leadership: a postindustrial approach

9
LE.4DERSHIP: .-\ fOSTINDUSTRI.~L APPROACH Leadership: A Post~d~strial approach JOSEPH ROST, Professor of Lendership ad Adnzinistrfftion, Llni:lersity of Sm Diego, Cdiforuia; ANTHONY SMITH, Principal, Keilty, Goldmith and Cortpmy, ln Jolla, Cnlifontia This article focuses on the nature of leadership. Joseph Rost and Anthony Smith expose the failure of the old, industrial view which emphasizes the peripheries of leadership. Instead, they propose a postindustrial concept which concentrates on a relationship of influence between leaders and followers who agree mutual purposes and really intend to carry them out. This process of leadership contrasts with the authority-oriented approach of our traditional understanding. The authors then trace practical steps necesssary to develop this model of postindustrial leadership, describe the five ‘C’s of credibility needed in a leader, and suggest strategies for making the change. Ltyddership as a concept is undergoing a much needed change as MY in the iVestern world approach the 21st century. In fact, many of the powerful concepts that people in Western democracies have been using since they were given to us by the liberal philosophers of the 18th century are being transformed to create a radically new, overarching postindustrial paradigm. Indeed, it is fitting and proper that such a conceptual revolution is occurring in Western societies because they could not endure into the 21st century practising only updated versions of the 18th century framework for democracy and society. A new, radically different paradigm is needed for our postindustrial democratic societies in the 213 century. Leadership as a concept is crucial to that transformation. It may, in fact, be the place to start. In this article, we present a 2Ist century definition of leadership and compare and contrast it Lvith definitions from the industrial era. In the second half of the article, we present a model of leadership that infuses the post- industrial framework into a pragmatic approach of exercising leadership in organizations. Traditional Views of Leadership According to conventional lvisdom, leadership as a : concept has gone through several meanings during the 20th centurv. These different ideas of Ichat leadership has meant In the last 75 years correspond to different movements of leadership thought that are evident in the literature. Thus, we started off the century lvith the age old view of leadership as whatever great men do to control their organizations and societies. That view of leadership gave way to the group theory of leadership popular for two decades before World War II. The group understanding of leadership concentration on the actions that leaders engage in to organize a group to achieve goals. Today, many people call these behaviors group facilitation, but the word leadership is still used. During and after the war in the 1940-5Os, people understood leadership to be certain traits that leaders had to have to exercise leadership. So, writers and would-be leaders thought of leadership as developing and practising certain traits. Therefore, if a person had them and used them, the person was practising leader- ship. If not, the person was not practising leadership. The behavioral movement in the social sciences came into vogue in the late 1950s and dominated leadership thought and practice until the late 1970s. Trait theory was discredited, and researchers began to concentrate on how leaders behaved when they exercised leader- ship. This emphasis led to the notion of contingency or situational leadership wherein leaders varied their behaviors depending on various factors mentioned in five or six very popular models of leadership. The behavioral understanding of leadership is quite simple: leadership is whatever leaders do to get the job done well. The 1980s brought a new understanding of the concept. Leadership is whatever leaders do to promote excellence. ; Leadership as excellence is about being number one. EUROPEAN IvtANACElMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992 193

Upload: joseph-rost

Post on 22-Nov-2016

241 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

LE.4DERSHIP: .-\ fOSTINDUSTRI.~L APPROACH

Leadership: A Post~d~strial approach JOSEPH ROST, Professor of Lendership ad Adnzinistrfftion, Llni:lersity of Sm Diego, Cdiforuia; ANTHONY SMITH, Principal, Keilty, Goldmith and Cortpmy, ln Jolla, Cnlifontia

This article focuses on the nature of leadership. Joseph Rost and Anthony Smith expose the failure of the old, industrial view which emphasizes the peripheries of leadership. Instead, they propose a postindustrial concept which concentrates on a relationship of influence between leaders and followers who agree mutual purposes and really intend to carry them out. This process of leadership contrasts with the authority-oriented approach of our traditional understanding.

The authors then trace practical steps necesssary to develop this model of postindustrial leadership, describe the five ‘C’s of credibility needed in a leader, and suggest strategies for making the change.

