The Influence Of Leadership On Organizational Culture And Its Effects On Knowledge Management Initiative 

 

Nor Hazana binti Abdullah

Associate Professor Dr. Ahmad bin Othman 

Abstract 

This paper attempts to highlight the significant roles of leadership in moulding the knowledge supporting organizational culture, which in turn will stimulate the knowledge management initiatives. Review on literatures that study the interaction between leadership and organizational culture in response to the knowledge management initiatives is discussed. Analysis of previous literature shows that leadership is the single most important factor in the creation of knowledge supporting culture. Leaders that encourage knowledge management initiatives need to possess more expert power and encourage participative management. The supportive behaviour of leaders will facilitate the evolution of the knowledge supporting organizational culture. 

Introduction

 

      The importance of knowledge in organization has been highlighted as early as in 1890 by Alfred Marshall. However, its popularity has been accentuated only in the nineties (Quintas, 2002). The intensification of interest in knowledge management is driven by a host of factors which collectively reflect the urgent need for organization to manage knowledge. These factors include: (1) the increasing realization that wealth is generated from knowledge and intangible assets: (2) the rediscovery that human resource is the reservoir of organizational knowledge; (3) the rapid change in markets, competition and technology which demand continuous learning to remain competitive; (4) the recognition that innovation stems from knowledge creation and application; (5) the growing importance of cross-boundary knowledge transaction resulting from the globalisation process; and (6) the technology limitations to unearth certain types of knowledge such as tacit knowledge (Baker and Baker, 2001; Quintas, 2002). Numerous findings from previous literatures on the imperative value of knowledge management to organizations have also lent support to the concept (Bollinger and Smith, 2001; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001; Holowetzki, 2002; Chin-Loy, 2003; Chin; 2001; Crawford, 2004, Mustafa, 2002; Rowley, 1999; Gloet and Berrell, 2003).  

Organizational Culture and Its Effects on Knowledge Management Initiatives 

      In recent article titled “Toward a Model of Effective Knowledge Management and Direction for Future Research: Culture, Leadership and CKOs”, DeTienne, Dyer,

Hoopes and Harris (2004) proposed four major elements for effective knowledge management initiatives. These elements are organizational culture, organizational leadership, chief knowledge officers or CKOs, and technology. Similar with Davenport and Prusak’s argument, they emphasize the need for the organizational culture that cultivates cooperation and trust. Celep and Cetin (2005) also outlined seven factors that contribute to the successful implementation of knowledge management among Turkey’s schools which are leadership, cultural structure, knowledge hubs and centers, tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge, knowledge vision and learning culture. A survey done by Mason and Pauleen (2003) among 71 middle managers of New Zealand organizations revealed that barriers to knowledge managements were internal factors such as organizational culture, leadership and education. Forty-five percent of the responses indicated that organizational culture is the most significant barrier following by leadership with 22% and education with 16%. Clearly, there seems to be an agreement that organizational culture is a key factor to successful knowledge management implementation (Guptara, 1999; Holland, 1999; Marr; 2003; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001; Holowetzki, 2002).  

      As success factors to knowledge management have been identified, the next question is why organizational culture has received such recognition. According to DeTienne, Dyer, Hoopes and Harris (2004), organizational culture “exerts a powerful influence on how companies manage knowledge” and thus becomes a sought-after mechanism to promote free-flow of information among employees and across department lines.  De Long and Fahey (2000) identified four means in which organizational culture influences the behaviors central to knowledge creation, sharing and use. Firstly, culture and subculture shape the assumptions about what knowledge is and which knowledge is worth managing. Secondly, culture defines the relationships between individual and organizational knowledge, determining who is expected to control specific knowledge, as well as who must share it and who can hoard it. Thirdly, culture creates the context for social interaction and determines how knowledge will be used in particular situations. And finally, culture shapes the processes by which new knowledge is created, legitimated and distributed in organizations.  

