The Leadership of Change: A Study of Change Leadership within the UK Royal Air Force by Malcolm Higgs and John Wren HWP 0516 Working Paper Series Henley Management College Greenlands Henley-on-Thames Oxon RG9 3AU United Kingdom The opinions and ideas expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) alone. Henley Management College does not necessarily concur with any of the opinions expressed herein. The author(s) invites both comments and discussion from anyone who may read a paper in this series. If you have any suggestions which may be helpful to the author(s), then please write to them, c/o The Editor, at the address shown above. Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced without the written permission of the author(s). ISBN 1 86181 223 X
Abstract This paper explores recent literature and studies on both leadership and change. In particular it focuses on the leadership of change and builds on two recent studies in this area (Wren & Dulewicz, 2005; and Higgs& Rowland, 2005). Findings from both of these studies indicated that there is a relationship between leadership, approaches to change, context of change and the ultimate success of the change. The first of these used the Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire (LDQ - Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004), which is based on the premise that a leadership style needs to be matched to the context of the change (in the sense of the degree of change being faced) and that this fit is a determinant of both leader performance and follower commitment. The importance of follower commitment to change success has been highlighted extensively in the literature. The leader activities described by Wren and Dulewicz (2005) appear to have some overlap with the leader behaviours described by Higgs and Rowland (2005). Given that Wren and Dulewicz (2005) found evidence of relationships between leader activities and change success, the question arises as to whether or not their study provides any support for the findings of Higgs and Rowland (2005). The LDQ context scale was derived from the change and change leadership literature. However it has not been concurrently validated. As the Wren and Dulewicz data includes objective measures of some of the constructs underpinning the LDQ Context Scale there is an opportunity to explore the validity of the LDQ Context Scale. The study re-analyses the Wren and Dulewicz data, which was based on a sample of 36 RAF officers. The findings are reported and provide some support for the relationship between leadership behaviours, change context and change success. Furthermore they provide evidence for the construct validity of the LDQ context scale. The limitations of the study are considered and further research needs identified. Keywords: Leadership; Leadership Competencies; Leader Activities; Leading Change; Royal Air Force Leadership; Change Context; Change Management; Change Success. 1
Introduction Whilst there is a growing need for change in organisations (Kotter, 1996; Beer & Nohria, 2000), there is widespread evidence that relatively few change initiatives are considered to have been successful (e.g. Kotter, 1990; Hummer & Champney, 1993; Higgs & Rowland, 2003; 2005). Indeed there is a generally quoted statistic that around seventy per cent of change initiatives fail (e.g. Kotter, 1996; Carnall, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2005). However, according to many authors, the need for organisations to find ways of dealing with the challenge of change will not only continue, but is likely to increase in a context which is becoming even more complex and volatile (Carnall, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2003; Beer & Nohria, 2000; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth and Smith, 2002; Conner, 1999). There have been numerous studies designed to provide insights into the causes of change failure with a view to increasing the likelihood of successful change interventions (Kotter, 1996; Carnall, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2000; Senge et al, 2002). However, in spite of these insights and their dissemination, the high proportion of change failure continues (Higgs & Rowland, 2003; 2005). Higgs & Rowland (2003; 2005) attempted to explore these challenges through researching what leads to successful change. In a study involving in-depth interviews with some forty leaders involved in change, discussing seventy discrete stories, Higgs and Rowland (2003; 2005) were able, through a combination of both qualitative and subsequent quantitative analyses of the data (Parry & Meidle, 2002), to identify the respective success of differing ways in which change is approached within an organisation. Based initially on an analysis of the literature, they developed a framework for the analysis of the qualitative data built around two key scales. The first of these was linear versus complex. They pointed to the dominance of the Lewin (1951) model in much of the change literature a model that proposes that change may be planned and managed in the context of interventions with predictable outcomes. This world-view was contrasted with the emerging school of thought that change is a complex, systemic phenomenon with unpredictable outcomes (e.g. Wheatley, 1992; 2000; Shaw, 1997; Reynolds, 1997; Weicke, 1995). The second scale related to the extent to which organisations strove for uniformity in the change process and implementation versus the acceptance of a differentiated approach throughout the organisation (e.g. Duck 2
