TAXONOMIES AND THEORIES OF CHANGE LEADERSHIP

Most people feel they know what leadership is, or at least, somewhat akin to pornography, “we know it when we see it.” That has not stopped academics and practitioners from developing general theories about the “best” ways to categorize approaches to leadership. We group these taxonomies into the following six categories:

• Trait theories of leadership attempt to develop a list of defined characteristics of leadership, such as intelligence, self-confidence, decisiveness, courage, empathy, and integrity. Proponents include Stogdill (1948, 1974); Mann (1959); Lord, DeVader, and Allinger (1986); Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991); and more recently the “emotional IQ” or maturity approach of Goleman (1998) and Goleman, McKee, and Boyatzis (2002).

• The style approach emphasizes the behavior of leaders, ranking individual relationships with followers in terms of the leaders’ “concern for people” and “concern for production or results.” The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid is one of the best known approaches of this type (1964, 1985).

• The situational approach characterizes the leader’s role along a “supportive” and “directive” matrix, based on the development level of the followers (Hersey and Blanchard 1993).

• Contingency theory—a “leader-match” approach—suggests that the type of leadership style needed depends on three factors: leader-member relations (good or poor), task structure (high or low), and positional power of the leader vis-à-vis the follower (strong or weak) (Fiedler 1967; Fiedler and Chemers 1974).

• The transactional versus transformational leadership approach is associated with James MacGregor Burns’ influential book Leadership (1978) and the work of Bennis and Nanus (1985). Transactional leadership refers to leadership approaches that focus on the exchanges (i.e., promises of rewards or threats of punishment) between leaders and followers. In contrast, transformational leadership refers to a process in which the leader and follower engage each other in creating a shared vision that raises the level of motivation for both. Bass and Avolio (1994) state that this level of motivation encompasses the following: “idealized influence”—charisma or ethical role model of the leader; “inspirational motivation”—communicating the shared vision and values; “intellectual stimulation”—for greater creativity and innovation; and “individualized consideration”—listening carefully to the needs of the followers.

• Servant leadership focuses on the follower: The leader is required to take care of and nurture the follower, while shifting power to the follower (Greenleaf 1970; Autry 2001). Other “holistic” approaches that are generally linked with a strong ethical dimension include “spiritual” leadership (Fairholm 1997; Vaill 1989b) and “stewardship” (Kass 1990; Kee 2003).

While their proponents suggest that the various leadership theories apply to organizations that are fairly static as well as to those that are undergoing change, leadership theories do not always explicitly take “change” into account. Some might argue that leadership is inherently change-oriented—that the function of management is to protect and nurture the status quo, while the function of leadership is to continually examine better ways of doing things (see, e.g., Zeleznik 1977). Clearly, some of the leadership theories, such as transformational leadership, are more change-oriented.

Nonetheless, issues of change leadership have spawned a whole new set of authors, many of whom have written primarily with the practitioner in mind. For the sake of discussion, we have created a taxonomy that divides the works of these authors into three models of change leadership: leader-centered, follower-centered, and change-centric leadership.

In any change effort, a public sector leader or manager must make careful use of his or her power and influence to effect the necessary change. However, the nature of the use of power and influence may be different depending on whether the change leader is leader-centered, follower-centered, or change-centric.

A leader-centered change leader is likely to focus on those aspects of power and influence that revolve around the leader’s own power sources (legitimate authority, expertise, charisma). In follower-centered change, a leader is more likely to rely on his or her indirect sources of power and influence (common vision, relationships, organizational norms and culture, empowerment). A change-centric leader is likely to rely primarily on mutual trust and community, drawing on both the leader’s and the followers’ power to achieve the needed change.

Table 2.1 provides a summary of the three approaches to change and their various strengths and weaknesses.

TABLE 2.1: Comparison of Change Leadership Models

Leader-Centered Change Leadership

Much of the change leadership literature is based on the assumption that change initiatives emanate primarily from the top leader or leaders of an organization. While various levels of employee participation may be involved, the ultimate change vision and strategy are formulated by those at the organization’s helm and trickle down through the various levels of hierarchy in a top-down approach. In this model, the success or failure of the change initiative is solely dependent upon the actions of the leader.

Charismatic leaders who initiate changes based on their personal characteristics and inspire others to follow their vision fall into this category of change leadership. A prime example of charismatic leadership is the legendary General Electric CEO Jack Welch. According to Welch, “leaders are people who “inspire with clear vision of how things can be done better’” (Welch quoted in Slater 1999, 29).

Strengths of Leader-Centered Leadership

One argument for the leader-centered framework is the assumption that the leader is in the best position to plan for an organization-wide change effort. Top leadership has the power to use the organization’s resources for the change, the ability to see the system holistically, and the authority of being in a leadership position, which legitimizes the change effort in the eyes of employees (Conger in Beer and Nohria 2000).

Kotter argues in his book Leading Change that top leadership is in the unique position of effecting change. Kotter articulates eight steps that he deems necessary to lead change successfully, including creating a sense of urgency for change, communicating the change vision, creating small wins, and embedding the change into the organization’s culture. Although these steps involve employee participation and involvement along the way, they are ultimately the responsibility of top management (Kotter 1996).