      In another study by Knapp and Yu (1999), they further explained the dynamics of organizational culture which eventually lead to cohesiveness and internalizations of knowledge management initiatives. Specifically, they asserted that organizational culture “provides employees with the permission, the prescription and the incentives…” to execute the knowledge management initiatives. Guptara (1999) proposed nature of hierarchies of the organizational culture as major obstacle to promote the ease of communication and interpersonal relationships which are critical for knowledge management implementation. Chin-loy (2003) reasoned that since organizational culture influences decision-making, management style, employee relations and behavior pattern in the organizations, any knowledge management initiatives must be ‘fit’ with the organizational culture.  Davenport and Prusak (1998) asserted that values and beliefs “… are integral to knowledge, determining the large part what the knower sees, absorbs, and concludes from observations”. This contention is further supported by Baker and Baker (2001) whom succinctly concluded “although a variety of

technologies can support it, knowledge management is really about changing people’s behavior to make their experience and expertise available to others”. This implies that organizational culture is the ‘very core’ of knowledge management. People in organizations organize their knowledge based on their values and subsequently share their knowledge based on these values.  

      In the context of knowledge management, major cultural factors that have received considerable attention are information system, organizational structure, reward system, processes, people and leadership (Halowetzki, 2002).  The first cultural factor which is information system is seen as a prevalent factor since technology-driven solutions were the first approaches to developing knowledge management initiatives. In term of organizational structure, formal and hierarchal organizational structure is claimed to prevent effective knowledge management initiatives (Guptara, 1999). Learning organization and the formation of communities of practice are among the highly cited organizational structures that make knowledge management more permeable. Reward system is a cultural factor that includes compensation system and performance appraisal. In order for the rewards system to support the knowledge management initiatives, it must recognize the contribution of people who create and share knowledge (Holland, 1999; Gloet and Berrel, 2003; Bollinger and Smith, 2001). The fifth cultural factor is process. It refers to the extent the knowledge management initiatives meet the organizational objectives to promote knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer and knowledge flow.  Bollinger and Smith (2001) asserted the need for knowledge to be recognized as strategic asset that must be linked with organizational objectives. As knowledge is resided in people, the people are seen as a crucial cultural factor that is inter-related with other cultural factors. Therefore, some researchers claimed that effective knowledge management needs to focus on people as one of its core values through human resource management (HRM) interventions (Salleh Yahya and Goh, 2002; Gloet and Berrel, 2003). Strong and dedicated leadership that walk the talk is seen as a must-have cultural factor. In addition, the leadership’s role is critical to create the vision, mission, objectives and ethics codes of the knowledge management system (DeTienne, Dyer, Hoopes, and Harris, 2004; Holland, 1999).  

      DeTienne, Dyer, Hoopes, and Harris (2004) further argued that the most effective organizational culture to support knowledge management is the culture that is characterized with cooperative involvement and trust. These authors concentrated on the soft aspects of the organizational culture and not so much on the structure and system of the organizations. Other writers proposed a knowledge-supportive or knowledge sharing culture as the most desirable organizational culture in order to ensure knowledge management’s success (Ribiere and Sitar, 2003; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001; Bollinger and Smith; 2001). Knowledge-supportive culture is an environment where employees are empowered and willing to disseminate information (Ribiere and Sitar, 2003) whereby knowledge-sharing culture refers to employee willingness to share knowledge as part of the ways of working (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001). In this paper, both terms are used interchangeably to indicate the needs to achieve both ends and the complementary nature of both terms.

      As evident from the above discussion, organizational culture has been in the limelight in the context of knowledge management development. It is recognized that organizational culture does in fact play a critical role. Yet, what is ironic is the fact that the significant leadership’s role in the creation and management of organizational culture that support knowledge management initiatives has been downplayed. Most knowledge management-organizational culture literatures view leadership as part of the cultural factors that needs to be simultaneously addressed. For example, Holland (1999) detailed down ten ways to embed knowledge management into organizational culture and scantly mentioned that all these actions must be “consistently applied along with massive doses of leadership by example”. Robbins (2003) in his article titled “Harnessing Group Memory to build a Knowledge- Sharing Culture” mentioned that cultural change “requires a strong commitment from the top” without further elaborations on the impacts of leaders on the knowledge sharing culture.  