1999; Beckhard, 1969; Pascale, 1999; Senge et al, 2002). Using this framework, they proposed a typology of change approaches that is shown in figure 1. Figure 1: RFLC Change Approach Model Four Change Approaches Explained One Look Directive (Simple): Change being driven, controlled, managed, initiated from the top/centre/person or small group Simple theory of change or a few rules of thumb recipes Small range of interventions used Few targets set Tightly controlled communications Explicit project management Engagement is about control of drift (timescales, objectives, use of resources and local adaptation) Little or no attention given to capability development Master (Sophisticated): Change being driven, controlled, managed, initiated from the top/centre/ person or small group Complex theory of change lots of elements, drawing on more than two theorists, use of change models Wide range of interventions used Extensive engagement which influences change process Explicit project management Capability development Change is Straightforward Self Assembly (DIY): Tightly set direction Accountability for change lies with local managers Limited capability and capacity development Strategic direction but local adaptation Use of set of tool kits and templates Innovation against certain set criteria Emergence: Few big rules and loosely set direction Change initiated anywhere in organisation but usually where there is high contact with client/customers Issues of spread and diffusion sharing best practice Lateral connections important Novel mixes of people Innovation and experiments Emphasis on sense making and improvisation Change is Complex Local Differentiation RFLC (2003) Using this as a frame for analysis of their data, and taking account of a range of change contexts, they found that: 1. In high magnitude change (i.e. change which impacts a large number of people and entails changes to multiple parts of the system) the most effective change approach is an Emergent one (partial correlation indicated that Emergent change accounted for 32 percent of variance in success in this context). 2. Change is a complex activity. Those approaches identified as being underpinned by assumptions at the simple end of the simple: complex axis shown in figures 1and 2 3
(i.e. Directive change and DIY change) are less effective in most scenarios than those which recognise the underlying complexity of the phenomenon (i.e. Master and Emergent approaches). Indeed examination of the partial correlations indicates negative correlations between both Directive and DIY approaches and success in most contexts. 3. An Emergent approach to change appeared to be more successful than any of the other three change approaches in most contexts. Analyses indicated that an Emergent approach explains greater proportions of variance in success. However, informants were often describing an Emergent approach from an intuitive rather than theoretically informed perspective. From the interviews it was apparent that the Emergent approach occurred in the context of a change framework that was more planned and structured. It is feasible, from this data to propose that the Emergent approach describes how change actually happens as opposed to how change is articulated. 4. An approach to change that is both simplistic and widely differentiated (see figures 1 and 2, i.e. a DIY approach) appears to be unsuccessful in any context. Change stories from the informants provided evidence that what was referred to as tool kit change consistently failed to support the required direction of change. Figure 2: Map of Literature on Approaches to Change (from Higgs & Rowland,2003) Uniform Approach Change as a predictable phenomenon Lewin (1941) Kotter (1998) Duck (1999) Beckhard (1969) Hamel & Champny (1993) Pascale (1999) Beckhard (1969) Senge (1997) Body & Buccanan (1992) Senge et al (1999) Disseminated & differentiated approach 4 Conner (1992; 1998) Senge et al (1999) Beer & Nohria (2000) Tichy (1983) Hurst (1995) Wheatley (1992,1993) Litchenstein (1996; 1997) Blackmore (1998) Ashridge (1999) Shaw (1997) Weick (1995) Jaworski & Scharmer (2000) Change as a complex phenomenon
Leadership and Change In reviewing the change literature, it is evident that considerable emphasis is placed on the significance and role of leadership in the change process (e.g. Kotter, 1996; Carnall, 1999; Beer & Nohria, 2000; Higgs & Rowland, 2001; Wheatley, 2000). Whilst it is not within the scope of this paper to summarise or explore the vast leadership literature, it is important to examine the interaction between leadership and change (Higgs & Rowland, 2001; Conner, 1998). The beliefs and mind-sets of leaders have been shown to influence their orientation to problem solving and, hence it can be imputed, to choices relating to approaches to change (e.g. Finklestein & Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick & Brandon, 1998). Furthermore it has been asserted that the role and behaviours of leaders in a change context has been an area that has been lacking in empirical research (Higgs & Rowland, 2000). However, the transformational leadership model developed by Bass (1985) and Bass and Avolio (1996) has been one that has been the subject of much empirical investigation. This stream of research does demonstrate clear linkages between leader behaviours and a variety of follower behaviours and performance measures (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Higgs, 2003). This research, which is primarily quantitative, does, however, fail to link directly with the change literature. Furthermore, there have been criticisms that this highly quantitative approach fails to provide insights into the actual behaviours of leaders (e.g. Kouzes & Posner, 1998; Kets de Vries, 1995; House, 1995). Those studies which have responded to this challenge have tended to conclude that for effective leadership there are a relatively small number of broad areas of behaviour which are executed in somewhat differentiated ways depending on the personality of the leader (e.g. Goffee & Jones, 2000; Kouzes & Posner, 1998; Higgs, 2003). In examining the leader s role and behaviour in the change process, few studies have moved beyond generic descriptions. Exceptions to this are the studies reported by Higgs and Rowland (2000; 2001). These studies specifically linked leadership behaviours to activities involved in implementing change. They identified five broad areas of leadership competency associated with successful change implementation. These were: 5
