of Global Leadership. INSEAD publication.
Kets de Vries, M., Vrignaud, P., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2004). The Global Leadership Life Inventory: Development and psychometric properties of a 360-degree
feedback instrument. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(3), 475−492.
Kimberly, J. R. (1976). Organizational size and the structuralist perspective: A review, critique and proposal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 571−597.
Kotter, J. (1985). Power and influence. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59−67.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 671−679.
Larsson, R. (1993). Case survey methodology: Quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1515−1546.
Levy, P., & Williams, J. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881−905.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5−41.
Lippit, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. New York: Harcourt Bruce.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miles, S. A., & Watkins, M. D. (2007). The leadership team: Complementary strengths or conflicting agendas? Harvard Business Review, 85, 90−98.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Misumi, J. (1985). The behavioral science of leadership. An interdisciplinary Japanese research program. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in
organizational behavior research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 131−149.
Nadler, D. A. (1982). Managing transitions to uncertain future states. Organizational Dynamics, 11, 37−45.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1989). Organizational frame bending: Principles for managing reorientation. Academy of Management Executive, 3, 194−204.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77−97.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1999). The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics,
28(1), 45−60.
Nunnally, J. M. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Olson, D. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1988). Organizational restructuring: The impact of role perceptions, work relationships and satisfaction. Group and Organization
Studies, 13(3), 374−389.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680−693.
Parker, P. S., & Ogilvie, D. T. (1996). Gender, culture, and leadership: Toward a culturally distinct model of African-American women executives’ leadership
strategies. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 189−214.
Peckham, S., & Exworthy, M. (2003). Primary care in the UK: Policy, organization and management. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Pettigrew, A. M., Ferlie, E., & McKee, L. (1992). Shaping strategic change: Making change in large organizations — The case of the National Health Service. London: Sage.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R., & Cameron, K. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(4), 697−713.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531−544.
Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roberts, J., & Stiles, P. (1999). The relationships between chairmen and chief executives: Competitive or complementary roles? Long Range Planning., 32(1), 36−48.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185−211.
Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93−105.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693−704.
438 J. Battilana et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 422–438
Shipper, F. (1999). Comparison of managerial skills of middle managers with MBAs, other master’s degrees and bachelor’s degrees ten years after the Porter and
McKibbins report. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(1/2), 150−164.
Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15,
385−392.
Stodgill, R., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio University, Bureau of Business Research.
Struckman, C. K., & Yammarino, F. J. (2003). Managing through multiple change activities: A solution to the enigma of the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3),
234−246.
Tichy, N. M. (1983). Managing strategic change. New York: Wiley.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformation leader. New York: John Wiley.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. (1997a). Managerial problem solving: A congruence approach. In M. L. Tushman, & P. Anderson (Eds.), Managing strategic innovation
and change: A collection of readings (pp. 194−205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. (1997b). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L., & Poole, M. (1989). Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies. Oxford University Press.
Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 510−540.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243−295.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222−240.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15(3),
355−380.
Williams, R. L. (2000). A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics, 56, 645−646.
Woodman, R. W. (1989). Organizational change and development: New arenas for inquiry and action. Journal of Management, 15(2), 205−228.
Woodman, R. W. (1993). Observations on the field of organizational change and development from the lunatic fringe. Organizational Development Journal, 11(2),
71−75.
Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285−305.
Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zand, D. E., & Sorensen, R. E. (1975). Theory of change and the effective use of management science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(4), 532−545.
Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250−254.
Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change
Effective leadership and the enactment of planned organizational change
Communicating the need for organizational change
Mobilizing others to accept change
Evaluating change project implementation
Data and methods
Setting: The United Kingdom National Health Service
Data collection and sample
Dependent variables: Emphasis on change implementation activities
Communicating
Mobilizing
Evaluating
Independent variables: Leadership effectiveness
Effectiveness at person-oriented behaviors
Effectiveness at task-oriented behaviors
Control variables
Project type
Organization size
Career-specific characteristics
Estimation
Results
Communicating the need for planned organizational change
Mobilizing others to implement planned organizational change
Evaluating planned organizational change implementation
Robustness checks and supplementary analyses
Discussion and conclusion
Relationship between leadership competencies and change implementation activities
Contributions
Limitations and future research
Acknowledgments
References
Week 4 Assignment Resources/Managing Organizational Culture Change
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 43
Why is it not Possible to Produce a Blue Print for Managing
Organizational Culture Change?
