Is change changing?

Higgs, M.J. D. and Rowland, D. (2003) Is change changing? (Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 0313) Henley, UK. Henley Business School, University of Reading

Abstract

Whilst there is a growing need for change in organisations it is widely asserted that up to seventy percent of change initiatives fail (e.g. Kotter, 1990; Carnall, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2000). Whilst there have been attempts to understand the reasons for failure these have been seen as inconclusive, and a need for further empirical work has been identified (e.g. Buchanan, Claydon & Doyle, 1999). In parallel with the growth in the body of literature concerned with change has been a significant growth in that on its leadership, with some asserting that the root cause of many change problems is leadership behaviour (Buchanan et al, 1999).

This paper begins by exploring the change literature and, in particular the broadening of this literature with the inclusion of complexity and evolutionary theories (e.g. Depew & Weber, 1995; Aldrich, 1999; Litchenstein, 1996). Whilst the literature is large and diverse the authors propose that approaches to change may be classified in terms of two axes viz; the extent to which change approaches seek uniformity or accept differentiated implementation and the extent to which change is seen as linear or non-linear. From this classification a typology of change approach is proposed. In examining change the authors also examine emerging thoughts from the change leadership literature. Combining these different streams of literature leads to three core research questions, which are:

1. What approach to change management is likely to be most effective in today’s business environment?
2. What leadership behaviours tend to be associated with effective change management? And
3. Are leadership behaviours related to the underlying assumptions within different approaches to change?

These questions are explored using a case study methodology, which is argued to be appropriate for the nature of the phenomenon being examined (Eisenhardt & Brown, 1989). The study was designed using a collaborative research approach (Adler, Shani & Styhre, 2003; Huff & Jenkins, 2002) and involved seven organisations and forty informants who provided seventy change stories (the unit of analysis being the change story). The data was initially analysed as qualitative data and subsequently (following participant lines of inquiry) quantitatively (Parry & Meindl, 2002).

Both qualitative and quantitative data indicated that change approaches which were based on assumptions of linearity, were unsuccessful in a wide range of contexts whereas those built on assumptions of complexity were more successful. The closer the approach adopted aligned with complexity theory, the greater was the move from uniform to differentiated implementation. Approaches classified as Emergent change (Johnson, 2001; Wheatley, 1994; 1996) were found to be the most successful across most contexts. In examining leadership behaviours three broad categories emerged (Shaping Behaviour, Framing Change, Creating Capacity). Whilst all three categories were found within each distinct approach to change, their relative dominance followed a pattern which differed between approaches. Furthermore, analyses of the data indicated that leader-centric behaviours (Shaping Behaviour) not only were not related to successful change, but also they impaired change implementation.

The implications of the findings and the value of the research methodology are discussed together with suggestions for further research designed to both build on this study and address its acknowledged limitations.

This record has no associated files available for download.

Contributors

Author: M.J. D. Higgs

Download statistics