Ltyddership as a concept is undergoing a much needed change as MY in the iVestern world approach the 21st century. In fact, many of the powerful concepts that people in Western democracies have been using since they were given to us by the liberal philosophers of the 18th century are being transformed to create a radically new, overarching postindustrial paradigm. Indeed, it is fitting and proper that such a conceptual revolution is occurring in Western societies because they could not endure into the 21st century practising only updated versions of the 18th century framework for democracy and society. A new, radically different paradigm is needed for our postindustrial democratic societies in the 213 century.

Leadership as a concept is crucial to that transformation. It may, in fact, be the place to start. In this article, we

present a 2Ist century definition of leadership and compare and contrast it Lvith definitions from the industrial era. In the second half of the article, we present a model of leadership that infuses the post- industrial framework into a pragmatic approach of exercising leadership in organizations.

Traditional Views of Leadership According to conventional lvisdom, leadership as a : concept has gone through several meanings during the 20th centurv. These different ideas of Ichat leadership has meant In the last 75 years correspond to different movements of leadership thought that are evident in the literature. Thus, we started off the century lvith the age old view of leadership as whatever great men do to control their organizations and societies. That view of leadership gave way to the group theory of leadership popular for two decades before World War II. The group understanding of leadership concentration on the actions that leaders engage in to organize a group to achieve goals. Today, many people call these behaviors group facilitation, but the word leadership is still used.

During and after the war in the 1940-5Os, people understood leadership to be certain traits that leaders had to have to exercise leadership. So, writers and would-be leaders thought of leadership as developing and practising certain traits. Therefore, if a person had them and used them, the person was practising leader- ship. If not, the person was not practising leadership.

The behavioral movement in the social sciences came into vogue in the late 1950s and dominated leadership thought and practice until the late 1970s. Trait theory was discredited, and researchers began to concentrate on how leaders behaved when they exercised leader- ship. This emphasis led to the notion of contingency or situational leadership wherein leaders varied their behaviors depending on various factors mentioned in five or six very popular models of leadership. The behavioral understanding of leadership is quite simple: leadership is whatever leaders do to get the job done well.

The 1980s brought a new understanding of the concept. Leadership is whatever leaders do to promote excellence. ; Leadership as excellence is about being number one.

EUROPEAN IvtANACElMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992 193

Page 2: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

LEADERSHIP: .A POSTI~DLSTRIAL APPRO.~CH

Leadership is simply doing the right thing to achieve excellence in an organization or societv.

That is the conventional wisdom. The story of how our understanding of leadership has developed throughout the 20th centurv has been told repeatedly in magazine and journal articles, books, university classrooms, as rvell as leadership seminars and workshops. The prob- lem with the story is that it is not very accurate. It gives both scholars and practitioners a number of false impres- sions. Among these false impressions are the commonly- held vielvs that (1) our understanding of leadership has grown and developed over the years, and (2) people had lvidely different notions of what leadership was, depending on what movement vvas popular at the time.

The reality is that our understanding of leadership for the last 75 years has basically been the same throughout all these movements and decades. It has been the same because it has been very consistent with the industrial paradigm that has dominated the 20th century in the Western world. The second reality is that our under- standing of leadership is as confused in the 1990s as it was in the 193Os, because both researchers and practi- tioners have tended to focus on the peripheral elements and the cmftwt of leadership as opposed to focusing on the central nature oi leadership. We will elaborate on these two realities in the next two sections.

The Industrial Paradigm of Leadership In 1978, Burns lamented in his famous book, Leadership, that there was no school of leadership. He and other authors have repeated this theme in the 198Os, noting the different definitions and models of leadership as well as the different movements referred to above. In 1991, Rost suggested in his book, leadership for the Tzmzty-first Century, that there was much more commonality in the study of leadership than had been previously thought. He wrote: ‘There has been a school of leadership there all along, but it has never been articulated well as an integrated framework’ (p. 10). He called this integrated framework the ‘industrial paradigm of leadership’, and it all boiled down to just two words. In the industrial era of the 20th century, leadership has been understood as ‘good management’.

