LUDCKE LIBRARY
Lesley College
30 hAeilGn Street
Cambridge, UA 02138-2790
For Reference
Not to be taken from this room
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
Lesley University, Sherrill Library
http://www.archive.org/details/roleimpactofleadOOstep
THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF LEADERS' MENTAL MODELS IN EFFECTING
PLANNED TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
A DISSERTATION
submitted by
STEPHEN C. RATHMILL
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
LESLEY COLLEGE
August 27,
1998
11
Abstract
Presidents and CEOs play a critical role in leading their
organizations through planned transformational change (PTC) and
generally, do not do it very well. This may, in part, be a result of
leaders not closely examining and challenging their thinking about
PTC and their role in leading it.
Leaders' mental models determine what and how they think
about their organizations, employees, transformational change and
what their leadership means and how their mental models
determine their actions and behaviors in planning and implementing
PTC. By examining and challenging their mental models, leaders may
gain insights into alternative ways of leading and this reflection may
result in action leading to greater effectiveness in their companies'
ability to accomplish PTC.
A methodology based on Chris Argyris' espoused theory and
theory-in-use concepts can be used by external consultants to help
leaders make their mental models explicit and open to their
examination. This process allows leaders to challenge their mental
models and to develop alternative actions and behaviors in effecting
PTC.
Research was conducted on four leaders of for-profit
organizations. These companies varied in size, industry, and
profitability. By conducting in-depth interviews with these leaders
and their middle level managers, individual's mental models were
analyzed and degrees of congruence between their espoused theories
and their actual behaviors and actions were illuminated. It seems
clear that mental models that stress a willingness to explore openly
one's own thinking and behavior appears to result in leaders having
greater choices of alternatives and selecting more appropriate
strategies and actions in leading PTC. Little congruence seems to
result in significantly reduced understanding leaders have about
their actions and behaviors and leads to ineffective PTC.
Ill
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the three powerful women in
my life: my mother who taught me to love and, by example, to
overcome adversity; my wife, Nelly, who unquestioningly supported
my desire to return to school and pursue a Ph.D. while others were
solidifying their careers, and who always believed in my eventual
success, and Debora Sherman who rescued my studies and me from
disorganization and dispair.
And to the family of Sciurus carolinensis who live outside my
study window. To this day, they have not given up trying to get
seeds from my "squirrel-proof bird feeders. Their persistance and
ingenuity I find inspiring.
IV
Author Note
I want to thank my dissertation committee for their support,
encouragement, and hard work in assisting me through this arduous
labor. To Dr. Earl Potter, Dean of the School of Management, Lesley
College, who provided guidance by challenging my research approach
and insights into my "mental model;" to Dr. Larry Rossini, who spent
many hours exchanging ideas with me, giving me insights into my
studies, and telling me, "This is really good stuff;" and to Dr. Debora
Sherman, professor and my dissertation committee chairperson,
Lesley College, who guided my work, challenged my thinking, and
encouraged my efforts. My appreciation for your professionalism
and humanity can not be too strongly expressed.
To the presidents and CEOs of the firms who participated in
this study, 1 want to express my gratitude for taking time from your
busy lives to support this research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Dedication iii
Author Note iv
Chapter One: The Question 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review on the Theories of
Organizational Change 6
Introduction 6
The Purpose of Theory 6
Historical Significance/importance of Early
Theorists 10
What is Organizational Change? 15
Kanter, Stein, and Jick 1 5
Macro-evolutionary Change 19
Micro-evolutionary Change 22
Basic assumptions of Kanter et al's. model 24
Van de Ven and Poole 24
Types of Change Theory 26
1 . Life-cycle theory 26
2. Teleological Theory 27
3. Dialectical Theory 27
4. Evolutionary Theory 29
Distinguishing Characteristics of Van de Ven and
Poole's 30
Process Theories 30
The Cycles and Motor of Change 30
The Unit of Change 31
Mode of Change 3 1
Assumptions 34
Chin and Benne 36
Empirical-Rational Strategies 36
Normative-Reeducative Strategies 3 8
Power-Coercive Strategies 40
Assumptions 41
Comparisons of the Work of Kanter et al., Van de
Ven and Poole and Chin and Benne 41
1. "What is the change process?" 42
1. a Forces of Change 42
1. b How change takes place 43
2. "What is changed?" 45
3. "What are other distinguishing
characteristics that change research
addresses?" 48
Romanelli and Tushman 49
Description of Punctuated Equilibrium 49
Comparisons of Romanelli and Tushman's Work to the
Work of Kanter et al., Van de Ven and Poole, and Chin
and Benne 51
1. "What is the change process?" 51
