Chapter 8. The Organizational Change Leader^[1]

W. Warner Burke

At the outset let us be clear about four important points. First, change for an organization can begin anywhere in the system, from a bench scientist in research and development who discovers a new chemical compound, to some computer whiz who develops a new piece of software, to a middle manager responsible for sales who demonstrates that customers want an entirely different version of products instead of what the company has been producing for decades, to the CEO who knows that the competition is slowly but surely encroaching on the business he or she leads and that something different must be done—now! Second, for organizational change to occur successfully, leadership is required. This leadership can come from anywhere in the organization and from any level in the hierarchy—not just from the top, but leadership must be exercised from somewhere in the organization. Third, if we are considering planned organizational change, and if the organization has any semblance of a hierarchy, which is highly likely even in today's "virtual" times, then leadership for change must start at the top. This third point, then, sets the stage and context for what follows: our discussion of planned organizational change. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, even though we typically plan organizational change in a step-by-step, linear fashion, the implementation thereof is anything but linear. But if it is planned organizational change, then plan we must. It is useful, therefore, to think in terms of phases, since they blend with one another and concrete, discrete steps do not bind us. The final point is this: One can plan but cannot anticipate everything that will happen as change unfolds. Providing leadership that is adaptive is the key.

What follows is a phased way of considering organizational change and the leader's roles within each phase.

Four Phases of Organizational Change and the Leader's Roles

The Prelaunch Phase

Management is more personal than leadership. Leadership is about influence and how a person in the role uses himself or herself. Knowing oneself—strengths and limitations, how feelings affect behavior, and how one is perceived by others—is critical to being an effective leader, especially a change leader.

Self-Awareness.

Prior to leading a significant organizational change, it is wise for the leader to spend some time in self-reflection: The leader should be as clear as possible about how he or she "comes across" to others, particularly to those who are or will be followers. There is now evidence that self-awareness is related to performance. High performers in organizations view themselves more closely with how others see them than moderate or low performers do. In other words, with respect to the latter group, their self-ratings are less congruent with others' ratings of them than is true for high performers.^[2] With respect to leading change, the prudent leader spends time reflecting on, if not obtaining, feedback about such personal dispositions as one's (a) tolerance for ambiguity (needs to be high rather than low); (b) need for control (needs to be at least moderate, but not to the stage of being a "control freak"); (c) approach to decision making (decisive about direction, highly participative regarding execution); (d) understanding of self in times of conflict and crisis (knowing how feelings affect one's behavior and having self-control); and (e) extraversion versus introversion (more of the former is better) and sensing versus intuition (more of the latter is usually beneficial).

Motives.

Being knowledgeable about one's motives in general is a part of self-awareness; however, two motives in particular are significant regarding the change leader. The first is ambition. James O'Toole, no stranger to the key ingredients of leadership, claims that ambition is the "only inherent character trait [that] is essential for effective leadership."^[3] A leader needs drive to perform well and to make things better. The second important motive is one's need for power—not mutually exclusive from ambition, of course, but in this case power coupled with high inhibition and moderate to low affiliative needs. The McClelland and Burnham study clearly demonstrated that high-performing managers were those who had a high need for power (it is difficult to lead if one has little need to influence others); a low need for affiliation (wanting to be liked does not bode well for effective leadership, particularly during tough situations); and were high in inhibition (that is, their need for power, while high, was characterized as socialized, that is, not self-serving nor abusive toward others.)^[4]

Values.

This is a matter of the change leader's personal values being aligned with the desired organizational values that form a part of the future state. It is critical that the change leader embodies and lives the values espoused by the organization, since organizational members constantly scrutinize his or her behavior. Discrepancies between the personal leadership and organization values the leader espouses and the actions that he or she takes will immediately be seen as "not walking the talk" and change motivation will suffer. In addition to focusing on self-awareness, motives, and values during the prelaunch phase, the change leader needs to gather information about the organization's external environment, establish a need for change, and provide clarity of vision and direction.

The Organization's External Environment.

As part of the prelaunch phase, the change leader must monitor and gather as much information as possible about the organization's external environment—what competitors are doing (or not doing), changing technology, customers' needs, how the general economy is affecting the business, and so on. From the standpoint of organizational change, the primary purpose for this data gathering is to build the case for how and why the organization needs to change.

Establishing the Need for Change.

People in the organization need to be convinced that the proposed changes are necessary. Therefore, the change leader must prepare (or have prepared) the argument for and the documentation to support the change. The case for change should be tied to the long-term survival of the organization. (It should include a plan not only for survival, but also for success.) It should include analyses of the following: (a) who the customers of the future will be and how their needs will differ from today; (b) who the competitors will be;—they may not be the same as today; (c) the changing nature of the technology on which the organization depends; and (d) other factors, such as the changing nature of the economy and global concerns, demographic changes, government regulations, and so on.