While many people wrote and spoke of leadership as synonymous with management, what they were really saying was that the leader is a good manager and leader- ship is good management. The great man theory was about great managers, not mediocre managers. The group theory was about managers who were able to facilitate groups well, not managers who led disorgan- ized groups. The trait theory was about managers who had desirable traits and used these traits to get the job done well, not any and all traits that got the job done poorly or only half way. The behavioral theory was about managers who exercised certain behaviors in managing organizations so that the organization was effective and efficient, not behaviors that allowed

the organization to be ineffective and inefficient. Contingency:situational theories pvere about managers rvho varied their behaviors in clearly defined ways so as to motivate employees to achieve stated goals, not any varied behaviors that produce unwanted or poor results. Finally, the excellence theory w.as about managers who did the right things to achieve excellence in organizations, not managers bvho just did things

right.

Periphery and Content of Leadership The industrial school of leadership is noted for empha- sizing vvhat is peripheral to the nature of leadership. Leadership scholars and practitioners have been almost totally concerned with the peripheries of leadership: traits, personality characteristics, nature or nurture issues, greatness, group facilitation, goal attainment, effectiveness, contingencies, situations, goodness, style and, above all, how to manage an organization better. The amount of ink spilled on the issue of leadership style gives abundant evidence of the passion that scholars and practitioners writing about leadership have had for the trivial and inconsequential in their attempts to understand leadership.

Leadership scholars and practitioners in the industrial era have likewise been consumed by their concern over the content of leadership - the information that leaders in particular organizations and professions need to know in order to be good managers in them. The content of leadership is the stuff that makes people good managers and thus leaders.

The periphery and content syndrome is pervasive in leadership thought and practice. Periphery and content easily account for well over 90% of what has been written about leadership throughout the century and what has happened in leadership seminars and work- shops since the 1960s when they became popular. Thus, less than 10% of the leadership literature and profes- sional development has focused on the nature of leader- ship, the substance of what leadership actually is, an understanding of leadership as a process or relationship. It is little wonder that people in the industrial era were not able to articulate a clear idea of what they meant by the word leadership. If people spend practically all their time writing and thinking about the peripheral elements and the content of leadership rather than the essential nature of leadership as a relationship, it should not be surprising that the same people are unable to articulate their concept of leadership clearly. Burns (1978)said it well, and the quotation has become famous: ‘The fundamental crisis underlying mediocrity [of leadership and leaders] is intellectual. If we know all too much about our leaders, we know far too little about leaders/zip . . . Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth’ (pp. l-2).

An Emerging View of Leadership Many futurists in the Western world believe that a new

194 EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992

Page 3: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

LEADERSHIP: A POSTINDUSTRIAL APPROACH

era is upon us. More accurately, they believe that we are in a transition period wherein the people in the Western world (and perhaps other parts of the world also) will reject the industrial paradigm as the dominant view of life and living and develop a new dominant p‘lradigm that will guide our lives and the way we live and work. In short, the values of the industrial paradigm will give way to the values of a postindustrial paradigm.

If that conclusion is at all accurate, a concept and practice as pervasive in our society as leadership will undergo a paradigm shift. Indeed, we believe that such a change is already under way. Our basic idea of leadership is changing. A postindustrial paradigm of leadership is taking shape and will dominate our thinking by the end of the century. While an exact prediction of what the postindustrial concept of leadership will be cannot be given with absolute certainty, it is possible to state the essentials of an emerging view of leadership with some degree of confidence, This accuracy is possible because we know that the new paradigm must be substantially different from the old one and we have clear evidence of certain trends and are able to project them into the future.

In what follows, we want to compare and contrast the tr,iditional, industrial view of leadership with the emerging, postindustrial view. The five points of comparison in Figure 1 show how dramatically different the emerging view of leadership is from the traditional view of the industrial era. Leadership is now shaping up to be

a process entirely distinct from management; a process in which other people besides managers can be leaders; a relationship in which the focus is on the inter- actions of both leaders and followers, instead of focusing on only the behaviors and/or traits of the leader; a relationship that aims at mutual purposes rather than just those of the leader; a process in which people intend real changes as opposed to a process in which they achieve any goal; and a relationship in which only influence behaviors are acceptable rather than one wherein all legiti- mate behaviors (authority and other forms of coercion included) are acceptable.