i) Creating the case for change. Effectively engaging others in recognising the business need for change; ii) Creating structural change. Ensuring that the change is based on depth of understanding of the issues and supported with a consistent set of tools and processes; iii) Engaging others in the whole change process and building commitment; iv) Implementing and sustaining changes. Developing effective plans and ensuing good monitoring and review practices are developed; and v) Facilitating and developing capability. Ensuring that people are challenged to find their own answers and that they are supported in doing this. However, the work of change used as the basis for this study was rooted in a view of change that fell into the master quadrant shown in figure 1 above. Some have questioned the efficacy of such a view of leadership within a change context (e.g. Senge, 1997; Wheatley, 1992; Wheatley & Rogers, 1996; Wheatley, 1993; Giglio, Diamante and Urban, 1998). In particular it is argued that a different perspective on leadership arises in the context of a complex and distributed view of change (Wheatley, 2002; Senge, 1997; Jaworski, 2001). If change is perceived as complex and emergent then Wheatley (2002) argues there is a need to bring leadership to a transformational edge so that they can work differently. However, she recognises that this both flies in the face of conventional views of leadership and is uncomfortable. However, beyond such theoretical conjecture there is little research that has been conducted which explores a broader relationship between leadership and differing approaches to change. Dulewicz and Higgs (2004; 2005) in their development of the Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire (LDQ) have explicitly attempted to address the relationship between leadership style and change context. The full description of the Dulewicz and Higgs Leadership Dimensions is shown in Appendix II. Research, employing this questionnaire has provided some evidence that the fit between style and change context is a predictor of leadership performance. However, whilst the LDQ context scale is rooted in a sound review of the literature it has been untested to date in empirical studies. In a recent paper (Wren & Dulewicz, 2005), it was suggested that success in 6
organisational transformation appears to be derived from a combination of leadership competencies and leader activities. A combination of the Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) model of leadership dimensions set against change context (the model that underpins the LDQ and the leader activities lists of Kotter (1996) and Drucker (2004)) provided a basis upon which to examine the leadership of change within the RAF. However, within those models and taxonomies, it is not clear which dimensions and activities will contribute most significantly to change success. Wren and Dulewicz (2005) proceeded to explore these issues within the context of a study of 36 leaders with the UK Royal Air Force (using the LDQ Self Assessed version). The leader activities were assessed using an addition to the LDQ comprising 21 questions informed by the literature. Subsequent analysis showed that the additional questions formed a scale with a Cronbach Alpha of 0.69 (acceptable reliability lies between 0.60 and 0.80,Hair, Babin, Money and Samouel, 2003). Employing this framework (in a study with declared limitations), Wren and Dulewicz (2005) found that leadership dimensions, in the RAF study, which were most strongly related to successful change were: i. Managing Resources ii. Engaging Communication; and iii. Empowering followers In addition they found that the following dimensions also were statistically significantly related to change success: i. Developing followers ii. Motivation iii. Critical Analysis In addition to the declared limitations of sample size the issue of organisational culture also needs to be considered. Higgs and Rowland (2005b) in an exploratory study, found clear indications of a relationship between both change success and leader behaviours and organisational culture. Furthermore, others have also asserted that such a relationship is significant (e.g. Beer & Nohria, 2000). 7
Higgs and Rowland (2005a) asserted that the behaviours of leaders in a change process impacts on the success of a change and that these behaviours influenced the approach adopted to the change. In an empirical study they identified three groupings of leaders behaviours that were: Shaping behaviour i) What leaders say and do ii) Making others accountable iii) Thinking about change iv) Using an individual focus Framing change i) Establishing starting points for change ii) Designing and managing the change journey iii) Communicating guiding principles Creating capacity i) Creating individual and organisational capabilities ii) Communicating and creating connections Using these groupings in their analysis, they found that the relative impact of the leadership factors on change success depended, to an extent, on the context of the change. Their key findings were: 1. In high magnitude change (i.e. change which impacts a large number of people and entails changes to multiple parts of the system) the leadership factor that accounted for the highest variance in success in this context was Framing change (accounting for some 52 percent of the variance). 2. In short-term change (i.e. change which needs to be implemented in 12 months or less) impacting on a large number of people in the organisation the leadership behaviours are critical to success. The set of behaviours encompassed within the factor Framing Change appear to be the ones most likely to lead to successful 8
implementation. (Framing from the regression analysis accounted for 42 percent of the variance of success in this scenario). 3. Leadership behaviours that centre on the position, role and power of the leader and their abilities (i.e. those behaviours captured by the factor Shaping behaviour) do not appear to be related to the success of a change intervention. Indeed, both from the qualitative data and the partial correlations, such behaviours can impair the success of an intervention. In their study they concluded that: It is important to consider both change approaches and leadership behaviours within the context of any change initiative. The diversity of the change stories associated with success was, in part, explained by the diversity in contexts. Furthermore, analyses demonstrated, to an extent, that interaction between both the approach to change, leadership factors and contexts led to increased levels of variance in success being accounted for. (Higgs & Rowland, 2005, a; p4). Wren and Dulewicz (2005) also found a statistically significant relationship between leader activities (behaviours) and change success. From these two studies, it is possible to propose that the behaviours of leaders in the change process are a significant factor in determining the success of the change. Summary & Research Questions From the above it is evident that there is a relationship between leadership, approaches to change, context of change and the ultimate success of the change. The LDQ (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004) is based on the premise that a leadership style needs to be matched to the context of the change (in the sense of the degree of change being faced) and that this fit is a determinant of both leader performance and follower commitment. The importance of follower commitment to change success has been highlighted extensively in the literature (e.g. Beer & Nohria, 2000; Higgs & Rowland, 2003; 2005; Wheatley, 2000; Shrivasturva, 1985). 9