Providing Clarity of Vision and Direction.

The final aspect of the prelaunch requires that the change leader develop a vision statement that will establish a clear direction for the organizational change effort. James O'Toole has written about vision statements, and he provides one of the best descriptions:^[5]

A robust vision mobilizes appropriate behavior. It uses memorable, simple concepts that make clear what needs to be different about tomorrow. It describes the distinctive competencies needed to deliver on the desired end state (for example, "Here's what we have to do differently in order to succeed"). Leaders don't even have to create visions themselves (although many do). But, at a minimum, they must initiate a process for developing a vision and then engage themselves fully in generating buy-in. Shared commitment to a vision can be built either through wide-scale participation in the act of its creation or through involvement immediately thereafter in its dissemination
...We're not talking quantum mechanics here. This is simple stuff—so simple that many leaders gloss over the basics. For example, by definition, vision has to do with "seeing, sight, and sensing with the eyes." Recognizing that simple fact, effective leaders make their visions, well, visual. Remember Ronald Reagan's budget message when he explained that a trillion bucks amounts to a stack of dough as high as the Empire State building? By using that visual reference, he got Americans to see that federal spending amounts to real money! In doing so, he changed the terms of the national debate and, for the first time, created a majority in support of lower taxes. It was his most effective moment as a leader.

The Launch Phase

For the change leader, the launch phase of planned organizational change involves (a) communicating the need, (b) an initial activity or set of activities, and (c) dealing with resistance.

Communicating the Need.

Having worked on the case for change in the prelaunch phase, it must now be communicated. If the CEO doesn't personally communicate the message—more often than not, this is the person to do it—he or she must see that the job is done. Sometimes another senior executive can communicate the case for change as well as, if not better than, the CEO. The critical criterion of the communicator is credibility. At British Aerospace (BA), the CEO arranged for his number-two executive to deliver the message, because as an engineer this executive had a background thought process similar to that of most of the executives and managers in the organization and so could more easily speak the primary audience's language.^[6]

Initial Activities.

Imperative for a successful launch is to conduct an event that will create the reality of the coming change by providing focus and capturing the attention of everyone. A quote from Lord Colin Marshall, at the time CEO of British Airways, provides the rationale and a brief description of such an event:^[7]

But to get people to work in new ways, we needed a major change in the company's culture. That meant refocusing everyone on the customer, on the marketplace, and away from the exclusively engineering and operations focus we'd had. That had to be done, of course, without sacrificing safety, technical, or maintenance standards. And that proved tricky. People had difficulty understanding why I kept hammering away at the need to focus on customers while also saying, "We've got to fly these aircraft at a very high technical standard, too." The focus before had always been on the technical side alone, but I made the point repeatedly that we had to do both. It was at this point that we saw the explicit need for a culture-change program...The first thing we did was to launch a program called "Putting People First"...a two-day seminar. We took roughly 150 employees at a time and drew people from various departments within BA and from various geographical areas. The program focused on how one creates better relationships with people, with one's fellow employees, with customers, even with members of one's own family.

Dealing with Resistance.

To understand resistance to change, it is helpful for the change leader to discern from among its various forms and across organizational levels. There are at least three forms of resistance, according to Hambrick and Cannella.^[8] First, there is blind resistance. Fortunately, there are not many people who simply resist change, but there are some. Any change is at first frightening for this handful of people. It is best to give them time and space to get used to the idea. It may be that a few will have to be moved into different jobs or let go. Second, there is ideological resistance. People may disagree with the change because of different values and beliefs or because of different ideas about what is best. In this case, the change leader needs to be rational, using data, experience from others, and documentation to persuade. Finally, there is political resistance. The person believes that because of the change, he or she has something of value to lose—position, status, power, size of budget, access to other resources, and so on. In this case, the change leader must negotiate, bargain, and trade, especially with those whom the organization does not want to lose.

Resistance can also be considered according to organizational levels—individual, group (e.g., department, business unit, team, etc.), and the larger system. At the individual level, the change leader should be sensitive to the possibility that people may feel as if the change is being imposed on them. The change leader should find ways for individuals to have choice and to be as involved in the process, especially the implementation details, as possible.

At the group level, resistance takes the forms of closing ranks, protecting one's turf, and demanding a new structure, if not new leadership. Helping groups achieve closure about the past so that they can more readily embrace the future is a change leader's responsibility. Having a symbolic funeral can help in dealing with resistance.^[9] In addition, reconstituting a group with new members can help, as can almost any activity that involves individuals in important decision making.