      Other researchers proposed Chief Knowledge Officers as an important element to overcome barriers of knowledge management (DeTienne, Dyer, Hoopes, and Harris, 2004). Nevertheless, in reality the CKOs positions would not be created without the organizational leadership’s consent and their responsibilities are also limited to managing knowledge as strategic assets (Nonaka, Toyama and Konna, 2002).  Despite this lack of acknowledgement and fragmented evidence of leadership roles in numerous literatures, further scrutiny on the organizational culture literatures showed that leadership is the single most important factor in term of creation, management and change of any organizational culture, which includes knowledge-supportive or knowledge-sharing organizational culture.      

The Influence of Leadership on Organizational Culture 

      Schein (1992) in particular described in details the significant roles of leadership in the creation and management of organizational culture throughout organizational growth; early life, midlife and maturity and decline. During the formation of organizations, leaders or founders have a major impact on how the early members of the organization define and solve their “external adaptation and internal integration problems”.  Since founders or leaders are usually entrepreneurs who have a high level of self-confidence and determination, they usually impose strong assumptions to their invented organizations. When their assumptions survive and successful in the business environment, the assumptions will be perceived as correct and eventually will be internalized as part of the organizational culture.  Furthermore, founders or leaders tend to select other organizational members that have the similar assumptions and therefore strengthen the foundation of the organizational culture.  Organizational members who have conflicting views on organizational culture tend to leave and thus creating a more homogeneous climate for those who remains. Schein (1992) proposed two types of

mechanisms used by the leaders/founders to integrate their assumptions in the organizational culture.  

      The culture-embedding mechanisms are as follows;

Primary Embedding Mechanisms Secondary Articulation and Reinforcement Mechanisms

 What leaders pay attention to, measure and control on regular basis 

How leaders react to critical incidents and organizational crises 

Observed criteria by which leaders allocate scarce resources 

Deliberate role modeling, teaching, and coaching 

Observed criteria by which leaders allocate rewards and status 

Observed criteria by which leaders recruit, select, promote, retire, and ex-communicate organizational members.

 Organizational design and structure 

Organizational systems and procedures 

Organizational rites and rituals. 

Design of physical space, facades, and buildings 

Stories, legends, and myths about people and events 

Formal statements of organizational philosophy, values and creed.

Adapted from Schein (1992) 

      In organizations, the secondary mechanisms are sometimes labeled as organizational climate and they are a reflection and manifestation of cultural assumptions derived from the leaders, especially at the initial formation of the organizations.  These secondary mechanisms can become a powerful reinforcement of the primary mechanisms used by the leaders. The principles of using the secondary mechanisms are that they must be consistent with the primary mechanisms and leaders need to set an example.  

      The dynamics of midlife, maturity and declining organizations in term of the influence of leaders are quite different from the early stage of organization formation. For example, in the midlife organizations, the culture determines the leadership as founders have been replaced with newer generations of CEOs. The new breed of leaders needs to understand the organizational culture and decide which cultural assumptions that needs to be changed. In short, they become the cultural change agents. They can promote changes through systematic promotion of desired subculture, use planned organizational development projects, create parallel learning structure or unfreezing and change through technological seduction (Schein, 1992). When the

organizations enter into the maturity and decline phase, which may indicate that the existing organizational culture becomes outdated, the leaders need to start the change process at a more pervasive level. At this juncture, leaders with transformational leadership style are often desirable (Politis, 2001; Schein 1992).  

      Drawing from the given importance of leadership roles in organizational culture formation and management described above, it is apparent that in order to cultivate organizational cultures that support knowledge management initiative, leadership that favor and believe in the importance of knowledge management is mandatory. Leadership that is not supportive of knowledge management initiatives or believe that knowledge management is just another ‘quick-fix’ solution would not be able to mobilize the organizational culture to knowledge supportive culture. Leaders who are ‘knowledge-conscious’ will act and think favorably in the knowledge management direction. Accordingly, organizational resources, systems and structure will reflect the cultural assumptions of the leaders via the use of secondary mechanisms proposed by Schein (1992). Furthermore, leaders who plan to implement knowledge management initiatives need to assess the stage of their organizational growth as different types of cultural transformation mechanisms should deployed in accordance to the different stages of organizational growth.