The leader activities described by Wren and Dulewicz (2005) appear to have some overlap with the leader behaviours described by Higgs and Rowland (2005a). Given that Wren and Dulewicz (2005) found evidence of relationships between leader activities and change success, the question arises as to whether or not their study provides any support for the findings of Higgs and Rowland (2005a). As highlighted above, the Dulewicz and Higgs (2004) LDQ contains a scale to assess the context of change in which leadership is exhibited. This context scale was derived from the change and change leadership literature (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004). However it has not been concurrently validated. The Wren and Dulewicz (2005) data includes objective measures of some of the constructs underpinning the LDQ Context Scale. This gives rise to the second research question explored in this paper, which is: Is there evidence to support the construct validity of the LDQ Context Scale? Method This paper is based on a re-analysis of the data collected in the study reported in Wren and Dulewicz (2005). The sample was drawn from a population of Group Captains within the UK Royal Air Force (RAF). The final sample comprised 36 members of this population (10.6 per cent of the population). The mean age of the sample was 48.3 years (SD, 3.5) and comprised 82 per cent males and 18 per cent females. The data collected included: i. An LDQ (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004) self-assessment of leadership style, leader performance and follower commitment. The self-assessed LDQ also included a 21 item Context Scale (alpha 0.90). ii. A 360-degree assessment of leader activities and change outcomes (360 FQ). This instrument contained twelve behavioural items, six reaction items, and three outcome items. The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix I. The overall alpha was 0.69. 10
iii. Self reported demographic and change context data (SCQ). This provided specific information on the change programme/project with which each Group Captain had been involved. (See Appendix III) In exploring the first question (i.e. to what extent does the study provide support for the Higgs & Rowland 2005 leadership findings?), a content analysis of the Higgs and Rowland leadership behaviours and the Wren (2005) twelve leader activities was conducted. This led to four possible approaches designed to map the two frameworks. These are shown in figure 3. Figure 3. Wren (2005) Leader Activities mapped onto Higgs & Rowland (2005a) leader behaviours. RFLC Leader Factors Wren Leader Activities Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 1. Took responsibility for - - Sh Sh his/her decisions. 2. Recognised follower needs. Sh Sh Sh Sh 3. Created a clear vision of the Fr Fr Fr Fr future after the change. 4. Fully communicated the Sh Sh Fr Fr benefit of the change. 5. Kept the big picture Fr Fr Fr Fr 6. Motivated followers to embrace the change. 7. Developed clear strategies to advance the vision. 8. Convinced followers of the need to change. 9. Gave followers the authority to deal with the change. 10. Kept followers fully informed of the change programme. 11. Adjusted the work culture to meet the long-term needs of the change. 12. Generated early successes. Sh Sh Fr Sh Fr Fr Fr Fr Fr Sh Sh Fr Cr Cr Fr Cr Cr Cr - - Fr Cr Cr Fr - Sh Sh Fr Sh = Shaping Behaviours; Fr = Framing Behaviours; Cr = Creating Capacity 11
Having completed the content mapping it was evident that a number of the Wren leader activities did not fit precisely into the Higgs and Rowland model. Indeed some activities could be seen as fitting in more than one of the RFLC leader categories. In order to determine the best fit the four models generated were discussed in a focus group with six individuals who had worked in practice extensively with the Higgs and Rowland framework. At the end of the discussion each focus group member was asked to rank the models in terms of their fit. From an analysis of the output of the focus group discussion it was evident that Model 2 provided the closest fit. Therefore, the Wren and Dulewicz (2005) leader activity data were restructured into three groupings on the basis of Model 2. For the purposes of exploring the first question, the following dependent variables were employed. i. Self assessed leader performance (from the LDQ) ii. Self assessed follower commitment (from the LDQ) iii. Change met its objectives (Q21 from 360 FQ) iv. Follower satisfaction with change (Questions 18, 19 and 20 from 360 FQ) v. Overall change success. In looking at overall success it is important to consider the sustainability of any change (Kotter, 1996; Conner, 1998; Beer & Nohria, 2000). Therefore it was decided to create an overall success measure that reflected this thinking. This was constructed by using a combined measure comprising Q21 from the 360 FQ, the follower satisfaction measure and questions 13, 14, 16 and 19 from the 360 FQ. In exploring the second question (i.e. is there evidence of construct validity for the LDQ Context Scale?), the measures employed were: i. The LDQ Context scale (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2005). ii. The contextual data collected in the SCQ. iii. Question 22 (How much change do you have to deal with in your workplace?) from the 360 FQ. These data were mapped onto the change contexts used by Higgs and Rowland (2005) in their study of change success. The mapping is shown in figure 4. 12
Figure 4. Change Contexts Higgs & Rowland (2005, a) LDQ SCQ 360FQ History of Change Q22 Scope of Change Q158, 159, 166 Q3 Complexity of Change Magnitude of Change Q158, 159, 166, 170, 173 Q158, 159, 180, 184, 193 Q4 Q3,4 Timescale of Change - Q1 Source of Change Q160, 163, 165, 171 Q1 Individual or team led - - - For full details of Higgs & Rowland categories, see appendix IV The absence of any match for the individual versus team leadership of change is not considered a problem as Higgs and Rowland (2003) pointed out that this variable was not used in the contextual analysis within their studies. In exploring both questions, SPSS v12 was used to analyse data using correlations, partial correlations, regressions and hierarchical regressions. Whilst the sample size (n=36) is clearly a limitation, it is seen to be acceptable for exploratory purposes (Hair et al, 2003; Wright & Fowler, 1986). All regression analyses achieved a minimum of five cases per variable which is again considered acceptable for exploratory research (Hair et al, 2003). All data were checked for normality (Skewdnes and Kurtosis) and found to be acceptable for multivariate analysis. Results and Discussion Higgs and Rowland (2005) Change Leadership findings While all 3 of the Higgs and Rowland (2005a) styles showed significant results in a correlational analysis against many of the change outcomes, there were some interesting patterns in terms of the size of correlations. (See table 1). 13