-

Traditional

Good management

Leader behaviors/traits

Do the leader’s wishes

Pursue any organizational goals

Use any legitimate behaviors

Process distinct from management, good or bad

Leaders and followers interacting in a relationship

Do what both leaders and followers wish

Pursue proposals that intend real changes

Use influence behaviors only

Figure 1 Traditional and emerging views of leadership

Definition of Leadership

Rost recently developed a definition of leadership that articulates the emerging understanding of leadership. Indeed, his definition is the basis for what we believe is a new school of leadership that will become the new paradigm. Our view is that this concept of leadership will gain more and more acceptance as Western societies change from an industrial to a postindustrial era in the 1990s and the 21st century. What follows is a very abbreviated version of the leadership framework presented in Rost’s book, Leadership for the Twenty-first centur7/.

The new definition is this: Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect the purposes mutually held by both leaders and followers.

This definition of leadership includes four essential elements. All four of these elements are essential, mean- ing that all four must be present if any relationship is to be called leadership. Scholars and practitioners should be able to use these four elements to distinguish leadership from other human relationships, especially the relationship called management.

1. The relationship is based on i$uence. If we conceive of leadership as an influence relationship, then two things follow. It is multidirectional because influence can go any which way, not just from the top down. It is non- coercive because the relationship would turn into an authority, power or dictatorial relationship if coercive behaviors were used to influence. Influence means using persuasion, not positional power, to have an impact on other people. However, persuasion must not be limited to just rational discourse.

2. Leaders and followers are the actors in this relationship. If leadership is what the relationship is, then both followers and leaders are all doing leadership. There is no such thing as followership. That is not to say that all actors in the relationship are equal in influence as such can almost never be the case. When there are multiple actors, the influence patterns of these people are inherently unequal. Obviously, some relationships will be flatter than others. All leadership relationships need not look (or be) the same.

3. Leaders and followers intend real changes. Intend means that the changes the leaders and followers promote are purposeful. Intend means that the leaders and followers do not have to produce changes to do leadership, only intend them and then act on that intention. The inten- tion is in the present, the changes are in the future. Real means that the changes are substantive and transform- ing. Pseudo-changes do not qualify for a relationship to be called leadership.

4. The changes the leaders and followers intend reflect their mutual purposes. The changes must not only reflect what the leaders want but what the followers want. As a

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992 195

Page 4: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

LEADERSHIP: A POSTINDUSTRIAL APPROACH

result, the mutual purposes become the common enter- prise of the leaders and followers because the purposes are forged in the noncoercive, influence relationship.

From these essential elements, we can see that leader- ship is an influence relationship wherein leaders and followers influence one another about real changes that reflects their mutual purposes. Leaders compete with other leaders for followers. Followers develop a relation- ship with leaders of their own choosing, not necessarily those who have authority over them. Leaders and followers may change places. There may be a number of leadership relationships in one organization, and the same people are not necessarily the .leaders in these different relationships.

The intended changes reflect the purpose or vision that leaders and followers have for an organization. That purpose is usually not static but is constantly changing as leaders and followers come and go, as the influence process works its effects on both leaders and followers, and as circumstances, environment, and wants and needs impact on the relationship and the organization.

This definition clearly distinguishes leadership from management, not only in the persons who are possible leaders (thus, managers are not automatically leaders and nonmanagers can be leaders), but in the three other essential elements required for leadership: influence, intended change and mutual purpose. None of those three elements are essential to management. In fact, the four elements (including nonmanagers being leaders) are unacceptable to a concept of management defined as a relationship.

To make the distinction a bit more clear, four contrasting descriptors for leadership and management are given.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Leadership is an influence relationship; manage- ment is an authority relationship. Leadership is done by leaders and followers; management is done by managers and subordi- nates. Leadership involves leaders and followers intend- ing real changes in an organization; management involves coordinating people and resources to produce and sell goods and/or services in an organization. Leadership requires that the intended changes reflect the mutual purposes of the leaders and followers. Management requires coordinated activities to produce and sell the goods and/or services that reflect the organization’s purpose.