      

      Viitala (2004) agreed with Schein’s contention on the significant roles played by leadership on the knowledge-supportive organizational culture. She asserted that leaders are “ creators of organizational climate…who make interventions to the community of work is safe and supportive in order to facilitate learning”. She further proposed the term knowledge leadership as the most suitable leadership in knowledge management implementation. Knowledge leadership is a participative leadership that create climate to promote learning, support learning process at individual and group level and inspires employees toward continual development. The most important principle is that the knowledge leaders must “lead by example”. Riebera and Sitar (2003) did not propose any new breed of leadership for the knowledge management but highlighted the imperative roles of leadership in implementation of knowledge-supportive culture. Basing their arguments on the pivotal roles of leaders as cultural transforming agent, they outlined the following criteria for leadership in knowledge management;

a. Thorough understanding on the characteristics of knowledge management.

b. Employment of the right workers and motivate them to constantly learn, communicate more and to share their knowledge with others

c. Build authorities on professional knowledge and personal charisma.

d. Cultivate skills that build confidence and engagement as leading knowledge workers can be attained through intellectual power, conviction, persuasion and interactive dialogue.

e. Actively engaged and committed to support knowledge sharing and learning activities

f. Reward knowledge and learning activities done by employees

g. Use participative decision-making process

h. Have coaching skills.

i. Be good storytellers that incorporate the importance of knowledge management.

j. Build a culture of trust by demonstrating concern, keeping promises, morality, fairness, openness, honesty, discretion, consistency, integrity, accessibility and delivering expected results.

 

      A research worth highlighting is done by Politis (2001) on the relationship of different types of leaderships to knowledge management. Finding of his research showed that leadership styles that involve human interaction and encourage participative decision-making process were positively related to the knowledge management initiatives. Specifically, leadership styles that were characterized by mutual trust and respect for subordinates’ ideas and feelings were particularly related to knowledge acquisition attributes. Although Politis (2001) did not mention directly the effect of leadership on organizational culture, he acknowledged the dynamics of leadership in fostering knowledge management initiatives, which centers on the creation of knowledge-sharing culture.  

      Leadership also forms a foundation in knowledge creation process. According to Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2002), leadership in the knowledge-creating process is achieved through four basic means, which are;

a. Providing knowledge vision b. Developing and promoting knowledge assets

c. Creating and energizing ba

d. Enabling and promoting the continuos spiral of knowledge creation.

 

      Favoring the distributive leadership over the top-down leadership, they provide support to Schein’s contention on the importance of leadership in shaping desirable organizational culture. The vision articulated by the leaders is the all-encompassing element that affects all layers of knowledge-creating process. It defines the values system and the organizational culture of the organization, which in turn will evaluate, justify and determine the quality of the knowledge the organization creates. 

Conclusion

 

      From the first part of the discussion, it is apparent that organizational culture has significant effect on the implementation of knowledge management initiatives. Knowledge-supportive organizational culture needs to promote free flow of information among employees across organizational hierarchies, cultivates trust for knowledge-sharing and using and align organizational structure, rewards system and process in congruence with the knowledge management initiatives. In the second part, we highlight the pervasive role of leadership in shaping the desired knowledge-supportive culture. Organizational culture is seen as a reflection of the leadership’s aspiration, especially at the growth stage of the organization. Only leaders of the organisations are in the position to mobilize all available organizational resources toward the desired goals.  

      In Malaysian context, we feel that leadership is the main issue to be tackled prior to organizational culture. This is especially true since many organizations; especially the small and medium enterprises are at growth stage of development. Nevertheless, further validation through empirical studies on this issue is warranted. 

 

REFERENCES 

      Baker, J.H and Baker, G.A (2001). “ Leadership, Culture and Knowledge Management”, weLEAD Online Magazine. Leadendtoday.org. 

      Bollinger, A. S and Smith, R.D. (2001). “ Managing Organizational Knowledge as a Strategic Asset.”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5. No. 1, pp. 8-18 

      Celep. C. and Cetin, B. (2005). “Teachers’ Perception about the Behaviors of School Leaders with regard to Knowledge Management”. The International Journal of Education Management. Vol.19, No. 2, pp. 102-117 

      Davenport, T.H and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. 

