Lead less and change more: it time for a change in our thinking about change and its leadership?

Higgs, M.J. (2004) Lead less and change more: it time for a change in our thinking about change and its leadership? The Edge.

Record type: Article

Abstract

Although the growing need for change in organisations is widely acknowledged, it is asserted that up to 70% of change initiatives fail (e.g. Kotter, 1995; Carnall, 1999; Higgs and 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 and 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) and the apparent inability to learn from previous experiences.
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 and Weber, 1995; Aldrich, 1999; Lichtenstein, 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 initially using a case study methodology. The data was initially analysed as qualitative data and subsequently quantitatively. Finally, a follow-up survey-based study was used to test the initial findings and seek further insights.
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. In examining leadership behaviours, three broad categories emerged (Shaping Behaviour, Framing Change, Creating Capacity). Analyses of the data indicated that leader-centric behaviours (Shaping Behaviour) not only were unrelated to successful change, but impaired change implementation.
These findings are of potential significance for practitioners and could impact on both the way in which change is managed and change leaders are selected and developed. They certainly challenge the way in which change programmes are structured and implemented in many organisations today.
In the paper further implications of the findings 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.