Table 1: Correlations between leader behaviours and change outcomes (n=36) Correlations 21 Change Performance Commitment meets objectives Overall Success Satisfaction Shaping Pearson Correlation 0.195 0.011 0.484** 0.627*** 0.646*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.254 0.949 0.003 0.000 0.000 Framing Pearson Correlation 0.397* 0.209 0.691*** 0.700*** 0.633*** Sig. (2-tailed) 0.017 0.222 0.000 0.000 0.000 Creating Pearson Correlation 0.009 0.021 0.346* 0.414* 0.416* Sig. (2-tailed) 0.960 0.903 0.039 0.012 0.012 * = significant at 0.05 level; ** = significant at 0.01 level; *** = significant at 0.001 level In looking at the Higgs and Rowland factors against the LDQ leadership performance scale, the Framing factor was the only one which reached significance. This provides some support for the Higgs and Rowland framework. No significant relationships were encountered between any of the factors and the LDQ commitment scale which might indicate that the commitment resulting from a more general leadership style may be different from that encountered in a change context. This is a finding which warrants further investigation. In terms of satisfaction, the rank order of factors was: 1. Framing; 2. Shaping; and 3. Creating. Whilst this provides some limited support for the Higgs and Rowland research, the Shaping finding is somewhat surprising and may be related to the organisational context. In a recent paper Higgs and Rowland (2005b) highlighted the link between change approaches, leadership behaviours and organisational culture. This finding may well become influenced by a specific organisational culture which encompasses a strong command element (Young & Dulewicz; 2004). In their 2003 study Higgs and Rowland explored the change and leadership factors in a range of change contexts. These were: a) Scope of change; b) Complexity of change; c) Magnitude of change; d) Timescale of change; e) History of change; and f) Source of change. In this study data were available to estimate contexts for Scope, Complexity, Magnitude, Source and Timescale. Partial correlations were used to explore the impact of the contexts. The results (Appendix V) showed no significant difference in any of the contexts. Again this differs from the Higgs and Rowland study. All correlations with satisfaction, achievement of objectives and an overall aggregate success measures were 14
positive and statistically significant. The pattern was identical to that encountered in the initial correlational analysis reported above. Perhaps these results are relatively unsurprising, as the current study has been conducted within a single organisation. Once again the impact of organisational culture may be a factor that needs further exploration. In order to explore the relative impact of the leadership factors a series of hierarchical regressions were conducted using: achievement of goals and an overall success measure as dependent variables. Initially the independent variables used were the three leadership factors (from Model 2). In a subsequent analysis, IQ, EQ and MQ factors were included. Whilst the results showed that Framing consistently explained the greatest amount of variance in the R squared change, it is noticeable that MQ and Creating also added significantly to the variance. Whilst the Creating factor is to be expected, from Higgs and Rowland (2005a) study the impact of MQ is worth reflecting on. Given the nature of MQ competencies (see Dulewicz & Higgs, 2003) it is feasible these could be factors underpinning overall effective leader behaviours. This is a question worthy of further research. These results (particularly Framing and Creating) provide some further support for the Higgs and Rowland (2005a) findings. It was also interesting to note that both Framing and Creating had a greater impact on overall success than IQ, EQ or MQ (see tables 2 and 3). Table 2 Hierarchical Regression on Overall Success Hierarchical Regressions 2 Dependent Variable: Overall Success Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 0.301 0.090 0.064 15.229 0.090 3.381 1.000 34.000 0.075 2 0.370 0.137 0.084 15.060 0.046 1.771 1.000 33.000 0.192 3 0.510 0.260 0.190 14.162 0.123 5.315 1.000 32.000 0.028 * 4 0.620 0.384 0.305 13.125 0.124 6.255 1.000 31.000 0.018 * 5 0.810 0.656 0.599 9.964 0.272 23.794 1.000 30.000 0.000 *** 6 0.811 0.658 0.587 10.117 0.001 0.099 1.000 29.000 0.756 1 Predictors: (Constant), IQ 2 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ 3 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ, MQ 4 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ, MQ, Creating2 5 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ, MQ, Creating2, Framing2 6 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ, MQ, Creating2, Framing2, Shaping2 * = significant at 0.05; ** = significant at 0.01; *** = significant at 0.001 15