      Chin-loy, C. (2003). “Assessing the Influence of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management Success. The Wayne Huizeng School of Business and Entrepreneurship. Nova Southeastern University. UMI Dissertation. 

      Chin, K. F. (2001). “Developing a Knowledge Management Strategy”. Pricewaterhouse Coopers. 

      Crawford, C. B. (2004). “Transformational Leadership, Innovation and Knowledge Management: Empirical Findings and Emergent Conclusions”. Fort Hays State University, KS. 

      De Long, D. W. and Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management. The Academy of Management Executive. Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 113-127 

      DeTienne, K.B, Dyer, G., Hoopes, C. and Harris, S. (2004). “ Toward a Model of Effective Knowledge Management and Directions for Future Research: Culture, Leadership, and CKOs”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 26-43. 

      Gloet, M. and Berrel, M. (2003). “ The Dual Paradigm Nature of Knowledge Management: Implications for Achieving Quality Outcomes in Human Resource Management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 78-89. 

      Guptara, P. (1999). “ Why Knowledge Management Fails: How to Avoid Common Pitfalls “. Knowledge Management Review. Issue 9, July/August, pp. 26-29. 

      Holowetzki, A. (2002). “The Relationship between Knowledge Management and Organizational Culture: An Examination of Cultural Factors that Supports the Floe and Management of Knowledge within an Organization”. University of Oregon Applied Information Management Program 

      Holland, D. (1999). “ Ten Ways to Embed KM into Organizational Culture”. Knowledge Management Review. Issue 7, March/April. 

      Knapp, E and Yu, D. (1999). “Understanding Organizational Culture: How Culture Helps or Hinders the Flow of Knowledge”. Knowledge Management Review. Issue 7, March/April, pp. 16-21 

      Marr, B. (2003). “ Consider the Culture mwhen Benchmarking KM Processes”. KM Review. Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 6-7. 

      Mason, D. and Pauleen, D. J. (2003). “Perceptions of Knowledge Management: A Qualitative Analysis”. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 38-48 

      McDermott, R and O’Dell, C (2001). “Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Sharing Knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol 5, No. 1, pp. 76-85. 

      Mustafa Mansur (2003). Entrepreneurship and Innovation in the Knowledge-based Economy: Challenges and Strategies. Report of the APO Symposium on Entrepreneurship in Knowledge-based Industry. Asian Productivity Organization. Tokyo, Japan. 

      Nonaka, I, Toyama, R and Konno, N. (2002) “SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynami Knowledge Creation” in Little, S., Quitas, P and Ray, T. (2002) Eds. Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader. Sage Publication. London. 

      Politis, J. D. (2001). “The Relationships of Various Leadership Styles to Knowledge Management”. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. Vol. 22. No.8, pp. 354-364 

      Quintas, P. (2002) “Managing Knowledge in a New Century”. In Little, S., Quitas, P and Ray, T. (2002) Eds. Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader. Sage Publication. London. 

      Ribiere, V.M. and Sitar, A.S. (2003). “ Critical Role of Leadership in Nurturing a Knowledge-supporting Culture”. Knowledge Management Research & Practice.  Pp. 39-48. 

      Robbins, R.F. (2003). “Harnessing Group Memory to Build a Knowledge-Sharing Culture”. Of Counsel. Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 7-11. 

      Rowley, J. (1999). What is Knowledge Management?. Library Management. Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 416-420 

      Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership.  Second Ed. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 

      Salleh Yahya, Goh, W.K. (2002) “ Managing Human Resources towards Achieving Knowledge Management” Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 457-468.

      Viitala, R. (2004). “ Towards Knowledge Leadership”. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. Vol 25, N0. 26, pp. 528-544 

Organizational change and characteristics of leadership effectiveness.

By Gilley, Ann,McMillan, Heather S.,Gilley, Jerry W.