At the larger system level, resistance can take the form of many organizational members getting on the cynical bandwagon. Common statements might be, "This too shall pass" and "It's just another fad." Diversionary tactics can be common as well. In the face of resistance, the change leader must persevere, stay the course, and state again and again the case for change.

Post-Launch: Further Implementation

After the flurry of initial activities has been launched and the change process is underway, the change leader will deal with a myriad of consequences. Some organizational members will run with the change, others will complain about the lack of structure and clarity. Still others will ask, "Who's in charge?" With the change unleashed, the change leader will likely feel that things are out of control. At this stage, he or she needs to understand that these phenomena are not abnormal. Theory from the life sciences suggests that when disturbance (seeming chaos) occurs during this change phase, "the components of living systems self-organize and new forms and repertoires emerge from the turmoil."^[10] It behooves the change leader to resist the natural temptation to seize control. The prudent behavioral choice is to be patient and allow self-organizing to occur—that is, to let creativity, innovation, and new forms emerge. These new forms might be developing new business strategies and tactics, inventing new business processes and information systems, or even establishing a whole new line of business.

More specifically, the change leader should consider the following five key actions during this implementation phase:

1. Multiple leverage: Organizational change is too complicated for one intervention to do the job. Many managers believe that structural change is sufficient—a new organizational chart with different accountabilities, decision making, and authority is produced. A study by Burke, Clark, and Koopman^[11] showed that organizational change failure was most often associated with a structural change when that was the only intervention made. In a more recent description of seven case studies of successful organizational change, two characteristics stood out: the need for strong leadership and the success of multiple interventions—all seven cases were examples of multiple interventions.^[12]
2. Taking the heat: When change is underway (unleashed is perhaps a more apt descriptor), not everyone gets on board. Some continue to question the need for change, revisit the case that was made at the beginning, and now in the midst of chaos, complain. The change leader must be capable of listening without responding defensively. Sir Richard Evans, then CEO of British Aerospace and now the company's chairman, described his experience as follows:^[13]

   ...but I got a lot of pushback from people. People asked, "Why do we need to do this? We're operating perfectly well. We all have big change programs to deal with in our own businesses. Why the hell do we need to do all this other stuff?" Many seriously thought and believed that I had some sort of hidden agenda and simply wanted to be told what to do so they could go away and do it (Burke & Trahant, 2000: 146).
   The folks questioning Evans were a minority, but vocal nevertheless, and he was wise to listen to and be patient with them. Evans worked to get everyone on board, but even without having unanimity, he pressed on with the change effort.

1. Consistency: The change leader's behavior is constantly scrutinized by organizational members, but especially so during this phase when plans can go awry. During this phase, those resistant to the process can have more influence than at other times. Does the change leader really mean it? Will he or she see this change effort through and stay the course? Behaviorally, what is most important for the change leader is that his or her actions match his or her words. Any discrepancy will not only be noticed, but will perhaps be blown out of proportion. The core of consistency here is that behavior is congruent with the words used to describe vision, values, and mission.
2. Perseverance: During this implementation phase, the change effort can get bogged down. The excitement of the launch is over, and now the hard work of making the organization move to a new place becomes critical. One of the best examples of a change leader's "staying the course" was Lord Colin Marshall of British Airways. His words clearly demonstrate perseverance:

   I made a particular point of attending every one of these "Managing People First" sessions (one of the change interventions). I spent two to three hours with each group. I talked with people about our goals, our thoughts for the future. I got people's input about what we needed to do to improve our services and operations. The whole thing proved to be a very useful and productive dialogue. We found it so valuable, in fact, that in cases when I was away, we offered people the opportunity to come back and have a follow-up session with me. So I really did talk to all 110 groups in that five-year period.^[14]

3. Repeating the message: This action is another form of perseverance. The message to be repeated is, of course, the vision, mission, values, and why the change is necessary. The more the change leader can put the message into story form, the better. Again and again, the change leader tells the story of where the organization is going, and preferably face-to-face rather than via video, so that dialogue can occur. Howard Gardner's thinking and suggestions in this regard are quite useful. By story he means^[15]

   ...to call attention to the fact that leaders present a dynamic perspective to their followers: not just a headline or snapshot, but a drama that unfolds over time, in which they—leaders and followers—are the principal characters or heroes. Together they embarked on a journey in pursuit of certain goals, and along the way and into the future, they can expect to encounter certain obstacles or resistances that must be overcome...the most basic story has to do with issues of identity. And so it is the leader who succeeds in conveying a new version of a given group's story who is likely to be effective. Effectiveness here involves fit—the story needs to make sense to audience members at this particular historical moment, in terms of where they have been and where they would like to go.