Our intention here is not to denigrate management but to distinguish it from leadership. Management plays a vital function in all organizations and societies. These organizations and societies and the world at large would be in terrible shape and our quality of life would be considerably lessened without management. There is no thought here of turning management into leadership or following the traditional view by equating leadership

with good management. On the contrary, we are arguing that people need both management and leadership in their organizations and societies to survive and prosper. But we are arguing just as strongly that people need to know which is which and keep them conceptually distinct in order for both leadership and management to develop in organizations.

The Practice of Leadership in the Postindustrial Era If we are clear about what leadership is under the new paradigm, then we can begin to articulate practical models that will help us exercise leadership in the 1990s as we undergo a transition to the 21st century. The clearer our definition is, the more precise and definite our understanding is, the better we are able to develop a practical approach to practising leadership in the postindustrial era. What follows, then, is a practical approach to postindustrial leadership. We do not suggest that this is the only approach that can be developed using Rost’s definition. Rather, it is a beginning effort to articulate one, fairly comprehensive model that is, perhaps, more suitable for large organizations, both public and private (Figure 2).

In constructing this model, we had to consider how the change can take place in large organizations using a

MAKING THE CHANGE: Org.1 policy makers decide on the proposed change. If the decision is positive, the staff members develop the strategies to institute the change in the organization. If the decision is negative, the leaders and followers go back to square one.

GAINING SUPPORT: Leaders and followers influence others in the organization to support the change. People in the organization influence each other on the specifics of the proposed change.

PLANNING THE CHANGE: Leaders and followers develop an outline of the proposed change. The change reflects the mutual purposes of the leaders and followers,

ASSESSING THE ISSUE: Leaders and followers gather and analyse information and reach conclusions about the direction they intend to take concerning the issue.

BUILDING THE AGENDA: Leaders and followers decide to take on a significant issue after debating the pros and cons of attempting to do something about the issue.

Figure 2 A postindustrial model of leadership I

196 EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992

Page 5: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

sive in the industrial era. We also had to shape the change process to make it more collaborative and oriented to mutual purposes rather than competitive and oriented to leader purposes. Finally, we had to design a change process wherein the leaders and followers could initiate change from the bottom up, the middle down and up, and the top down. It is important that readers do not automatically assume that the leaders in this model are high-level executives.

multidirectional, intluence process rather than an authority-oriented process that is more characteristic of leadership as good management which has been perva-

Building the Agenda There are many things to do in an organization, and it is impossible to do all of them. So, leaders and followers have to decide - sometimes timorously, other times with vigor - that they want to take on an issue of some significance. This beginning decision to address an issue can be easy or hard, logical or intuitive (or a combination of both), supported by considerable evidence or based on clues, initiated by leaders or pressed forward by followers, temporary or permanent.

Traditionally, we have been led to believe that these decisions to tackle an issue are largely the responsibility of leaders, and the followers more or less follow along. While that may continue to be the norm in a post- industrial organization, followers who feel strongly about a certain issue may increasingiy be the ones who push the leaders into a decision to pursue that issue. Alternatively, people who are followers in other leader- ship relationships in an organization may become leaders regarding an upcoming issue and continue to be the leaders who push the change through the process outlined above. They may step forward and be the most iniluential agents involved in making the decision to deal with the issue.

Part of what is involved in making a decision to tackle a problem is getting others to believe that this problem, rather than other competing problems, deserves atten- tion. Organizations are faced with numerous issues and various people in these organizations have different perceptions as to which problems need to be solved now and which ones can be delayed for a time. Also, people’s perceptions of what the problem is may vary, and that may affect their judgement concerning how important, urgent, detrimental or large the problem may be.

Building consensus among leaders and followers that a certain issue or problem is worth tackling is what we mean by building an agenda, the first step in the post- industrial model of leadership. Building that consensus means that the people in the leadership relationship have agreed that this issue is worth their attention, time, energy, serious thought, financial resources and effort. That agreement is what has been built when the leaders and followers build an agenda.