Ahmed Rizwan
1
Khawaja Fawad Latif
2
Abstract
The aim of the literature review is to highlight that there is
no universal blueprint for change. The research analyses
different change models like the one’s formulated by Lewin
and Kotter. The study attempts to critically analyse the
models and their applications. The research concludes that
there is no single model for mange change which can
possibly offer a “one permanent solution” to
organizational change.
Key Words: Change, Best Practice for Change, Change
Management
1
Ahmed Rizwan, MA (HRM), University of Westminster, London
2
Khawaja Fawad Latif, Lecturer, Abasyn University, Peshawar.
“Change is disturbing when it is done to us, exhilarating when it is
done by us” (Kanter, 1983).
It has been argued that successful management of change is
somewhat critical for any organization in order to survive in the
present highly aggressive and persistently evolving business
environment. The paper provides an overview of literature review
surrounding the idea of culture change and management, whereas
the purpose of this paper, is therefore to give a critical review of
some of the culture change models along with some practical
examples which verifies the applicability of both models, finally
the idea of one best way to manage change is also critically
analysed in the light of models discussed.
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 44
Rapid changes in technology, markets and the world’s
economy has forced organizations to change radically in terms of
not only what they do but how they do it (Furnham, 2005) in order
to have an effective cultural change in an organization, each
individual must think, feel or do something different, where as
managing change is recognized as one of the most difficult
challenge faced by all the organizations (Carnall, 2007), whenever
we are talking about culture change management we are talking
about moving away from the present state towards the future state,
in today’s business world managers are facing highly dynamic and
ever more complicated operating environment (Paton,2000),
whereas research shows that organizations are undergoing major
change once every three year (CIPD,2007).
From different academics and practitioners point of view
it’s argued that different organizations preferred different
approaches to manage change which nurture from their own
existing culture and thus cannot be replaced rather
straightforwardly (Burnes,2004) although change is a intelligible
attribute of the organizational landscape (Huczynski, 2007), but it
does not appears to be any easier to put into practice, and most of
the time it fails because of resistance, built in inertia in individuals
that actually upset the process of learning and change (Starbuck &
Hedberg, 1977), which leads towards loose of market share, loose
of integrity on the part of line managers, and possibly employee
opposition to future change effort (CIPD, 2007), For change to be
successful its rather essential to determine how people ready in the
organization are to acknowledge, and implement the change or in
other words what is the degree of readiness “a predisposition to
welcome” the change is existed among people, in order to
completely comprehend the idea of readiness (Beckhard and Harris
,1987 cited in Burke) developed a change formula which is as
follows:
C = (ABD) > X
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 45
It’s one of the possible way to capture the process of
change, and identifying the factors that need to be strongly in place
for change to happened, where (C) is change, (A) is level of
dissatisfaction with the status quo, (B) is desired state, (D) is
practical first step towards the desired state, whereas (X) is the cost
of change, the idea that all these factors (A), (B) and (C) must
outweigh the perceived costs (X) for the change to occur, let say if
an individual whose commitment is needed is not sufficiently
dissatisfied with the present state of affair (A), he most probably
eager to achieve the proposed end state (B) and perhaps convinced
with the feasibility of change (D) which means that the cost (X) of
changing is too high and the person will resist the change, and I
think there could be two possible reasons to resist first is due to
“Parochial self-interest” in which mangers did not managed to
anticipate change because they consider change from a resource
allocation perceptive and think that it affect them in person (Pugh,
1993) and additionally they also viewed culture change as
intimidation to power which is one of the most significant source
of resistance to change (Zaltman and Duncan, 1997) and second is
“Misunderstanding and lack of trust” which is also a relatively
common source of resistance, it occur when trust is lacking
between the managers.
It’s argued that if employees did not trust their change
managers/agents it’s very much likely that they can resist any
change they propose (Lines et al, 2005). This change formula is
relatively simple but tremendously accommodating, it can brought
in to action at any point in a change process to analyse how things
are going and I think if this formula is shared with all people
involved in the change process, it facilitates in revealing what
various parties need to do make progress. (Burke, 2008).
In change management there are substantial disagreement
regarding the most suitable approach to manage change in order to
understand the idea of effective change management there is a
strong need to recognize different approaches to change
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 46
management such as planned and emergent, planned change views
organizational change as a procedure that actually moves from one
stage to another through a series of planned stages (Bamford,
2003) which means that its possibly designed for centralized
organizations operating in a knowable environment, whereas
(Lewis,2000) argued that planned change also depends on the idea
of communicating it successfully before fundamentally
implementing it, so it’s not rather applicable to those organization
where the focus is short term and no emphasis on communication,
I think in order to overcome this issue change agent who acts as a
superhuman (Kenter, 1983) would play a phenomenal role, and it’s
their job to bring together people towards healthier future
(Buckingham, 2005), when leadership abilities of a line manager
are called in question (Dyer,1985 cited in Brown), they should
develop an awareness by (energizing) and also by preparing the
ground for getting the unfreezing done through various culture
change management initiatives (Carnall, 2007).