Table 3 Hierarchical Regression on Achievement of Change Goals Model Summary Dependent Variable: Achievement of Goals Adjusted R Std. Error of the Model R R Square Square Estimate Change Statistics Sig. F R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Change 1 0.200 0.040 0.012 13.262 0.040 1.413 1.000 34.000 0.243 2 0.246 0.060 0.003 13.318 0.020 0.716 1.000 33.000 0.404 3 0.385 0.148 0.068 12.877 0.088 3.294 1.000 32.000 0.079 4 0.568 0.322 0.235 11.670 0.174 7.965 1.000 31.000 0.008** 5 0.770 0.593 0.525 9.192 0.271 19.970 1.000 30.000 0.000*** 6 0.799 0.639 0.564 8.808 0.046 3.670 1.000 29.000 0.065 1 Predictors: (Constant), IQ 2 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ 3 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ, MQ 4 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ, MQ, Creating2 5 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ, MQ, Creating2, Framing2 6 Predictors: (Constant), IQ, EQ, MQ, Creating2, Framing2, Shaping2 * = significant at 0.05; ** = significant at 0.01; *** = significant at 0.001 In the more recent work of Higgs and Rowland (2005b) they identified an interaction between Framing and Creating which added more explanation of variance in success. To explore this, a Stepwise regression both with and without the interaction item was conducted (see Appendix VI). With all outcome variables it was only Framing that had a significant impact. Thus whilst this does not provide further support for the initial Higgs and Rowland Study, it does not support their subsequent interaction finding. Exploring the LDQ Context Scale The LDQ looks at leadership style in the context of the degree of change faced by the leader. The context scale was developed from a review of the literature with particular reference to the work of Higgs and Rowland (2003). Whilst having clear content validity there have been no clear opportunities to establish further validities of this scale. The current study gathered objective data relating to the change context in which participants answered the LDQ. The LDQ context scale was compared to the independent measures of context. From the analysis there was evidence that the scale only correlated significantly with Change Complexity see table 4). This provides limited construct validation evidence for the LDQ context scale. However, given the relatively small n the 5 per cent significance level requires high correlations. It is feasible that a larger sample would result in the Magnitude correlation (current significance 0.082) achieving significance. In addition it is interesting to note that Change Complexity is identified as a major contextual factor in the Higgs and Rowland (2005) study. In order to explore the 16
context scale further a content review of the items in the context scale compared with the external measures was used to produce a reduced scale (Context Q). This analysis entailed comparing the content of the nineteen context items in the LDQ with the four contextual questions in the Wren (2004) survey. This comparison resulted in the removal of six items from the LDQ context scale which appeared to be relating to different aspects of context to those addressed by Wren and Higgs and Rowland. The correlation between this (Context Q) scale and the LDQ context scale (0.408, p 0.01) produces some further evidence of the construct validity for the LDQ context scale. Table 4 LDQ Context vs. Higgs & Rowland (2005) Context Factors Correlations Context Complexity Pearson Correlation 0.399 * Sig. (2-tailed) 0.016 N 36.000 Scope Pearson Correlation 0.142 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.409 N 36.000 Magnitude Pearson Correlation 0.294 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.082 N 36.000 Timescale Pearson Correlation 0.125 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.469 N 36.000 External Pearson Correlation -0.154 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.378 N 35.000 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Conclusions The results of this study do provide some evidence to support the findings from the Higgs and Rowland (2005) study. In their previous work, Higgs and Rowland (2003) had asserted that the success of change and its leadership may be impacted by the culture of the organisation within which the change is being implemented. Indeed they offered some support for this in their further study which explored organisational culture and change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005b) which is in line with other research in the field (e.g. Trompenaars & Wooliams, 2003; Swaffin-Smith et al, 2002). A limitation of this study is that it has been conducted within a single organisation (Wright & Fowler, 1986) and one (the RAF), space which has a distinct and different culture. The armed services have a 17
distinct command structure which does offer some challenges to the broader leadership and change research (Young & Dulewicz, 2004). In such environments the way in which individuals engage with change and leaders is notably different (Young, 2004). It may well be that the satisfaction reported by followers in this study, related to the Shaping behaviour set, is a function of such a command structure. Given such a structure it is perhaps unsurprising that the leader-centric Shaping factor has a more notable impact on change success than is encountered in a broader commercial context. Turning to the LDQ context scale, the study does provide a degree of evidence of construct validity. The strength of the correlation between the reduced context Q scale (based on objective data) and the LDQ context scale suggests a reasonable degree of validity. However, it is important to bear in mind that the sample in this study is relatively small (n=36) and drawn from a single organisation. Clearly further research to explore this finding in differing organisational contexts, using larger samples would be valuable. Overall, this study has provided further evidence to support the significance of leadership behaviours in the effective implementation of change. Clearly further work is required to confirm these findings and to explore the particular behaviours and their impact on change outcomes. In addition further work is indicated in the area of exploring the interaction between leader behaviours, approaches to change, organisational culture and change success. References Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). An Investigation of Female and Male Constructs of Leadership, Women in Management Review, MCB, Bradford. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organisations Evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, Harper&Row Bass, B.M. and Avolio, J. (1996). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press Beckhard, R. (1969). Organisational Development: Strategies and Models. Reading, MA; Addison Wesley Beer, M., and Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the Code of Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston 18