According to other change leadership authors, top leadership is also best positioned to overcome resistance to change from lower level employees by changing employees’ “mental maps,” or their current understanding of the status quo, so they are more willing to embrace the change effort (Black and Gregersen 2002). The primary goal is not to involve employees in the vision-setting stage of the change process, but instead to invite their participation in the implementation stage of the change so resistance can be mitigated.

An additional strength of leader-centered change is the efficiency it provides in decision-making. When a decisive, timely decision needs to be made, relying on the top leader to make the call can be the quickest course of action. While occasionally it may be beneficial to have input from employees in decision-making, there may not be time for such extended interaction when making a decision for change. Leaders often need to adapt to a new course quickly and effectively.

Potential Weaknesses of Leader-Centered Leadership

Although the leader-centered change strategy has many benefits, it also has several drawbacks. The first consideration is whether the organization’s culture will accept or reject the change effort. Often, organizational cultures are resistant to change and can thwart the process, through both direct and indirect means. If top leadership simply tries to push change down the ranks, the employee culture may resist and successfully sabotage the effort.

Another drawback to the leader-centered approach is the potential lack of communication between top management and those actually implementing the mechanics of the change. Kotter contends that communicating the change through repeated announcements or meetings is important to help people become familiar with the change process (1996). However, any change effort pushed from the top down has the potential to be misconstrued by those not involved in the planning. They may not have the background or full understanding of why a change is necessary and may therefore resist the change. Such a scenario is not conducive to the type of “buy-in” so many change authors (e.g., Kotter 1996) say is critical for effectively overcoming resistance and orchestrating change.

Related to the problem of buy-in is the sometimes faulty assumption that top leadership knows the one and only successful change path. However, it is often mid-level managers and frontline employees who will be charged with implementing the change effort. These hands-on individuals have experience and knowledge of details related to implementing the change that top leadership may not. If frontline workers are not included to some degree in the planning process, leaders may miss important ideas for implementing the change.

Follower-Centered Change Leadership

In contrast to the top-down approach of the leader-centered model, the follower-centered leadership framework outlines how change is accomplished from the bottom up. In this model, change is initiated from any level within the organization. Top leadership works to bring frontline change issues to the forefront and then steps back and allows lower level employees to control the change process. The idea of servant leadership is conducive to this model (Greenleaf 1977; Autry 2001).

One role of a servant leader is to delegate authority and power to subordinates in order to improve the employees’ leadership skills and abilities (Northouse 2004). In the change process, a servant leader defers to employees’ ideas and approaches in implementing the change. While this process may not lead to the exact change the leader seeks, the change that does occur is more likely to be supported throughout the organization.

Strengths of Follower-Centered Leadership

One major advantage of the follower-centered approach is its ability to lower resistance to change and encourage the feeling of empowerment among those being asked to implement the change. This deep level of involvement can lead to a consensus for change. Raelin’s idea of “leaderful organizations” (2003) is a good example of this strategy. To be leaderful is to distribute leadership roles, including the powers of decision-making, goal-setting, and communicating, throughout the entire group or team working on a change process. The focus is on fostering group dynamics that help individuals feel valued and part of the entire change effort.

Bennis argues that our society places too much emphasis on individual leadership capabilities and overlooks the value of considering everyone’s role in the organizational system. He labels top-down change management “maladaptive” and “dangerous” (Bennis in Beer and Nohria 2000, 120). For Bennis, successful organizations are those whose leaders focus on followers and encourage the expression of their opinions on organizational operations, including change processes.

By encouraging involvement and collaboration, the follower-centered approach offers the potential for increased intra-organizational communication. If everyone in the organization is a part of the change effort, then there is likely to be increased communication and collaboration, although it will take more coordinating effort from leadership to achieve this increase.

Potential Weaknesses of Follower-Centered Leadership

The main drawback of the follower-centered approach is its lack of timeliness in fostering decisions. In today’s fast-paced world, there is often insufficient time to devote to such a labor-intensive change process as the follower-centered framework requires. Developing a group to the level of a “leaderful organization” as Raelin suggests would take more time and resources than most organizations have to spare. Additionally, the emphasis on consensus building is not realistic or even desirable in all cases. Often, people cannot completely agree on a certain issue, yet a decision needs to be made to move forward.

Furthermore, while this approach may work well in a small team of six to eight people, it is not likely to be achievable or effective in a government agency with over 10,000 employees or a large nonprofit agency, such as the Red Cross. The logistics of organizing such a high level of collaboration and leadership sharing in such a huge organization are hard to fathom. Additionally, there are often legitimate reasons, such as security concerns, for restricting information within the organization.

The last major challenge to the follower-centered approach is its potential lack of strategic thinking. While those on the front lines will often know implementation details better than top management, they may not be privy to the full picture of what the change process needs to achieve on all levels. They may understand their particular team or department well, but they may not understand the full impact of how their piece fits into the larger organizational change puzzle. Also, because of the potential lack of the “big picture,” follower-centered change groups may not have the extra-organizational contacts necessary to make a change initiative successful.