Although the planned approach to change is a premeditated
process and a product of mindful reasoning (Mintzberg, 1989) but
still there are issue in terms of appropriateness of this approach
within the business environment that is more and more uncertain
(Dawson, 2003), however planned approach to change is about
setting objective in advance (Wilson,1992) but in today’s world of
fundamental change its argued that dimensional change
interventions are probably focused on short term results which
leads towards increased instability rather than reducing it (Genus,
1998). The idea that Planned change is originated from the work of
(Lewin, 1947) who recommended a way of looking at the overall
process by improving the effectiveness of the human side of the
organization in terms of focusing on performance of individuals
and groups (Coram, 2001). He also suggests a methodology for
analysing change which is called a field force analysis (Armstrong,
2006). The rationale behind his model is that before any new
behaviour can be adopted in actual fact, the old one has to be
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 47
abolished, only than the new behaviour is fully accepted
(McWhinney, 1992).
He argued that organizational change have three steps, the
first step involves unfreezing the present state of affairs which
means defining the current state and this step can take many forms
and needs to be personalized as much as possible to a specific
situation (Allport,1945), whereas the second stage is about moving
to a new state through participation and involvement, this step
move towards the new desired level of behaviour for instance
training managers to behave differently towards their subordinates
in order to improve customer services, however the third step
emphasized on refreezing and stabilizing the new state of affairs by
rewarding success and establishing new standards (Lawler, 1977).
The model is criticized by many Organizational
Development Consultants where they argue that Lewin’s model is
certainly used by managers but as a planning tool rather than an
organizational development, OD process (Burnes,2004), some say
that the unfreeze become a planning phase , the move turn in to
implementation phase, whereas refreeze is a post implementation
review (Cameron, 2004). For instance if a group of individuals
began to analyse the need to totally alter their recruitment process,
or the way they conduct the performance appraisals, than the
consultant would tried to work with the group to surface the issues,
move to the desired new state and finally reinforce that new state
amicably.
One of the biggest assumption of Lewin’s model is that
organizations operates in unwavering conditions and can move
from one state to another in a planned manner (Burnes,2004)
which is quite not true in case of XYZ construction (case study in
Burnes,2004) although the change was initiated from the top
management and it can be translated as emergent and in some
respect innovative but when it comes to structural change it was
conducted in rather planned manner which presumably illustrate
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 48
that organizations tends to use a combination of approaches
towards change depending on what is to be changed and the
circumstances of the organization at that time in moment
(Burnes,2004). Although the underlying assumption in Lewin’s
model had attracted much criticism but, some argued that if you
analysed the three step model it’s rather simple in its nature and if
you scrutinize alongside with the other basic ground rules of Lewin
planned approach, it becomes a relatively more influential
approach to manage change (Burnes and Salauroo, 1995).
Lewin’s model is also criticized by its emphasis on
incremental and inaccessible change due to its incapacity to
integrate transformational change (Dawson, 2003), it’s relatively
significant to recognize the fact that Lewin model is much more
focused on behavioural change among individual, groups and at
organizational levels however, Lewin’s model probably be
suitable in some respect as illustrated in the case of “XYZ
construction” but, presumably much less applicable to more
fundamental change that many organizations have undergone in
present times (Brown,1998). The idea that Lewin model by no
means saw planned change as being applicable to all change
situations and I think it was certainly by no means meant to be
deployed in a situation where immediate change is perhaps
required (Burnes, 2004).
So, therefore organizations need to be persistently
scrutinize their environment in order to respond in a appropriate
manner because it’s a continuous and open process, whereas the
idea of planned approach towards change is extremely unsuitable,
however there is a need for rapid response towards external
environment as well. The analysis of different criticisms levels
made by academics and practitioners are analysed with regards to
organizational culture and change management and in response to
these a relatively new organizational change approach called an
emergent has gained a supremacy in the last few years with an
emphasis on the idea of unpredictable nature of change, it actually
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 49
views the process of change that unfolds through the interplay of
different variables in the organization (Burnes, 2004) which means
that it’s a process in which a series of individual and collective
activities unfold over the period of time (Pettigrew,2001).
