Leadership and Change Management - Literature review Example

Leadership and Change Introduction Leaders as individuals are likely to have a major impact on a given change process. Organizations must adapt change and learn to implement it in various organization units. Leaders are responsible for the implementation of changes and maintaining the culture of change in the organization through their functions. According to Beaudan (2006), when leaders give up their will to on change, followers and employees fall out too and change becomes insignificant. The biggest challenge that current organizations are facing is change fatigue. Resistance to change might affect the implementation of organizational changes which are beneficial. Leaders can solve the problem of fatigue in implementation of change through mastering ways in which they can incorporate mid cause adjustments so as to renew people’s energy on efforts to change. The business environment is increasingly becoming dynamic and the capacity of an organization to change is the only way. Organizations are currently adapting to changes both internally and externally. Organizations must understand their change capacity so as to be in a better position to handle the determinants of its capacity and attain an improved adaptation level for its ultimate survival (Klarner, 2007). Change is adapted by organizations for the purpose of competitiveness. These changes involve global and industrial changes of consumer interests that if an organization does not provide, then its competitors do. Incorporation of the changes for consumer needs is directed by organization leaders who conduct assessments for viability before committing funds and human resources. Although organizations need change for continuity and survival, it also poses a risk the organization operations. It is therefore important for the organization leaders to identify the risks including change fatigue and deriving ways of re-energizing their followers. This paper critically analyses the work of Beaudan (2006) which discusses how change culture within the organization can be maintained and change fatigue suppressed. Evidences are provided through references to support the writer’s ideas on leadership and change. Summary of the article Beaudan (2006) illustrates how leadership and leaders can impact on change. He states that mid cause adjustments provided by leaders can help the whole group to re-energize and adapt to change which kills the change fatigue. The article illustrates examples from Healthy Companies International to explain how change impacts the organization and how leaders play a major role in impacting change. The article includes a minor research conducted within the organization on the poorly implemented IT system change and results from 80 directors indicated that leaders played a major role in impacting the failure through aspects such as inadequate support. According to the article, when leaders/the executives give up on implementing certain changes and retreat to previous methods, followers/ staff are dragged along to making similar decisions. The article illustrates upstream methodology of implementing change stating that it requires less energy from the leaders responsible for the change. This enables them to overcome any challenges that arise during a mid-course period of effecting change. It states that, it is the responsibility of executives to be able to note any symptoms indicating change fatigue and prepare to counteract the fatigue. The article gives signs that leaders can identify with change fatigue. Once identified, leaders can easily derive ways of re-energizing the whole group to move towards change. There are also questions that the management/leaders should ask themselves during the initial stage of implementation and during the mid-course of the change. The article finally gives ways in which leaders can restructure and bring change back to track and how the same leaders implicate change a whole. Critical analysis Change Change stalls and needs to be re-energized. Beaudan (2006) states that organizational change loses its energy at one given point without any warning. Leaders are therefore expected to be in a position to identify the signs indicating chances of change fatigue so as to device ways of making adjustments. The author suggests six symptoms that might indicate change fatigue which are also supported by other authors. The first sign is questions which outsiders are likely to pose concerning the company’s value and its objectives in terms of efforts of implementing change. A second sign can be pressure on the part of change effort leaders and coordinators that might result to them leaving office. Another sign of change fatigue in the organization is reluctance by people within the organization when they are needed to make comments on the efforts of change. Beaudan (2006) states that, people in Healthy Company international became reluctant to sign up for the IT training after the paralysis set in. Diversion of resources and budgets to other planned initiatives is also a sign that the organization is experiencing fatigue in the implementation of change. The organization divisions started focusing on different metrics as groups and individuals. The fifth sign of change fatigue is the response of customers indicating impatience with duration taken to implement change effort. Like in the case of Healthy companies international, after the setting in of paralysis, pressure from customers increased. They were unable to access information which they needed for use in the system. Customers were also impatient with the duration that the initiative was taking for its implementation (Beaudan, 2006). Lastly, when key leaders start missing reviews for change progress, it is an indication that the change fatigue has crept into the organization. According to Ayers and Sommers (2009), the symptoms of change fatigue are indicated by the main stakeholders of the organization. Employees, customers and part or whole of the change initiative team are likely to behave in manners to indicate the setting in of change fatigue. He states that, when employees start exhibiting characters like reporting late to work and leaving early, missing their goals on performance and taking long breaks like two hours for lunch, then it is a sign for change fatigue. Leaders might display the same by unwillingness to address employees, displaying frustrations and anxiety openly and often submissions of requests for communication change. Other than beneficial aspects of change, they are also considered risky. According to Balogun & Hope Hailey (2004), change interferes with some organizations operations while it is implemented. A survey conducted by the authors indicated a seventy percent failure rates in implementing change which is costly to the organization. Low rates of success in this case are attributed to complexity of organizational change and its contradicting structures. Endorsement and execution of change also includes financial and human resource outflow which might be costly. Burke (2010) states that, a change initiative is likely to fail or succeed just like other organization projects and