.In the industrial paradigm, the agenda was almost exclu-

LEADERSHIP: A POSTINDUSTRIAL APPROACH

sively buift by the leader and communicated to the foIlo\vers as something ‘we’ would do. As often as not, this process left many of the followers unconvinced about the need and uncommitted to work on the issue. Building the agenda in the postindustrial era suggests a lot more collaboration and mutual effort in making the decision to take on an issue and thus put it on top - or near the top - of the agenda.

Assessing the Issue After a decision is made to deal with an issue, the leaders and followers set out to make an assessment of the issue. The purpose of the assessment is first to test their initial assumptions and pre-established theories, and second to gather enough information so as to give the leaders and followers the opportunity to make judgements on the direction they intend to take in making a change.

Deciding to take on an issue does not commit the people making that decision to any certain direction, solution or strategies concerning the issue at hand. While some people have preliminary ideas on a direction or solution or even specific changes in their minds, and while some people may even have strong opinions or firmly held ideas on possible ways to go, the people in the leader- ship relationship should remain open to being influenced by the results of an assessment. They should also suspend any activities aimed at biasing the assessment or prejudicing the outcome. If the leaders and followers can all agree that they want good, honest, hard-hitting, relevant data to inform their decision-making process, the direction of the change may be easier to come by when some decision about that direction has to be made.

Assessments come in various sizes and shapes. The organizational and behavioral sciences are rich in assessment strategies and instruments ranging from simple survey techniques (i.e. questionnaires, inter- views, focus groups) to sophisticated ethnographic measures of organizational culture. Evaluation models can be used to conduct simple to efaborate assessments. Clearly, the timing and size of the organization as well as the nature of the change must be considered in making decisions about the assessment strategies and instruments.

In general, the purpose of the assessment is to answer two critical questions: (1) What are the current purposes and practices being lived out today? and (2) What are the purposes and practices that people in the leadership relationship would desire to see lived out in the future? When the information is collected, a gap analysis can be performed and other analyses can be made to deter- mine if change is justified and, if so, what the preferred direction of the change is. However, the people in the leadership relationship may interpret the data differently and reach conclusions that vary in kind and intensity. At any rate, there are going to have to be formal and informal meetings for the people to discuss the meanings

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992 197

Page 6: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

LEADERSHIP: A POSTINDUSTRIAL APPROACH

of the assessment and then make some decision on the direction for the change.

A decision about direction is a macro-choice that will focus the group and thus limit options when objectives are stated, plans are developed, and strategies are considered. It is crucial that the people involved in setting a direction understand how important the direc- tion decision is and how absolutely essential it is for the decision to reflect the mutual purposes of the leaders and followers. This is the key stage wherein the inter- active influence process works to hone a collaborative decision and wherein commitment is forged that will motivate leaders and followers for the potentially tough times ahead.

A model of leadership in the postindustrial era involves leaders and followers interacting at all stages

The process can be aborted at this time if the leaders and followers understand the assessment conclusions to point in the direction of no change. If, on the other hand, they affirm their decision to proceed with the issue and decide on a direction for change, the next step is to plan the change process.

Planning the Change With the assessment done, the leaders and followers can decide on the direction of the proposed change and draw up a general outline of the change. Constructing that outline is planning the change.

A direction for the change has to be set. A direction is a general notion of where the change will lead the organization and the people in it. The leaders and followers must agree on a direction and commit them- selves to an action plan that will move the organization in the direction agreed upon. That action plan comes from planning the change.

Given that so many variables influence change, it would be absolutely useless to suggest any specific method of planning for the change. Several methods are available in the literature, and the choice of methods depends in large part on the kind of change that is contemplated. Changes come in all sizes and shapes with various degrees of conflict and cooperation, and so one method of planning for change will not fit all change processes. What follows, then, is a series of comments about planning for change.

!t is important to remember that the change is still in a proposal state, It is not an official policy of the organi- zation. As a result, the leaders and followers still have a lot of influencing to do to bring other people in the organizations on board. And there may have to be some give and take to make the change acceptable to larger

groups of people in different areas and departments. Thus, the plans should be more or less flexible to allow for the leaders and followers to gain support for the plan in the next phase of the leadership process.