Change-Centric Leadership

The leader-centered and follower-centered approaches (top-down versus bottom-up) do not offer much middle ground. Based on our research and case studies, we believe that change-centric, transformational stewardship presents an alternative and more successful approach. This model does not focus on which level of the organization should institute the change effort. Instead, what matters is finding the proper balance of topdown and bottom-up management that leads to a successful change effort.

The focus of change-centric leadership is on the successful change effort itself, not on assigning inflexible leadership roles. This is not to say that leadership is unimportant. On the contrary, the leaders of an organization serve as facilitators of change. They should strive to be cognizant of when change efforts require more initiative from the top and when the success of change efforts may hinge on allowing more employee participation and formulation of the change vision and plan. Dialogue among all levels of leadership is encouraged, but not to the extent of hindering the decision-making process.

Sometimes the top leaders in an organization will need to make change decisions, especially when external environmental pressures and resource constraints do not allow for more employee involvement. However, because change efforts in the public and nonprofit sectors are often completed over a longer time frame, more participation from lower ranks can be cultivated.

Strengths of Change-Centric Leadership

One of the major strengths of change-centric leadership is its ability to address the buyin and resistance problems associated with the leader-centered model. As a result of the interaction between top leadership and lower levels of employees, employees can feel more like a part of the process instead of merely following orders. This approach will ultimately lower resistance and increase a feeling of ownership for those involved with the change process at all levels.

The change-centric leadership approach we advocate is not the same as “situational” leadership—where the focus is more narrowly on the competence and commitment of the followers—but is a more whole systems approach. By “whole systems” we follow Atwood et al.’s (2003) notion of a comprehensive approach that requires leaders to build trust and collaboration among affected interest groups, users, communities, and potential partners and stakeholders. In this approach, the leader is not working in a vacuum for change: “leaders need to develop coherent frameworks within which people can decide what should remain the same and what should change” (p. 61). Numerous stakeholders are involved in the change process, and the leader facilitates the interaction among internal and external stakeholders regarding change initiatives.

Dunphy provides further support for our definition of change-centric leadership. Theories about the source of change leadership are based on the false assumption that “unitary leadership” is present in every organization (Dunphy in Beer and Nohria 2000). Dunphy argues that more than one leadership movement is often present in an organization, which could result in multiple change efforts being promoted at the same time. These movements could also come from various levels in the organization.

According to Dunphy, an organization that is attempting to change needs to have strategic goals from top management as well as tactical involvement by informed and knowledgeable members of the organization at all levels. Change-centric leadership offers a framework for dealing with multiple change initiatives from varying levels within the organization through facilitation and open discussion.

The idea of change-centric leadership is also supported by the existing literature on leading through stewardship. Stewardship involves creating a balance of power in the organization, establishing a primary commitment to the larger community, having each person join in defining purpose, and ensuring a balanced and equitable distribution of rewards. Stewardship is designed to create a strong sense of ownership and responsibility for outcomes at all levels of the organization (Kee 2003).

Steven Kelman, former director of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy within the Office of Management and Budget, presents a prime example of change-centric leadership in his book Unleashing Change. Kelman recounts his firsthand experience leading procurement reform efforts during the first Clinton administration. Although Kelman saw a need for reform, he did not push a change agenda down through the ranks. Instead, he sought information and found that many of the frontline procurement officers were also calling for change in the system. Kelman refers to these individuals as the “change vanguard” (2005).

Kelman used the power of his position to unleash the change effort that was fermenting at the lowest levels. In this instance, he served as a facilitator of the change effort; he was a leader pushing for change while simultaneously helping those in the change vanguard see their initiatives succeed. Procurement reform is widely viewed as one of the success stories of the Clinton administration’s “Reinventing Government” efforts (Kettl 1998).

Potential Weaknesses of Change-Centric Leadership

Although the change-centric framework provides middle ground to the top-down, bottom-up dichotomy, its implementation poses some potential challenges. The first deals with the tough questions of how much facilitation is needed and in what context. It is easy to say that a combination of leadership from the top and involvement from lower level employees is ideal in a change environment, but how much of each should be sought? As with most complex matters, the unsatisfactory answer is: it depends. Many issues, such as available time and resources, the skill level of those implementing the change, past experiences with organizational change, and technology that may aid the change process will influence how much control the change-centric leader should exert in any given change program. The more experience a leader has in overseeing change, the greater the chance that he or she can be a successful change-centric leader, providing the right balance of facilitation and control.

Another potential drawback to change-centric leadership is that those facilitating the change process may focus too much on the process of involving others in the plans rather than on the change itself. The danger is that the change-centric leader could become too process-oriented and lose sight of how to achieve the long-term change objectives. The leader must balance the competing demands of engaging in a collaborative process and guiding those involved toward the end goals—and not get lost in the process of change.

A final challenge of this model is the potential for ambiguous accountability. With so many people at different levels within the organization involved in the change effort, it may be easy for individuals to assume that someone else has responsibility for a task that may fall under their reach. To avoid confusing questions of who is accountable for what, clear tasks and measures need to be identified early in the process so that everyone knows exactly how he or she will contribute as the change progresses.