ventures. This is why leaders assess the viability of a change before resources are committed to it. Organizations draw budgets for proposed change initiatives and carry out resource allocation procedures to make it effective. In case of failure of the change, the organization losses its investment. Implementation of change takes three different stages s illustrated below: Leaders and change Initially, Beaudan (2006) states that any change initiative is challenging and leaders are the ones who can make the staff also give up on change gain more momentum. When the leaders loosen their will, followers also give up on the change. This is because, when a change initiative starts to get twisted, the leader can easily make mid-course adjustments and bring change back on track. According to Beerel, (2009), leaders of organizations are also leaders of change within the same organization. They initiate implementation, coordinate and manage change to the final stage. Employees also look up to leaders as mentors and coaches and are likely to withdraw incase the mentors withdraw. Kaminski (2000) states that, leaders are obligated to manage change and are therefore expected to make change initiatives perceptible and not theoretical. They are also expected to arouse the zeal among followers and bring a sense of ownership of change among them in within the organization. It is up to the leadership to link strategic decisions they make with the actual implementation of the change decision within the organization. Since leaders are directors and pacesetters, they can change their followers’ attitudes to accepting change from an avoidance attitude. This can be achieved by adapting acceptance questions instead of avoidance questions. It is important for leaders to understand that change should be considered from the start instead of applying a downward stream approach to dealing with change. According to Beaudan (2006), this will require less energy for the organization to overcome challenges that arise through implementation/ in the mid-course of change. It will enable leaders to develop solution strategies for the challenges and ensuring that the implemented changes last. Gilley (2005) states that, the leadership philosophy of some leaders trigger change fatigue. Some leaders are high teamsters and constant idea generators which is okay, however, they do it so frequently that they cause fatigue among follower unknowingly. Such leaders take it that change fatigue is another form of change and might worsen the situation by implementing same leadership procedures to salvage the situation. Branbridge (1996) provides a process for leaders to prepare their organizations for change. First is the design stage where leaders identify all general requirements for the change implementation process. The second stage is definition where the organization leadership documents requirements for the design and the design is also specified at this stage. After documenting the design, new skills and abilities are nurtured through trainings, restructuring programs and education in the development stage. In dismantling stage, leaders identify any redundancies within the organization and eliminate them while others are transformed into new experiences. The final stage is the deployment stage where the internal and external environments of the organization are acquaint with new ideas. Change fatigue It is paralysis or change fatigue which influence failure in the implementation of change within an organization and not the traditional causes of failure such as inadequate communication, lack of support or inadequate resources (Beaudan, 2006). The author states the case of Healthy Company international from the opinion of eighty of its directors. In the IT system change implementation, the executives participated in endorsement of the initiative, people within the organization also offered support and were committed to see the implementation procedures of the change initiative through. According to Stensaker (2011), paralysis as one of the main barrier to organizational change is a passive element followed by sabotage which is and active element as explained in the Muggle Quadrant. The author illustrates that although change is good for organizations, repeated exposure to change in the organization can easily result to cynicism and change fatigue. As much as change is good for the organization’s competitive advantage and continuity, it is also a risk exposure to its operations. Failure in the implementation of change result into a blame game within the organization where subordinates blame management or team members blame colleagues. In the case of Healthy company’s international as illustrated by Beaudan (2006), implementation team members blamed each other, the management and executives and colleagues in other organization units for failure in the implementation of the IT system. The author also states that change fatigue is what results to resistance especially among the employees. Shifting blames was followed by aversion of test among within Healthy Companies international. This is true as supported by Payne (2005) that initially, people shift blame, this is due to denial. The author states that, when people become tired of change, they tend to resist it by all means. People in organizations always shift blames in case of failure in a change initiative whether they supported the initiative or not. Change fatigue can be solved once it is detected to have occurred or is about to occur. Beaudan (2006) suggests that the derailing of change (change fatigue) can be minimized so as to sustain change over time by reconsidering the goals and prospects of change, changing the mix of people, changing speeds and adding excitement. He states that leaders should ask themselves if the goals were too ambitious or unrealistic and if so, restate them to embrace reliability. Metrics of measuring success should also be checked and incase the initial analysis of changes affected any stakeholder. Sommers and Ayers (2009) also state that although there cannot be a permanent solution for change fatigue, adding excitement, changing the mix of people, changing the speeds and reconsidering the expectations and goals will sustain change to ensure success by keeping change fatigue at lower levels. The authors states that, people are supposed to be reminded how important change is and allow other people to bring in new ideas by releasing others. Releasing some employees and replacing them with others is the idea of changing the mix of people so as to curb fatigue in a team. The authors also explain that, people can be motivated to continue embracing change by exiting them this can be achieved through public declarations of change efforts in annual reports and board meetings, creation of a crisis Change Resistance According to Beudan (2006), failure of the change plans to forestall resistance from within the organization result to failure in executing change. This includes other internal factors which disrupt implementation of change in the organization. The author notes that, resistance towards change results from people being tired of change. According to O’Brien (2008), resistance might