Leading Change Successfully

Organizational leadership often requires directing change efforts.  At times the efforts are reactive and required by outside forces. While leading a reactive change can be difficult, doing so requires less skill and exposes the leader to less risk than change of a proactive nature. Proactive changes are driven by shifts in stakeholder desires and often result in a changed vison and structure. In a reactive change, driven by changes in revenue or legislation, the leader’s primary task is to communicate and monitor; stakeholders know the change must take place regardless of the leader. In proactive change, the leader must do more than communicate, she must analyze power dynamics while developing and adjusting complex strategies.

Analyzing Power

Too often leaders do not consider the nature of power deeply enough.  As Prusser and Marginson  (2012) noted, “the time is right to more deeply consider the nature and sources of power” (p. 91). An incomplete understanding of power may tempt a leader, especially in educational organizations, to rely too heavily on position or coercive power without understanding the limits of these forms of power (French & Raven, 1959). At times, leaders, realizing that “power is the ability to produce intended effects,” may be intimidated by their potential (Pussser and Marginson, 2012, p. 91).  Leaders do well to remember Foucault’s assessment of power: “We have to stop describing power always in negative terms: it excludes, it represses. In fact, power produces; it produces reality” (Foucault, 1975, p. 12).  The responsibility of leaders is to wisely craft the changes that produce new realities.

Limits of Power

While an educational organization often can be described in a traditional pyramid structure, the power dynamics are often much more complex and look more like “freewheeling coalitions rather than formal hierarchies” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 190).  A failure to understand these coalitions will limit the leader’s ability to enact change. Even in settings where the leader has tremendous power change can be difficult to lead, as evident in the Chinese government's failed efforts to change a culture of copyright abuse (Bolman & Deal, 2013).

Exercising Power Pragmatically

One of the first tasks of a leader charged with implementing change is to survey the current power dynamics through a “force field analysis” (Levi, 2017, p. 231). The leader must measure the support and opposition to the change, while realizing that “organizations are inevitably political” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 190).  Typically, in such organizations, change will be resisted, and the leader must anticipate opposition, because key stakeholders will only recognize power as the “actor’s ability to impose his will in spite of resistance” (Pusser & Marginson, 2012, p. 91).

In these political settings the leader will be well served by using referent power to build capacity, by increasing the number of individuals who support the change, because they desire to join the growing group (French & Raven 1959).  Establishing referent power will only happen when the leader understands how to function in settings where “conventions, words, practices and knowledge are more important than legal decrees” (Pusser & Marginson, 2012, p. 93).  Knowledge, in particular, provides excellent potential for the leader to increase in power, because in dynamic situations, a person who learns and communicates fastest will inevitably be conferred a greater degree of expert power to shift the paradigms of members of the organization (French & Raven, 1959). Communicating the leader’s knowledge in these settings, requires the leader’s to develop and cultivate informal networks (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 198). In informal networks, leaders are advised to be aware of the symbolic dynamics at work in an organization because all stakeholders are motivated by values and a desire to seek out significance (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Relationships are the only avenue for identifying moments where the intersection of circumstance, a deeper sense of values, and a desire for significance leave an individual open to accepting a change (Lamar, 2012).

  

References

Bolman, Lee G. & Deal, Terrence E. (2013). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

French Jr., John R. P. & Raven, Bertram. (1959).  The basis of social power. In Shafritz, Jay M., Ott, Steven J., & Jang, Yong Suk. (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (pp. 311-320). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.  

Lamar, Kendrick, 2012. Dying of thirst. On Good kid, M.A.A.D city. Los Angeles, Top Dawg.  

Levi, D. (2017). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Pusser, Brian & Marginson, Simon. (2012). The elephant in the room: power, politics, and global rankings in higher eduation. In Bastedo, Michael N. (Ed.) The organization of higher education. (pp. 86-117). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Failing to Lead Change

Myths and Risks

Our society idolizes leaders who affect change. In hiring, a track record of leading successful change is seen as an asset by boards and executives. The value placed on the ability to lead change is grounded in a certain logic. Change is often needed to fulfil the mission of an organization, and “movement toward organizational goals is achieved by the competent action of the people who fill the ranks of institutional staff and management” (Manning, 2013 p. 113). Change is also driven by environmental influences such as those that transformed the telephone industry as noted by Bolman and Deal (2013, p. 86). However, the love affair with change should be critically examined by organizations and by leaders. Myths surround change, and examples of failed change efforts outnumber successful ones. Both leaders and organizations suffer if change is not properly understood.