Blackmore, S. (1998). The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press Buchanan, D. and Body, D. (1992). The Expertise of the Change Agent. London, PrenticeHall Carnall, C. (1999). Managing Change in Organisations, Pearson Education Ltd, England. Conner, D. (1992). Managing At The Speed Of Change. New York; John Wiley & Sons Conner, D. (1998). Leading at the Edge of Chaos, John Wiley and Sons. Drucker, P. (2004). What Makes an Effective Executive, Harvard Business Review, Jun, on-line version. Duck, D. (1999). The Change Monsters. New York; Free Press Dulewicz, V., and Higgs, M. (2005). Assessing leadership styles and organisational context, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No.2, 2005 pp.105-123. Finkelstein, S., and Hambrick, D. (1996). Strategic Leadership Top Executives and Their Influence on Organisations. St. Paul-Min: West Publishing Company Giglio, L., Diamante, T., and Urban, J.M. (1998). Coaching A Leader: Leveraging Change At The Top. Journal of Management Development, 17, 2, pp. 93-105 Goffee, R., and Jones, G. (2000). Why Should Anyone be Led by You?, Harvard Business Review, Vol 78 (5), 62-70. Hambrick, D.C., and Brandon, G.L. (1998). Executive Values, in Hambrick, D.C. (ed.) Executive Effectiveness. Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Mangers. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, pp. Hammer, M., and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York, Harper Collins Hair, J., Babin, B., Money, A., and Samouel, P. (2003). Essentials of Business Research Methods, John Wiley and Sons. Higgs, M., and Roland, D. (2000). Building Change Leadership Capability, Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 2000/04. Higgs, M., and Rowland, D. (2001). Developing Change Leaders: Assessing the Impact of a Development Programme, Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 2001/06. Higgs, M., and Rowland, D. (2003). Is Change Changing? An Examination of Approaches to Changes and its Leadership, Henley Working Paper Series, HWP 2003/13. Higgs, M., and Rowland, D. (2005). All Changes Great and Small: Exploring Approaches to Change and its Leadership Change Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, 121-151, June 2005 Higgs, M., and Rowland, D. (2005 b). Culture and Change. Henley Working Paper Series; HWP2005/11 19
House, J. (1995). Leadership In The Twenty-First Century: A Speculative Inquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), The Changing Nature Of Work. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, pp.411-450 Hurst, D. (1995). Crisis and Renewal: Meeting the Challenge of Organisational Change. Boston, Harvard Business School Press Jaworski, J. (2001). Synchronicity. New York; Berrett-Koehler Jaworski, J., and Scharmer, C.O. (2000). Leadership In The New Economy. Sensing And Actualising Emerging Futures. Working Paper, Society for Organisational Learning; Cambridge, MA. Kets de Vries, M. (1995). Life and Death in the Executive Fast Lane. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Kotter, J. (1990). A Force for Change How Leadership Differs from Management, Free Press, NY. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Kotter,J.P. (1998). Leading Change. Boston, MA; Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, J.R., and Posner, B.F., (1998). Encouraging the Heart. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Lewin, K. (1941). Field Theory in Social Science. New York; Harper & Row Lichtenstein, B.M. (1996). Evolution or Transformation: A Critique And Alternative To Punctuated Equilibrium. In Moore, D. (ed), Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Vancouver, pp. 291-295 Lichtenstein, B.M. (1997). Grace, Magic And Miracles: A Chaotic Logic of Organisational Transformation. Journal of Organisational Change Management; 10, 5; pp. 393-411 Parry, K.W., and Meindl, J.R. (2002). Grounding Leadership Theory and Research. Greenwich, Con, Information Age Publishing Pascale, R. (1999). Managing On The Edge: How Successful Companies Use Conflict To Stay Ahead. London; Viking Reynolds, C.W. (1987). Flocks, Herds And Schools: A Distributed Behavioural Model. Computer Graphics, 21, 4; pp. 25-34 Senge, P.M. (1997). Communities of Leaders and Learners. Harvard Business Review, 75, 5, pp. 30-31 Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B. (2002). The Dance of Change, Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Shaw, P. (1997). Intervening In The Shadow Systems Of Organisations: Consulting From A Complexity Perspective. Journal of Organisational Change Management. 10, 3; pp. 235-250 Shrivastarva, P. (1985). Integrating strategy formulation with organisational culture. Journal of Business Strategy, Winter,pp103-111 20
Tichy, N.M. (1983). Managing Strategic Change: Technical, Political and Cultural Dynamics. New York; John Wiley & Sons Weick, K.E. (1995). Sense-making in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership And The New Science. San Francisco, CA; Berrett-Koehler Wheatley, M. (2000). Turning to One Another. San Francisco, CA; Berrett-Koehle Wheatley, M., and Kellner Rogers, M. (1996). A Simpler Way. San Francisco, CA; Berrett-Koehler Wren, J D. (2005). Leader Competencies, Style and Activities Contributing to Successful Change in the Royal Air Force. MBA Dissertation, Henley Management College. Wren, J D., and Dulewicz, V. (2005). Successful Change in the Royal Air Force: Leader Competencies and Activities, Henley Working Paper 0502. Young, M., and Dulewicz, V. (2004). Leadership Competencies and Styles: Relationships with Leader Performance, Follower Commitment and Organisational Context in the Royal Navy, Henley Working Paper 0408. 21
Appendices Appendix I 360 Feedback Questionnaire You have been nominated as someone who is able to provide information on how the following change programme was lead by your Gp Capt: (Change Programme to be inserted by the Gp Capt). In this form you will find a number of questions asking for your perceptions of issues relating to the above change programme. Please do not spend too long thinking about each item give the first, natural answer that occurs to you; however, do not rush your responses or respond without giving due consideration to each item. Please be as accurate as possible in your responses and bear in mind that where stated, the questions relate to the specific change programme identified above. Do not miss any item, even if a question is difficult to complete, and please circle or tick the appropriate response. It should take less than 10 minutes to complete this form. Please return the completed questionnaire to me in the pre-paid and addressed envelope provided. Thank you. The contents of this form are absolutely confidential. Information identifying the respondent will not be disclosed under any circumstances. Section 1 This section looks at the role of your Gp Capt in leading the specified change programme. Using a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being Strongly Disagree and 5 being Strongly Agree, to what extent do you agree or disagree that.. 22
