The Role of Leaders in Organizational Change

Peter Drucker defines an organization as a group of people working towards a common goal. The goal is achieved following organizational norms, rules, and rituals that adhere to a set of values; an organization is a community working together. It seems that the terms culture and organization share many of the same elements. Definitions and functions of culture and organization are so closely linked it does not seem an organization can exist without culture; therefo re an organization is culture. Drucker adds that society is a collection of organizations where almost all social functions are done within organizations. Society and culture go hand-in-hand. If society is a collection of organizations, then organization and culture go hand-in-hand as well. Culture is a complex phenomenon. To say that a leader can create culture would give them incredible power and is misleading. Rather, culture impacts how the leadership process works within organizations. Leadership as an influence relationship implies that followers allocate power to leaders through their followership. Leaders exercise influence on others to obtain power from followers. The organizations culture is a catalyst for this power transfer. If a leader could create culture, then they could create conditions to wrest power without exercising influence. This seems contrary to our understanding of the leadership process. It seems that leaders do not create culture, but rather they exercise influence upon others to guide it in a desired direction. Culture is created by all players within an organization working together in the leadership process. The degree to which a leader can influence the direction culture moves is related to the degree of influence they have on others in the organization. One model that explains how leaders influence culture is Tichy and Devannas Transformational Drama. Its based on Burns theory that leadership can be transactional or transformational. Bass and Avolio expand this concept by better identifying four things transformational leaders do (the 4 Is): exercise idealized influence, give inspirational motivation, provide intellectual stimulation, and give individualized consideration. There are three acts in this drama, each with an organizational and individual dynamics. The leaders role is to use the 4 Is to move both the organization and individuals through the three acts. Act I occurs as the leader interprets triggers for change. By assessing the environment effecting an organization, the leader notices that the organization requires longterm change for future success. The leader must help other members of the organization obtain closure with the

past. This is done by disengaging from the past and coming to an understanding that the past can no longer be. In Act II, the transformational leader creates the new vision for the organization. The leader works with other change agents to assess what is needed for change to occur, maps the blueprint, and then mobilizes the commitment needed for change. Individuals are then enculturated to this new vision. They must go through a process of understanding the vision, and seeing their place in this vision. Some will be unable to see their place, and therefore will leave t he

organization. The leader must obtain a critical mass of organization members who believe in the new vision in order for change to occur. In Act III, the leader institutes the new vision. The organization goes through social architecture where the old ways are destroyed and a new social fabric is woven. Individuals must adapt to the change in the organization, coming to terms with both the change and their place in the new organization. Although this is an ending to the Transformational Drama, it

is not the final ending. Failure to continue adapting to change will lead to stagnation. must continually assess potential triggers for change, and then start over with Act I.

After Act III, organization leaders

Transformational leaders must assess all three acts of the transformation in terms of the technical, political, and cultural framework, as these three areas compose the makeup of an organization; Bolman and Deal would argue there are actually four frames. The technical framework consists of the organizations design, function, strategy, and tools

(Bolman's Structural Frame). The political framework defines the allocation of power and authority (Bolman's Political Frame). The cultural framework is the normative glue that binds people together (Bolman's Human Resource and Each framework is equally important in the organization, and therefore must be assessed and

Symbolic Frames). addressed.

A caveat to Transformational Leadership is Brungardt and Crawfords Risk Leadership model.

They contend that

traditional styles of leadership will not work in our changing society as they are controlled by top -down leadership. In other words if we define leadership as exercising influence, consolidating power, and instituting change, these models only allow influence, power, and change to be in the domain of those at the top of an organization. Brungardt and Crawford feel the top-down approach to leadership will ultimately fail. Influence, power, and change must also be in the hands of those in the middle and bottom of an organization. The basic premise is that organizations of the future must be lead both from top-down and bottom-up. A Risk Leader goes through a process of preparation whereby the organization is assessed, the need for change identified, and a coalition of revolutionaries created to build an agenda. Next this coalition creates an organizational revolution by denying consent to and confronting upper level leaders and engaging in conflict and challenge. The coalition then reaches a point of resolution whereby they collaborate with top level leaders to create a partnership. In Risk Leadership, the Transformational Drama is still valid; we just change the level of leadership driving the transformation.