One of the basic assumptions of this approach is that all the
organizations operate in a vibrant environment are actually
requiring continues transformation (Coram, 2001) and its rather
true in case of speedy stationers (case study in Burnes, 2004)
where the actual accomplishment of partnership approach requires
by not involving only those who work for “Speedy Stationers” but
also involve employees who work for “UTL” as well, however the
development of strategy itself is a kind of partnership with “UTL”
for further expansion which constitutes an open ended process,
although the initial execution for change was given careful
consideration but change tends to be more reactive, and for that
reason the whole process of change is treated as emergent in nature
(Burnes, 2004).
The emergent approach stresses on widespread and in depth
understanding of strategy, structure and culture and how these can
function either as source of resistance or as a source of
encouragement for change management process (Dunphy & Stace,
1993). It’s a rather new conception as compared to planned change
as many critics favoured this approach by saying that it’s the
uncertainty of the peripheral environment that make planned
change unsuitable and the emergent change more applicable but,
(Bamford,2003) still I think it lacks consistency in some respect.
As most models of change management prescribe a linear
approach to manage change which means that following a series of
step in a specific order and many critics argued that they lack
flexibility to deal with a range of issues that may be experienced
during the change process but as far as the emergent change is
concerned Kotter (1996) model is one that focuses on the logical
sequence of actions with much wider application in terms of
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 50
managing culture change and management (Sidorko, 2008). He got
eight steps in his model each one of these concerns about
successful management of change initiatives in an organization and
a part from that all the prescribed steps can generally be translated
in to three different phases such as preparation, action and most
importantly grounding (Dawson, 2003).
The Kotter’s model is one that appeals to many line
managers and also somewhat helpful for orienting change
management actively (Cameron, 2004), However, from a
leadership point of view the model has a phenomenal role to play
in terms of facilitating organizational change management by
considering three things creating vision, communication and team
building (Pieters & Young, 2000), but still there are some concerns
about the model itself, the model is criticized by many academics
in terms of is applicability in different situations (Collins, 1998
cited in Huczynski) some, argue that the model is more focused on
a repeated process for change or in other words its portrayed as a
loop of intentional change (Pfeifer at al., 2005). A part from that
Kotter’s model also does not provide enough evidence on the
techniques for evaluating the success of the change which is
relatively significant in cultural change (Sidorko, 2008).
The model is also being criticized as viewpoint in some
ways as argued by (Coram,2001), however the eight steps do not
really emphasize the need for the line managers to actually follow
through with as much energy on last two steps as was essential at
the start (Cameron, 2004) , there are also some concerns with
regards to managerial competencies required to fully implement
the change process, as (Carnall, 2007) argues that there needs to be
four main managerial competencies if line managers used Kotter’s
model for bringing change they are decision making, coalition
building, achieving actions and most importantly maintaining trust,
if they don’t have these attributes then I think there is less
probability that they can entirely accomplished the desired culture
change in the organization.
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 51
Conclusion
Change is a persistent influence, it is an inescapable part of
both social and organizational life and we all are subject to
continual change of one form or another (Mullins, 2007). One of
the difficulties many academics and practitioner have with the
change management literature is that it’s exceptionally pragmatic
(Carnall, 2007). It also lacks theoretical in depth and depicted
those steps which in real world are not quite applicable.
The idea that there is no universal (rule of thumb) when it
comes to managing culture and change, several critics tried to
examine the planned approach (Lewin’s Model) and emergent
approach (Kotter’s Model) and, argued that they focused on
different aspects of organizational culture change management and
are applicable in relatively different situations. For instance
Lewin’s model is predominantly aimed at improving team
performance and much suitable for stable and predictable
environments, whereas Kotter’s model tends to focuses on the idea
of organizational transformation through constant change and
presumably much more appropriate for lively environments which
means that although these two models have some advantage and
disadvantage, but one thing is sure that these two are
fundamentally situational approaches to manage cultural change.
It’s also viewed that the models are not reasonably effective in
terms of their application (Collins, 1998) because of three probable
reasons first, they offered oversimplifies presumptions, where they
do not consider the distinct situation of an organization, secondly
they didn’t manage to capture the ever changing nature of culture
change management and finally, they also didn’t encourage a
critical perceptive with regards to what is being changed, “the end
result” (Huczynski, 2007).
From the findings one can conclude that there is no single
model for mange change which can possibly offer a “one
permanent solution” to organizational change, whereas (Sidorko,
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 52
2008) also supported the argument by saying that “there is no such
thing as a one best way to manage change” but, having said that
still I think managing change is not about line managers
embracing the idea of “best practice” approach, neither it’s about
opting for an approach which presumably match their situation but
it’s about two things first, it’s the managerial ability to implement
different approach suitably in order to have a best possible match
with the culture of the organization and secondly, it’s about the
choice in terms of change, situation in which the change takes
place and most significantly the choice of most appropriate
approach/model adopted for managing cultural change (Burnes,
2004).