Organizations often value leaders who are viewed as strategists, because “strategy formulation therefore involves the interpretation of the environment and the development of consistent patterns in streams of organizational decision (“strategies”) to deal with it” (Mintzberg 1979 p. 224). Stakeholders imagine a leader who is proactive in seeing a shifting environment and responding through a superior decision making process, but as Manning (2013) observed these expectations are based in a cultural mythology and most leaders are quick to land on “a solution that is ‘good enough,’ one that satisfies sufficient parameters of the decision situation” (p. 119). Often these solutions do not lead to long term changes.

Structural Change

Attempting to change the structure of an organization is a challenge marked with notable failures. Harvard University, under the leadership of Larry Summers, and the BBC both attempted to restructure their organizations to be led by stronger centralized authority with less discretion available to members in lower levels of the hierarchy. Bolman and Deal (2013) note: “Restructuring worked about as well for Summers as it had for the BBC- he was forced out after the shortest term for a Harvard president in more than a century. Reorganizing, or restructuring, is a powerful but high-risk approach to improvement” (p. 70).  Examples of failed efforts to loosen centralized power and increase autonomy at lower levels also exist, as in the case study of McDonalds in the 1990’s (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 59).

Cultural Change

Cultural change can be as elusive as structural change; however, the failure to lead cultural change often carries more risk. Smith and Freyd (2014) document instances of sexual abuse in the military, churches, and university that were not properly addressed because the organizational culture was static. Several reasons were explored. First, “performance or reputation is valued or divorced from the well-being of members” (Smith & Freyd, 2014, p. 580). In these environments leaders are often guilty of “prioritizing damage control rather than addressing the underlying problem with abuse” (Smith & Freyd, 2014, p. 581).  Often stakeholders rely on a leader to change the culture but Bolman and Deal noted more often than not the culture changes the leader (2013, p. 84).  Johnson (2018) assess why real cultural change is an elusive goal: “Short run competitive thinking; however, makes that goal all but impossible to achieve because that kind of change is a long term project rooted in a sense of community and common purpose” (p. 65).

Internal Barriers, Communication, Flawed Decisions

Often internal barriers to change exist. People within the organization stymie change through various methods because “employees are concerned that what is good for the organization overall might not be what is best for them” (Levi, 2017, p. 87). Often employees possess knowledge and skills not held by their leaders (Manning, 2013, p. 120). In the case of Harvard, Summers found himself outmaneuvered by faculty members who ultimately blocked his efforts (Bolman & Deal, p. 80).

Organizational structure and communication also impede change. Leaders “with more complicated jobs are positioned near the top of the organization,” which can lead to isolation (Manning 2013, p. 114). At times, leaders who see changes and new people may even desire isolation and try to be alone (Lamar, 2012 ). The isolation leads to communication that is rarely “candid, open, or timely (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 31). Manning (2013) noted that technology has increased the speed and scope of communication within organizations (p. 118). This communication shift has created a potential to flatten organizational structures. Bolman and Deal (2013) highlighted Joyce Clifford’s success in improving Beth Israel Hospital through a flatter “web” as opposed to a “pyramid” (p. 90). However, successes such as Clifford’s are remarkable because they are exceptions, and as Manning (2013) argues “bureaucratic theorists advise against changing the structure to accommodate individual personalities” (p. 114).

There are times when flatter, group leadership is needed. “Teams are needed for tasks that are too complex for one individual to perform or problems too difficult for one individual to solve” (Levi 2017, p. 179). However, one danger in flatter, more democratic structures for leading change is that it exposes the organization to poor decision making processes. These structures can allow poor change strategies to move forward because group members fear damaging relationships. As Janis (2005) noted, attempts at group leadership can “bolster moral at the expense of critical thinking” (p. 185). Levi (2017) describes this exchange of cooperation for efficacy as the Abilene paradox. When a leadership team lacks the ability to challenge each other’s’ ideas, the organization’s path towards change will be rocky.

References

Bolman, Lee G. & Deal, Terrence E. (2013). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Janis, Irving L. (2005). Groupthink: The Desperate Drive for Consensus at Any Cost. In Shafritz, Jay M, Ott, J. Steven, & Jang, Yong, Suk. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 185-192). Belmont: Answorth.

Johnson, Allen G. (2018). Privilege, Power, and Difference. New York: McGraw Hill

Lamar, Kendrick. (2012). Don’t Kill My Vibe. On Good Kid, M.A.A.D City. Los Angeles, Top Dawg.  

Levi, Daniel. (2017). Group Dynamics for Team. Los Angeles: Sage.

Manning, Kathleen. (2013). Organizational Theory in Higher Education. New York: Routledge.

Mintzberg, Henry. (1979). The Five Basic Parts of and Organization. In Shafritz, Jay M, Ott, J. Steven, & Jang, Yong, Suk. (Eds.), Classics of Organization Theory (pp. 185-192). Belmont: Answorth.

Smith, Carly Partnitzke, & Freyd, Jennifer J. (2014). Institutional Betrayal. American Psychologist, 69, pp-pp. 575-587.