Publication: Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Date: Saturday, August 1 2009

Competent management is one source of sustainable competitive advantage in contemporary, rapidly

changing organizations (Nohria, Joyce, & Roberson, 2003; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam,

2001). The behaviors of organizational leaders directly influence actions in the work environment that

enable change (Drucker, 1999; Gilley, 2005; Howkins, 2001). Leaders and managers are responsible for

change strategy, implementation, and monitoring, thus they function as change agents (Kanter, Stein, &

Jick, 1992). As a result, the challenge of managing change is one of the most fundamental and enduring

roles of leaders (Ahn, Adamson, & Dornbusch, 2004), whereas the rapidly accelerating pace of

organizational change has made effective leadership imperative.

Organizations that support and implement continuous and transformational change remain competitive

(Cohen, 1999). Research has attempted to explain the fundamentals of change, explain why change is so

difficult to achieve, and develop models to manage the change process. Despite the proliferation of

numerous theories, models, and multistep approaches, leaders continue to lack a clear understanding of

change, its antecedents, effective processes, or the ability to successfully engage organizational

members in change initiatives (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).

Recent research indicates that change programs rarely achieve desired results. A growing body of

evidence reveals that change programs often fail or make the situation worse (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector,

1990). In a recent study of 40 major change initiatives, 58% failed and 20% realized a third or less of the

value expected (LaClair & Rao, 2002). Other studies of change efforts have reported failure rates of one

third to two thirds (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Bibler, 1989) and as high as 80% to 90% (Cope, 2003). Gill

(2003) suggests that these results are due to a lack of effective leadership.

We extend previous research on organizational change by investigating the interrelationship of leader

behaviors and change. The purpose of this study was to explore leaders' effectiveness in implementing

change and the variables (skills/abilities) that influence that effectiveness. Our reference to leaders

implies all leaders and managers within an organization. The literature review that follows explores

change and the leadership behaviors positively associated with successful change.

Change

A large and cumulative literature explores the roles, responsibilities, and attributes of leaders with respect

to change. An increasing emphasis on change as a critical driver of organizational success has fueled

organizational and academic investigation of change practices, methodologies, and results (Drucker,

1999; Ford & Gioia, 2000; Friedman, 2005; IBM, 2008; Johansson, 2004). Recent studies have also

explored change as a variable in creating organizational competitive advantage (Florida, 2005; Friedman,

2005; Howkins, 2001). The research has been primarily descriptive and based on observations of

managers, subordinates, or peers with regard to leaders' knowledge, skills, abilities, and effectiveness.

The complexity of organizational change warrants broad examination. According to Miles (2001), any

change, regardless of its size, has a cascading effect on an organization. Organizational change at the

corporate or macro level focuses on strategy and business models (IBM, 2006), structure, processes,

culture, technology, products, and services (Lewis, 1994), often affecting multiple leadership or reporting

lines, incorporation of new technologies, acquisitions or expansion, or downsizing. More than ever,

managing the complexities of change confronts leaders at all organizational levels (Biech, 2007), whether

the manager is frontline/administrative, middle, or senior/ executive (Katz & Kahn, 1966). The pyramidal

shape of organizations reflects the largest numbers of employees in frontline ranks, with the fewest at the

top. Top management develops the organization's vision, mission, and strategic long-term plans and

corporatewide change initiatives. Middle management furthers executive strategies and plans by

developing shorter term operational plans that give life to top management directives. Frontline managers

actually implement operational plans and engage in the daily work, processes, and changes required to

satisfy middle and upper management proposals (Lussier, 2009). As a consequence, frontline supervisors

and their employees engage in significant change, bearing the brunt of its implementation.

Inherent in organizational change is uncertainty with regard to how individuals should act and the

outcomes to be expected (Rousseau, 1995). Changes that modify existing authority or role structures

generate ambiguity and confusion with regard to appropriate, effective action and in-role behavior

(Wheatley, 1992). Structural changes challenge organizational goals and desired outcomes, ultimately

affecting quality of work life as employees struggle to align business changes with their own interests

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Successful implementation of change ultimately results in modified

employee behavior.

An evolutionary perspective views change as transitional, transformational, or developmental. Transitional

change represents small, gradual, even incremental changes in people, policies, procedures, technology,

culture, or structures. These common changes are driven and orchestrated by management for units,

departments, divisions, or the entire organization.