In summary, to help make the post-launch/implementation phase effective, the change leader (1) should employ multiple interventions to leverage the transformation of the organization; (2) be willing to take the heat from time to time—to listen and be patient; (3) be as consistent as possible regarding words and deeds; (4) stay the course even at the risk of being labeled "stubborn"; and (5) tell the change story over and over again, preferably in person.

Sustaining the Change

While the implementation phase of organizational change is not exactly easy for the change leader, sustaining the process is the most difficult of all. For this fourth phase, let us consider three ways of thinking about sustaining change and suggestions for action—dealing with unanticipated consequences, momentum, and launching new initiatives.

Unanticipated Consequences.

As noted at the outset of this article, organizational change is not a linear process. The change leader cannot think of or predict everything. When the change is launched and underway, the equilibrium of the organization is disturbed. Many different reactions to this disturbance (or perturbation, as scientists refer to it) occur at the same time. In the language of Pascale and his colleagues,^[16] the system moves to the "edge of chaos." Some examples of unanticipated reactions include (a) some people who were expected to be resistant turn out to be supportive and enthusiastic—and vice versa; (b) different organizational units behave quite differently regarding the change effort, either interpreting the new vision and future direction to fit their own desires or interpreting the future entirely contrary to what the desired future may be; and (c) expected support for the change from certain groups, like younger organizational members or the union, does not occur.

The change leader must anticipate these unanticipated outcomes, for as Pascale and his colleagues point out, disturbed living systems, including for sure organizations, seek equilibrium—as defined by those affected—and will behave accordingly. The change leader, however, must seek disequilibrium or discomfort with the status quo (since equilibrium eventually leads to death) and proceed with the change by following paths that will most likely be "disturbing," as well as facilitate movement toward the change objectives.

Momentum.

At the conclusion of a description of the successful change of British Airways, Goodstein and Burke stated:^[17]

It may be that BA's biggest problem now is not so much to manage further change as it is to manage the change that has already occurred. In other words, the people of BA have achieved significant change and success; now they must maintain what has been achieved while concentrating on continuing to be adaptable to changes in their external environment—the further deregulation of Europe, for example. Managing momentum may be more difficult than managing change.

Finding ways to celebrate milestones reached, recognizing and rewarding those who have championed and facilitated the change, and finding "new blood"—different people assigned to key positions for supporting and continuing the change—are examples of ways to maintain the change momentum.

Launching, Yet Again, New Initiatives.

With time and energy having been spent on the change effort, perhaps over a period of two or three years, it becomes critical to identify and implement new initiatives in order to renew organizational members' enthusiasm and vigor. New initiatives should not be activities only in the service of renewal, but clearly aligned with the original change goals and the new mission, vision, values, and culture. Examples of new initiatives to help sustain the larger goal of organizational change might be

• Acquiring another business or organization;
• Building a strategic alliance, joint venture, or partnership with another organization;
• Starting a new business or creating a new product line;
• Initiating a new program that will improve efforts that are already underway, such as new technology, new ways to enhance quality and service to customers (e.g., six sigma), or establishing a broader version of determining organizational performance, such as the balanced scorecard; and
• Finding new markets for current products and services as a function of, say, changing demographics.

Again, the point is to find ways to "disturb" the equilibrium of the system, and the change leader must press on with such initiatives in the face of resistance.

Summary

Much has been written about leadership. Some of this literature is based on sound theory and research, but much of it is merely opinion, if not hype. In this chapter, we have attempted to provide greater clarity about leadership during times of organizational change. The basis for this attempt was twofold: (1) the theory and research literature and (2) experience via a few selected case examples of successful change leaders. This base culminated in the four-phase model of organizational change and the leader's role. For each phase, certain roles and functions for the change leader were specified, namely

1. Prelaunch phase requiring

   • Self-examination including self-awareness, motives, and values; and

   • Gathering information about the organization's external environment in order to (a) establish the need for change and (b) provide clarity of vision and direction.

2. Launch phase requiring

   • Communication of the need for change;

   • Initiating key launch activities; and

   • Dealing with resistance.

3. Post-launch phase/implementation requiring

   • Multiple leverage;

   • Taking the heat;

   • Consistency;

   • Perseverance; and

   • Repetition of the message (story).

4. Sustaining the change requiring

   • Dealing with unanticipated consequences;

   • Momentum; and

   • Launching, yet again, new initiatives.

Organizations change all of the time with or without leadership, but planned organizational change cannot occur with any degree of success without leadership. The change leader is a necessary and critical ingredient to the process. Since change is now considered a constant, knowing more about the leadership role is therefore essential.