The assessment results should be widely disseminated and must be a critical factor in the planning process. Those who did the assessment can now be brought into the leadership group as they can help interpret the assessment results and facilitate their use in drafting the plan. The assessment people can serve as policy analysts who are able to articulate why the change is needed and thus be advocates and influential agents for the change.

The planning process should widen the circle of leaders and followers or at least widen the number of people involved in developing the plan. Meetings should be held to bring people in different departments, areas, plants, offices, and so on into the planning process. Various forms of communication should be used to contact and engage people in the plan. All of these efforts can be used to simply communicate, to obtain feedback about certain provisions in the plan, to influ- ence people concerning one or more aspects of the plan, or to empower larger numbers of people in developing the plan. All of these efforts pay large dividends when the final vote comes and when the plan is implemented.

The end result of the planning process should be a plan collaboratively developed; a plan that is written down on paper in broad, outline form; and a plan that is mutually agreeable to a larger group of people than those who originally decided to initiate the change in phase one of the leadership process. Thus, the plan at this point reflects the mutual purposes of both the original leaders and followers and those who have helped to develop the change plan during the planning process.

Gaining Support With a plan in mind, the leaders and followers can set about influencing the large majority of people in the organization to support the change. Simultaneously they would also want to direct their attention to the board of directors, president and cabinet, and any other officials who have the votes to officially authorize the change or not. Some or all of these officials may be involved, of course, but that may not always be the case

especially in more decentralized organizations.

Gaining this kind of widespread support is difficult, if not impossible, without a plan in place, as people inevit- ably want to know some specifics about the proposed change and how the change will impact them and their departments or plants before they support it. While the leaders and followers are undoubtedly gaining support during all of the other previous phases, this is the time for the change agents to really get busy and develop as many supporters as possible for the change.

Influence comes down to persuasion and persuasion

198 EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992

Page 7: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

LEADERSHIP: A POSTINDUSTRIAL APPROACH

involves the use of various, noncoercive power resources to have an impact on people. Noncoercion allows the elvment of choice to operate in the interactions SO that people can say no to the proposed change without being alienated from the group or organization. In the end, infuence primarily involves numerous forms of com- m~lnic~tion that intend, in different ways, to encourage people to support the change plan. Printed materials, videos, electronic mail, telephone contacts, teleconfer- encing, face-to-face conferences, and small and large meetings can be used in the influence process.

Wt! all know that change is difficult. Even in situations wherein individuals fully realize that change is desired and beneficial, many of them still have a difficult time accepting change. In fact, many proposed changes, including mergers and acquisitions, have failed not berrause the plans or designs lacked merit, but rather because the influence needed to gain support was ineffective. Thus, gaining support for the change plan is not only difficult, it is central to the leadership process. Various forms of influence have been successfully en-ployed in organizational change efforts, and this is

thy time for leaders and followers to use those influence strategies which they have found successful in the past. Remember, however, that only those strategies which are influential in character are acceptable. Various forms of ,luthority and coercion are not allowed, so ultimatums and compliance through position power, as well as other forms of power wielding, are counterproductive to lorg-term change efforts.

Perhaps what should drive the choice of influence str,ltegies should be those that emphasize the perceived credibility of the leaders and followers who decided to tackle the issue and then planned the change. The research on credibility suggests that people tend to evaluate and then give their support to leaders and followers based on five central criteria which we have encapsulated in the Five ‘C’s of Credibility (see Figure 3).

CHARACTER Honesty, trust & integrity

CARE C&RAGE Clearly concerned with Willingness to change,

the welfare of others stand up for one’s beliefs

COhl+OSURE COMPETENCE Grace under pressure, Technical & interpersonal

appropriate display of emotion

Figure 3 The five ‘C’s of Credibilfty

The degree to which leaders and followers are seen as credible is the degree to which others in the organization allow themselves to be influenced. Although the criteria are not equally t\.eighted (one or more selected criteria may be more important than other criteria in any given situation), the way credibility is established is clear. All five components are necessary to credibility; if any one of the components is noticeably deficient, the overall credibility of the leaders and followers will diminish.