Radical shifts in underlying assumptions, deep-seated mindsets, culture, strategy, or other significant

organizational paradigms involve transformational change (Kuhn, 1970). Although extreme and

sometimes revolutionary, successful transformational change has been positively linked to increased

competitiveness when firms are able to clearly differentiate themselves in the market (Denning, 2005). To

the contrary, a host of corporate results and research highlight the rarity with which organizations

successfully achieve transformational change (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Cope, 2003; IBM, 2008).

Developmental change flows from an organization-wide philosophy of continuous growth and

development that leads to increasing competitive advantage through dynamic stability--a culture of

continuous dynamic yet manageable change (Abrahamson, 2000). Developmental change occurs when

firms continually scan their internal and external environments to create work settings that encourage and

reward individual innovation, growth, and development, while avoiding radical, infrequent yet disruptive

large-scale change (Gilley & Maycunich, 2000).

Weick and Quinn (1999) described organizational change as either episodic or continuous. Episodic

change is infrequent, sometimes radical, and more likely to be experienced intensely (Matlin & Stang,

1978). Continuous change, conversely, may be incremental, emergent, and without end. Negative events

often indicate maladaptation or a threat to survival and trigger the need to change, whereas positive,

more common events are less intense and invoke a more subdued response (Cameron, 2008). Whether

continuous or radical, researchers agree that change is a nonlinear process (Coghlan, 2000; Doyle,

Claydon, & Buchanan, 2000) and that the pace of change is increasing (Quinn, 2004; Weick & Sutcliffe,

2001).

Numerous change models have been developed in an effort to understand change and its phases,

individual and organizational rates of acceptance, and processes through which leaders may guide their

organizations through the process. For example, in his research on adoption of innovations, Rogers

(2003) explains individual acceptance rates of change along with the varied ways and rates in which

individuals undertake change. In his studies, an innovation represents any large or small action, idea,

object, or procedure an individual views as new. One's response to a change depends on one's opinion of

the extent of newness associated with the change. How and when the change is accepted relies largely

on the methods of communication used and their perceived appropriateness by the individual.

Rogers (2003) explains that acceptance of change occurs in the stages of awareness, interest, trial, the

decision to continue or quit, and adoption. Individuals have been categorized based on their overall

acceptance of change as (a) innovators, (b) early adopters, (c) early majority, (d) late majority, and (e)

laggards. Those who desire change are called innovators; individuals who like change and challenges are

early adopters; those who prefer to observe the effect of change on others prior to engaging in change

themselves are the early majority; the skeptical, suspicious, and hesitant to change are the late majority;

and individuals who resist or completely reject change are called laggards or nonadopters.

Early researchers developed relatively simple change models that emphasized initial evaluation of an

organization, preparation for change, change actions, and securing change into daily organizational

operations and culture. Lewin (1951), for example, created a classic three-step change model of

unfreezing and readying workers and organizations for change, movement and active engagement in

change activities and processes, and refreezing new behaviors and procedures into routine organizational

practices and culture.

More recent, researchers have created multistep models of change that involve varied organizational

dimensions such as culture, leadership, communications, motivation, employee engagement, structure,

rewards, and teamwork, to name a few. Models by Burke and Litwin (1992), Nadler and Tushman (1980),

and Tichy (1983) indicate the importance of internal and external influences such as culture, structure,

individual needs and values, goal setting, and feedback, among others. Conceptualizations by Kotter

(1996) and Ulrich (1998) include leadership, shared need, guiding coalitions, commitment,

communicating, changing structures, empowering others, and making change last.

These models have been criticized for their linear supposition and rigid steps, inability to account for the

complexities of change, discounting of the human factor, and failure to prepare for resistance to change

(Gilley, 2005). Doyle et al. (2000) reported that change agents find the numerous models to be too

"prepackaged" while failing to address the linkages and contradictions in change. According to Nadler

(1998), "the reality of change in the organizational trenches defies rigid academic models as well as

superficial management fads" (p. 3). As a consequence, the importance of the leader's ability to

implement change is clear.