My Gp Capt: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree 1. Took responsibility for his/her decisions 1 2 3 4 5 2. Recognised my needs 1 2 3 4 5 3. Created a clear vision of the future after the change 1 2 3 4 5 4. Fully communicated to me the benefit of the change 1 2 3 4 5 5. Kept the big picture 1 2 3 4 5 6. Motivated me to embrace the change 1 2 3 4 5 7. Developed clear strategies to achieve the vision 1 2 3 4 5 8. Convinced me of the need to change 1 2 3 4 5 9. Gave me the authority to deal with the change 1 2 3 4 5 10. Kept me fully informed of the change programme 1 2 3 4 5 11. Adjusted the work culture to meet the longterm needs of the change 1 2 3 4 5 12. Generated early successes in the change programme 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Strongly Agree Section 2 Using a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being Strongly Disagree and 5 being Strongly Agree, please indicate your view on the each of the following questions regarding the chosen change programme: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree 13. The change was well lead by the Gp Capt 1 2 3 4 5 14. My level of involvement in the change management was appropriate for my position 1 2 3 4 5 in my organisation 15. External factors strongly restricted the Gp Capt s management of the change 1 2 3 4 5 16. The change was necessary 1 2 3 4 5 17. The Gp Capt s role was critical to the success of the change 1 2 3 4 5 18. I fully supported the Gp Capt s approach to the management of the change 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Strongly Agree 23
Please note the change in scale in the following questions. How supportive were you of the 19. change? 20. How satisfied were you with the way in which the change was lead? 21. To what extent did the change programme meets its objectives? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100 % 22. How much change do you have to deal with in your workplace? None Little Change Significant Change Highly Significant Change 1 2 3 4 5 Fundament al Change Section 3 Please indicate the answer that classifies you best: 23. Your gender Male Female 24. Your age in years 18-25 26-34 35-49 50-59 60 and older 25. Your rank, rank range or civilian equivalent Please also indicate if you are a civilian Upto and inc JNCO SNCO Junior Officer Sqn Ldr Wg Cdr Gp Capt Air Offr Please also tick if Civilian 24
Appendix II: Definitions of the Scales of the Leadership Dimensions Questionnaire Intellectual dimensions (IQ) A Critical Analysis and Judgement: A critical faculty that probes the facts, identifies advantages and disadvantages and discerns the shortcomings of ideas and proposals. Makes sound judgments and decisions based on reasonable assumptions and factual information, aware of the impact of any assumptions made. B Vision and Imagination: Imaginative and innovative in all aspects of one s work. Establishes sound priorities for future work. Clear vision of the future direction of the organisation to meet business imperatives. Foresees the impact of changes on one s vision that reflect implementation issues and business realities. C Strategic Perspective: Sees the wider issues and broader implications. Explores wide range of relationships, balances short- and long-term considerations. Sensitive to the impact of one s actions and decisions across the organisation. Identifies opportunities and threats. Sensitive to stakeholders needs and the implications of external factors on decisions and actions. Managerial dimensions (MQ) D Resource Management : Plans ahead, organises all resources and coordinates them efficiently and effectively. Establishes clear objectives. Converts long-term goals into action plans. Monitors and evaluates staff s work regularly and effectively, gives sensitive, honest feedback. K Engaging Communication: A lively and enthusiastic communicator, engages others and wins support. Clearly communicates instructions and vision to staff. Communications are tailored to the audience s interests and focused. Communication style inspires staff and audiences, conveys approachability and accessibility. L Empowering : Gives staff autonomy, encourages them to take on personally challenging demanding tasks. Encourages them to solve problems, produce innovative 25
ideas and proposals and develop their vision and a broader vision. Encourages a critical faculty and a broad perspective, and encourages the challenging of existing practices, assumptions and policies. M Developing: Believes others have potential to take on ever more-demanding tasks and roles, encourages them to do so. Ensures direct reports have adequate support. Develops their competencies, and invests time and effort in coaching them so they contribute effectively and develop themselves. Identifies new tasks and roles to develop others. Believes that critical feedback and challenge are important. P Achieving: Willing to make decisions involving significant risk to gain an advantage. Decisions are based on core business issues and their likely impact on success. Selects and exploits activities that result in the greatest benefits to the organisation and its performance. Unwavering determination to achieve objectives and implement decisions. Emotional and social dimensions (EQ) E Self-awareness: Awareness of one s own feelings and the capability to recognise and manage these in a way that one feels that one can control. A degree of self-belief in one s capability to manage one s emotions and to control their impact in a work environment. F Emotional resilience: Performs consistently in a range of situations under pressure and adapts behaviour appropriately. Balances the needs of the situation and task with the needs and concerns of the individuals involved. Retains focus on a course of action or need for results in the face of personal challenge or criticism. G Intuitiveness: Arrives at clear decisions and drives their implementation when presented with incomplete or ambiguous information using both rational and emotional or intuitive perceptions of key issues and implications. H Interpersonal sensitivity: Is aware of, and takes account of, the needs and perceptions of others in arriving at decisions and proposing solutions to problems and challenges. Builds from this awareness and achieves the commitment of others to 26