arise as a result of leaders underrating the levels of reactions by their followers in case change is introduced in the organization. Other than underestimating rate of reaction, the response of management to people’s resistance may also encourage or elucidate the resistance. Singh (2010) notes that, when leaders implement one change after another, employees become exhausted and lament instead of appreciating any further change. This in turn affects their commitment towards organizational changes and they become resistant towards any changes proposed by the leaders. Followers are likely to develop ignorance towards latest organizational changes due to frequent changes in direction before they even settle down after implementation of a previous change. Beaudan (2006) argues that, individual and team resistance to change varies every time a different change is introduced. He states that, individuals are likely to change their views from active supporters of change to neutral, active or passive change resisters as time goes by unlike at the beginning when they were active supporters. This is related to the political arena where people’s political attachments are likely to vary with time; same applies to demand for change initiatives. Burke et al (2009) supports this argument stating that the leaders’ statement about everyone resisting change is wrong since different people resist specific changes. He explains that, an individual is not likely to support the next change introduced by management because he or she embraced a previous change which was introduced. Resistance does not start in the mid-course phase, but start building up at the initial (launch) stage where staff and their executives are still in the decision making process regarding change implementation. Beerel, (2009) notes that, resistance is more clear in the mid-course stage since individuals have already made up their minds to support or not to support change. Resistance might be passive or active. Passive resistance involves indirect statements that indicate lack of interest on change such as giving excuses for not implementing change. Individuals become sarcastic of the change and display inaction in the change initiative. Passiveness on change effort grows and results to a huge blow to the change initiative. The accounting department also plays a major role in resisting change. When the accounts personnel identify resistance from other staff or resist change implementation, they might fail to introduce it to the clients. As a result, resources might be diverted by the executives to other viable projects, this affecting implementation of the initiative. In this case, the resultant effect is failure in implementation of the change (Beerel, 2009). Change implementation Beudan (2006) illustrates the phases involved in implementation of change which involve launching phase, followed by the mid-course phase and finally the completion phase. In the initial stages when change is introduced in the organization, everyone tends to be helpful and passionate about the change. Some employees support the change only because they prefer holding on to their opinions, feel obligated and others genuinely support the ideas. Challenges start setting in in the mid-course stage and might occur more often. The last stage is the completion stage which might result to positive or negative results. Crawford (2011) also states that, change implementation process can be positive or negative and the results of implementation vary from one change to another. Resultant outcome might be successful, partially successful of failure. In the launching stage, resistance might start to build up but will remain dormant since parties (employees and executives) are still contemplating on supporting or not supporting a project. Stalling occurs where challenges start to setting in and resistance becomes more effective influencing change. The implementation can be summarized as shown below: Change implementation curve 100 Degree of change Implementation 20 Time 1-10 months 20-30months Change implementation is considered a success when the implemented change brings forth expected results. However, the success can also be partial where change is implemented intermittently and becomes partly successful with some aspects of failure such as low Returns on capital (ROI). Failure in change implementation constitutes non-implementation of change and the situation relapses to time when change was not implemented. Conclusion Leadership and change are inseparable such that leaders are also managers of change in respective organizations. Change fatigue occurs when people loose interest in the change initiatives proposed by management and leaders. It is also established beyond doubt that although change is meant to benefit the organization by hedging it against competitors, it also impacts the organization negatively tough costs incurred including the cost of risk. Leaders are obligated to influence their followers towards change acceptance and minimize change resistance and change fatigue so as to sustain change implementation in the organization. Change implementation can either involve success or failure depending on support given by staff and executives and amount of resistance experienced. Bibliography Beaudan, E 2006, Making change last: How to get beyond change fatigue, Ivey Business Journal O’Brien, M. J 2008, 5 approaches to leading successful organizational change: How CFOs handle staff resistance to change is crucial, Healthcare financial management Stensaker, I.G 2011, “Change Experience and Employee Reactions: developing capabilities for change.” Personnel Review. Bainbridge, C 1996, Designing for change: A practical guide for business transformation, John Wiley, New York. Ayers, M. B., & Sommers, W. A 2009, The principal's field manual: the school principal as the organizational leader, Thousand Oaks, Calif, Corwin. Gilley, A. M 2005, The manager as change leader. Westport, Conn, Praeger Publishers. Burke, W. W., Lake, D. G., & Paine, J. W 2009, Organization change: a comprehensive reader. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Payne, V 2005, Planning and managing change, New York, American Management Association. Beerel, A. C 2009, Leadership and change management. Los Angeles, SAGE. http://books.google.com/books?id=ToUoAQAAMAAJ. Singh, K 2010, Organizational behavior: text and cases. Chandigarh, Pearson. Burke, W. W 2010, Organization change: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications. Kaminski, J 2000, Leadership and Change Management: Navigating the Turbulent Frontier. MSN. Klarner, P., Probst, G. and Soparnot, R 2007, From change to the Management of Organizational Change Capacity : a conceptual approach. Klarner, P 2010, The rhythm of change a longitudinal analysis of the European insurance industry. Wiesbaden, Gabler. Riley, K., Seashore and Louis, K.S 2013, Leadership for Change and School Reform: International Perspectives Boonstra 2004, Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. Crawford, L 2011, Adding change implementation to the project manager's toolkit. Annual Project Management Australia (PMOz) conference. Sydney, Australia Read More