References
Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource
management practice (10th ed.). USA: Kogan Page
Limited.
Allport, G. (1945). The nature` of prejudice. Cambridge MA:
Addison Wesley.
Buckingham, M. (2005). The one thing you need to know: About
great managing, great leading, and sustained individual
success. New York: Free Press.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transition:
Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Bamford, D., & Forrester, P. (2003). Flying by the seat of our
pants: Organizational change within an operations
management environment. Paper presented at the 4th
International Conference on Managing Innovative
Manufacturing, Bradford.
Burnes, B., & Salauro, M. (1995). The impact of NHS internal
market on the merger of colleges of midwifery and nursing:
not just a case of putting the cart before the horse. Journal
of management in Medicine, 9(2), 14-29.
Brown, A. (1998). Organizational Culture (2nd ed.). Essex:
Pearson Education Limited.
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 53
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to
change: A reappraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41
(6), 977-1002
Burke, W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd
ed.). London: Sage Publication.
Cameron. E & Green. M (2004). , “Making Sense of Change
Management “: A complete guide to the models, tools &
techniques of organizational change (1
st
Edition), Kogan
Page Limited, USA
Carnall, C. (2007). Managing Change in Organizations (5th Ed.).
UK: Prentice Hall International.
Collins, D. (1998). Organizational Change: Sociological
perspectives. London: Routledge.
Coram, R., & Burnes, B. (2001). Managing organizational change
in the public sector: Lessons from the privatization of the
property service agency. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 14(2), 94-110.
Dunphy, D., & Stace, D. (1993). The strategic management of
corporate change. Human Relations, 46(08), 905-918.
Dawson, P. (2003). Understanding organizational change: The
contemporary experience of people at work (1st ed.).
London: Sage Publication.
Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of behaviour at work: The
individual in the organization (2nd ed.). East Essex:
Psychology Press.
Genus, A. (1998). The management of change: Perspectives and
practice. London: Thompson International.
Huczynski, A., & Buchanan, A. (2007). Organizational behaviour
(6th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education limited.
Kanter, R (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change (1st ed.). Harvard Business
Press.
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 54
Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S. (2005). The
production of trust during organizational change. Journal of
Change Management, 5(2), 221-245.
Lawler, E. (1977). Reward system. In J. Rhackman & J. Suttle
(Eds.), Improving life at work (pp. 163-226). Santa Monica:
Goodyear.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. In D. Cartwright
(Ed.), Field Theory in Social Science. London: Social
Science Paperbacks.
Lewis, K. (2000). Communicating change: Four cases of quality
program. Journal of Business Communication, 37(2), 1-2.
Mullins, J. (2007). Management and organizational behaviour (8
th
ed.). Essex: Pearson Education limited.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management. Inside out
strange world of organizations. Chicago: Free Press.
McWhinney, W. (1992). Path of Change. Newbury Park (CA):
Sage Publications Inc.
Pieters, G., & Young, D. (2000). The ever-changing organization:
Creating the capacity for continuous change, learning and
improvement. Boca Raton (FL): St Lucia Press.
Pettigrew, A., Woodman, R., & Cameron, K. (2001). Studying
organizational change and development: Challenges for
future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4),
697-713.
Pfeiffer., Schmitt, R. & Voigt., T. (2005). Managing Change:
Quality oriented design of strategic change process. The
TQM Magazine, 17(4), 297-308.
Paton, R., & McCalman, J.(2000). Change Management: A guide
to effective implementing (2nd ed.). London: Sage
Publication.
Pugh, D. (1993). Understanding and Managing Change. In C.
Mabey & B. Mayon (Eds.), Managing Change (2nd ed., pp.
108-112). London: Paul Chapman, in association with the
Open University.
Why is it not …. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 5 No. 2
Ahmad Rizwan & Khawaja Fawad Latif 55
Starbuck, W. & Hedberg, B. (1977). Saving an organization from a
stagnating environment. In Thorelli, B. (Ed.), Strategy +
Structure = Performance (pp. 249-258). Bloomington (IN)
Indiana University Press.
Sidorko, E. (2008). Transforming Library and Higher Education
Support Services: Can change models help? Library
Management. 29(4/5), 307-318.
Wilson, D. (1992). A Strategy of Change. London: Routledge.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for Planned Change.
London: John Wiley.
