“The leadership of change is a highly dynamic process in which leaders influence and are influenced by each other as well as other people related to the change. It is unlikely… that leaders can make it through a change unscathed by the process of which they are an integral part.” (Ford & Ford, 2012).
2020 may be the year that literally everyone is called on to exercise change leadership in some form. Whether it be change in themselves, their households, amongst their teams or across their organizations, this is a year in which transition is unavoidable.
So perhaps more than in any other year, we may have more interest in what it takes to successfully lead change. Spoiler alert: It’s a question that has no single answer or definitive prescription. Even so, research indicates that change leadership is essential and that there are aspects of it that we can better understand and aim to master.
Definition: What is change?
As a leader, it can be useful to take a 10,000 ft view of change and be willing to visit this altitude from time to time. From this height, you can see that change is as simple and as complicated as moving from the current state to a future state. To lead the change, in any capacity, you have to have a good understanding of both of these states — current (where you are) and future (where you want to be). Like any journey, if you don’t know where you are and where you are going, progress will be elusive. Additionally, you’ll need to know how to navigate. The level and type of skills required will depend on the clarity of the route, the duration of the expedition, and how many people are along for the ride.
Actions: What do change leaders do?
As noted previously, there is no one prescription for change leadership. However, there are various frameworks from research that can help us to understand the types of skills change demands of leaders. I draw from the work of Julie Battilana and colleagues, which I like for its simplicity, the research behind it, and because it highlights many of the themes covered in other frameworks.
What this research suggests is that leadership is multi-dimensional and involves activities related to:
Communication: Making the case for change (rationale, need) and sharing the vision for the change (benefits, future state).
Mobilization: Marshaling resources and gaining buy-in for new requirements, structures, or daily routines necessary to implement a change and function in the future state.
Evaluation: Measuring, monitoring, and assessing the change implementation process and the impact of the change effort in the long-term.
In addition, change calls on leaders to exhibit various behaviors, which are often categorized as person-orientation, or showing consideration for others, and task-orientation, which relate to one’s ability to clarify and structure work in a way that is aligned to the organization’s objectives.
This and other research indicate that all of these activities and behaviors are important, although leaders may not be naturally or equally skilled in them all. Thus, becoming more aware of your relative strengths and weakness in these areas is an important first step to developing your change leadership capability. In addition, organizations may benefit when multiple leaders partner to lead change, thereby allowing the organization to leverage the complementary skills offered by each leader.
Structure: Change leader or change leaders?
If you are tapped to lead a change, it’s worthwhile to consider what leadership structure the change demands. In our minds-eye, we may see a single person leading a change. The heroic leader, if you will. This can work, but generally only for small, well-defined changes.
Changes of any kind of scale, such as those that impact multiple functions or locations, if not an entire enterprise, require some degree of co-leadership. Although there may still be a figurehead or single sponsor of a change, the work of leading is, in practice, entrusted to a group (e.g., an executive team or group organized for the change) or those who hold positions at a particular level on the organizational hierarchy.
Finally, there is also the option of collective leadership. In such situations, a high-level goal or challenge is shared across the organization, but the means of achieving it, and therefore the leadership of it, are hyper-localized.
Level: Executive or Middle Manager?
The change leadership role played by an individual may depend on their level of the organizational hierarchy. In particular, it’s critical to recognize the unique role of middle managers during change. Although they can initiate organizational change, more often, they are positioned to implement change initiated elsewhere. In this capacity, middle managers are often challenged to balance the needs of various stakeholders while also making sense of the change for themselves. Indeed, research indicates that success for middle managers during change requires finding this balance rather than choosing between stakeholders (e.g., boss vs. team).
Resistance: How can leaders influence employee responses to change?
A common question amongst leaders is: “How do I manage change resistance?” I find it more productive to think of people as responding to change rather than resisting change. By extension, leaders may be well-served to consider how people change and how they might influence or shape this process.
There are many factors that influence how people respond to change. Two among them, which are highly relevant for leaders, are trust and fairness. For instance, research indicates that people tend to be more open to, and less threatened by, changes that are initiated by someone they trust. Further, people may be more willing to accept an unfavorable outcome of a change, such as the loss of power or budget, if the outcome was the result of a fair process.
But trust and fairness don’t just happen. The key for change leaders is to understand what you can do to build trust and how you can demonstrate fairness during change — and then make the effort to do it.
References
Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Alexander, J. A. (2010). Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 422-438.
Bryant, M., & Stensaker, I. (2011). The competing roles of middle management: Negotiated order in the context of change. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 353-373.
Daly, J. P., & Geyer, P. D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large‐scale change: Employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(7), 623-638.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2012). The leadership of organization change: A view from recent empirical evidence. In Research in organizational change and development. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31-69.
Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 455
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752-788.
Ten Have, S., ten Have, W., Huijsmans, A. B., & Otto, M. (2016). Reconsidering change management: Applying evidence-based insights in change management practice. Routledge.
.