Based on the strongest characteristics of the leadership relationship as a whole, the leaders and followers can select the influence strategies that will enlist support for the change. Perhaps a time line can be built which allows for different strategies to be used at different times. Also, some strategies may work better for the people in certain departments while other strategies may work better for other people.

Strategies can be placed on a continuum of credibility. Figure 4 lists several influence strategies and their relationship to credibility. The placement of any strategy on the credibility continuum may vary from one organi- zation to another, but the placement in Figure 4 is generally accurate for most large organizations.

Making the Change Having gained the necessary support for the change, the leaders and folIowers are ready to have the change proposal brought to the organizational policy makers for their approval and support. It is here where the influence strategies and credibility become operationalized once again. Making the change proposal an official policy, of course, is the climax of the leadership process, for a policy is necessary if the change is going to be imple- mented and have an impact on the organization. If all goes well and the policy makers accept the proposal, then congratulations are in order and the hard work of institutionalizing the change begins.

If the proposal is defeated, the leaders and foilowers may have no other option but to go back to the first phase of the process and start over. Time, changed circumstances and different people may make the proposal more acceptable at a later date. It may also be possible to change the proposal in ways that make it more acceptable and bring it back to the policy makers for another vote.

A third scenario might develop wherein another group of leaders and followers have brought a counter proposal to the policy makers so that they have a choice of two different change plans. Such a situation is quite probable if the intended change is significant, and we should see more of this kind of scenario played out as our organiza- tions become more influence-based and less authority- based. While one group of leaders and followers may not like operating in this scenario, especially if they are used to having their way most of the time, the reality is that contrasting change proposals from alternative

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992 199

Page 8: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

LEADERSHIP: A POSTINDUSTRIAL APPROACH

Presenting a rational case

Building Coalitions

Bargaining

Low Credibility High Credibility

kserting Expertise

leveloping Zommunity

Figure 4 lnffuence strategies and credibility

groups of leaders and followers may be in the best interests of the organisation as a whole.

A fourth scenario could take place in which significant opposition to the proposal develops during the third or fourth phase but that opposition has no alternative proposal to put on the table. The policy makers are then faced with two opposing groups: (1) the leaders and followers who want the change, and (2) the group of people who do not want the change. This scenario is not as healthy as the previous one as the process becomes an either-or, win-lose battle that could be very divisive and disruptive to the organizational culture. Or, alternatively, it may very well be the beginning of a new culture that is being put in place but cannot be institu-

tionalized without a significant fight from the status quo elements in the organization.

Both of these scenarios are complex situations, and they often play out very differently in organizations. It is impossible to suggest any strategy that would give a clear cut advantage and lead to success for the leaders and followers in these situations. Indeed, the leaders and followers will have to use all of their policy-making expertise and skills to deal with these scenarios, and the strategies may have to change daily or weekly. The reality is that the leaders and followers may not be successful in having their proposal adopted or the proposal may be significantly altered and, as a result,

the change may not quite fulfil the dream that the leaders and followers had in mind. The other reality maJ be that other leaders and followers are successful ir fulfilling their dream! In any event, leadership is not 2 relationship that is guaranteed to be successful, and the people in the relationship have to understand that ver) real possibility.

Be that as it may, there are times when leadership is successful, when leaders and followers do have theii change proposal accepted and then implemented in ar organization. Those are the times when all the hart work that goes into exercising leadership pays off, and the leaders and followers can see the organization growing and developing in ways that reflect their mutual purposes. Those successes are what motivate leaders and followers to give leadership another try the next time they see a change that is needed. And these successive attempts at leadership are, in part, whai makes human beings responsible and proactive in designing their world, what makes our organizations vibrant and prosperous, and what makes our’societies and globe healthy and good.

References Burns, J.M. (1978) hdership, New York: Harper & Row. Rost, J.C. (1991) ~~~e~s~~p for the T~)~fy-~rs~ Century, Ner*,

York: Praeger.

200 EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992

Page 9: Leadership: A postindustrial approach

LEXDERSHIP: 4 POSTINDUSTRIAL APPROACH

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 10 No 2 June 1992 201