Leaders' Skills and Abilities

Organizational change does not occur unless member groups and individuals change (Coghlan, 2000;

Katz & Kahn, 1966; Sullivan, Sullivan, & Buffton, 2002) by adopting different behaviors, processes,

frameworks, routines, values, or goals. As a result, understanding the individual, group, and

organizational processes that must occur to drive positive change proves critical for leaders.

The change models previously examined suggest a relationship between change process actions and

outcomes, hence the need to review associated leader skills that underlie their behaviors and actions. A

1990s study of Fortune 1000 companies revealed that nearly half regarded their leadership capacity as

"fair to poor" (Csoka, 1997); a follow-up study indicated that leadership capacity was "good" or "excellent"

in only about one third of firms (Barrett & Beeson, 2002).

Leaders' thoughts and skills are manifested in actions, structures, and processes that enhance or impede

change, further strengthening the linkage between leader behaviors and effectiveness in implementing

change. For example, change management skills have been positively linked to successful organizational

change. Conversely, lack of change management skills or understanding of change implementation

techniques, the inability to alter one's management style, and failure to modify organizational systems or

structures have been identified as barriers to success (Bossidy & Charan, 2002; Gilley, 2005). Research

has revealed that additional barriers to change include the lack of or poor communication skills, the

inability to induce others to change, and management's failure to reward workers who try to change

(Burke, 1992; Kotter, 1996; Patterson, 1997; Ulrich, 1998).

Related leadership theories include trait, behavioral, and multiple contemporary views. Although

leadership trait theory suggests that successful leaders rely on a set of psychological traits (Ilies, Scott, &

Judge, 2006), more than 300 studies have failed to produce a definitive list of agreed-on traits common to

all effective leaders (Bass, 1990). However, several traits have been identified as significant, including

supervisory ability, intelligence, the need for achievement, decisiveness, self-assurance, and initiative

(Ghiselli, 1971). Behavioral theorists explore the relationship between distinctive leadership styles and

results, such as McGregor's (1966) Theory X and Y, and behaviors that are autocratic, democratic, or

laissez-faire (Lussier & Achua, 2007). Varied contemporary views of leadership posit leaders as being

charismatic, transformational, transactional, learning, servant, or developmental (Collins, 2001; Gilley &

Maycunich, 2000; Greenleaf & Spears, 2002; Senge, 1990).

Our research explored leadership behaviors and their effect on organizational change, with the

understanding that behaviors are grounded in one's traits and skills (Lewin, Lippert, & White, 1939). The

variables explored in the study were distilled from research on leadership skills and behaviors related to

change by Burke (1992), Conner (1992), Gill (2003), Gilley (2005), Kotter (1996), Sims (2002), and Ulrich

(1998). Comparison of these research streams and models led to a manageable set of common

variables: coaching, communicating, involving others, motivating, rewarding, and building teams. It is

within this complex myriad of variables that we approached our study of leaders and organizational

change. Our primary questions were as follows: (a) How effective are leaders in implementing change

within their organizations? and (b) What specific leader behaviors are most significantly associated with

one's ability to successfully implement change initiatives?

Method

A host of research reveals that success in change implementation is uncommon (Beer et al., 1990; Cope,

2003; LaClair & Rao, 2002), despite abundant models and theories for successful change facilitation

(Burke & Litwin, 1992; Kotter, 1996; Lewin, 1951; Ulrich, 1998). For example, a recent survey of CEOs

revealed that only 55% of them believe their recent change efforts were "quite" or "very" successful,

whereas 13% admitted that such efforts were "unsuccessful" or "a little successful" (IBM, 2006, p. 45).

Figures such as these support a negative outlook on change success. Our study explored leaders' efforts

and effectiveness in implementing change from their subordinates' perspectives.

Research Questions

To determine whether behaviors do predict leader effectiveness in implementing change, we designed a

study with a twofold purpose. First, we explored whether leaders effectively implement change in their

organizations from the perspective of employees. Second, we investigated the frequency with which

leaders exhibit skills and behaviors associated with successful organizational change. We chose to use

subordinate ratings of behavior to predict overall leader effectiveness; subordinates are thought to provide

the most accurate ratings of typical leader performance (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Separate

sources eliminated common method bias.