2. "What is changed?" 52
3. "What are other distinguishing
characteristics that change research
addresses?" 53
Lichtenstein 54
Description of the Three Stage Self-Organizing
Model 54
Comparisons to the Work of Kanter et al, Van de Ven and
Poole, Chin and Benne, Romanelli and Tushman 56
1. "What is the change process?" 56
Biological Analogies 5 7
Change mechanisms: stages and
triggers 57
2. "What is changed?" 60
3. "What are other distinguishing
characteristics that change research
addresses?" 60
Kurt Lewin 61
Lewin's Three Phase Model of Change 61
Schein's Elaboration of Lewin's Model 62
Comparisons to the Work of Kanter et al., Van de Ven and
Poole, Chin and Benne, Romanelli and Tushman, and
Lichtenstein 63
1. "What is the change process?" 63
2. "What is changed?" 64
3. "What are other distinguishing
characteristics that change research
addresses?" 64
Richard Beckhard, Wendy Pritchard, Ruben T. Harris 65
Fundamental Change in Complex Organizations 65
Comparisons to the Work of Kanter et al., Van de Ven and
Poole, Chin and Benne, Romanelli and Tushman, and
Lichtenstein, and Lewin 69
1. "What is the change process?" 69
2. "What is changed?" 70
3. "What are other distinguishing
characteristics that change research
addresses?" 70
Summary 71
1 ) Organizational change is a complex
subject 71
2) Is it possible to deliberately plan and
implement organizational change? 72
3) Theories provide a schemata of change that
can be used for analysis 72
4) Which theoretical approach to planned
change should be used? 72
5) Importance for change agents of
understanding planned change 73
References 73
Chapter Three: Literature Review on the Theories of
Leadership and Organizations 79
Introduction 79
Nature of Leadership 80
Definition 80
Major Issues 81
Leadership Effectiveness 84
Leadership Theories and Models 86
Introduction 86
( 1 ) Situational and Contingency Theories of
Leadership 87
(a) Path-Goal Theory 88
(b) Leadership Substitutes Theory 89
(c) Multiple Linkage Model 90
(d) LPC Contingency Model 91
( 2 ) Leadership Behavior 92
(3) Leadership Traits and Skills 95
(4) Power and Influence 98
Charismatic Leadership 10 1
Attribution Theory of Charisma 103
Self-Concept Theory of Charismatic
Leadership 104
Charisma as Social Contagion 105
Participative Leadership 105
Vroom and Yetton Normative Decision Model 106
Transformational Leadership 107
References 112
Chapter Four: Literature Review of Mental Models 123
Introduction 123
Description of Mental Models 123
Development of the Concept of Mental Models 124
The Role of Mental Models in Organizational
Change 127
References 134
Chapter Five: Methodology 13 7
Purpose 137
Theoretical Basis for Conducting Qualitative
Research 137
Qualitative Research 137
Phenomenological Approach 139
Symbolic Interaction 139
Portraiture 141
Research Design 142
Rationale for Use of Subject Codes 142
The Nature of Organizations 145
The Nature of People in Organizations 146
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 147
Self Perception 148
Data Gathering, Sampling, and Analysis 150
Data. 152
Coding 152
Coding Accuracy 153
Validity and Reliability Issues in Qualitative
Research 154
References 156
Chapter Six: Research Findings 158
Corporate Headquarters Case Mental Model of JOHN 159
Introduction to the Enterprise 159
John's Mental Model 161
Nature of Organizations 162
Nature of People in Organizations 163
Understanding Resistance 163
Understanding Organizatinal Dynamics 164
Understanding the Need for Achievement 165
Others View of John 165
Understanding the Nature of Planned Organizational
Change 166
Understanding The Value Of Recognizing The
Need For Change 166
Understanding The Importance And Value Of
Leadership And Management In
Organizational Transformation 166
Understanding Planned Organizational Change
Concepts 167
Understanding Organizational Culture 168
Understanding One's Own Role 169
Understanding the Need for Rewards and
Recognition 170
Perceives Successful Change 170
Self Perception 171
Seeing Oneself as Leader 171
Philosophy of Living 172
Self Awareness 172
Corporate Headquarters Case Mental Model of JANE 173
The Nature of Organizations 173
Understanding Organizational Systems and
Processes 173
The Nature of People in Organizations 174
Sensitivity to Others' Feelings and Emotions 174
Understanding the Need for Rewards and
Recognition 175
Understanding Organizational Dynamics 175
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 176
Understanding Leadership and Management 176
Understanding the Need for Communications 179
Understanding Resistance 180
Need for Change 181
Perception of Change 18 1
Understand Need for Team work 182
Self Perception 183
Abihty to See From Others' Viewpoint 183
Seeing Oneself as a Leader 184
Self Awareness 185
Ability to See From Another's Viewpoint 186
View of the President 187
Corporate Headquarters Case Comparison of Mental
Models 189
Introduction .189
The Nature of Organizations 190
The Nature of People in Organizations 190
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 192
Self Perception 192
References 194
Chapter Six: Research Findings-Manufacturing Case 195
Mental Model of ED 195
Nature of Organizations 196
Nature of People in Organizations 196
Need for Achievement 196
Reward and Recognition 197
Understanding Organizational Dynamics 197
Understanding People in Organizations 199
Nature of Planned Organizational Change 202
Perception of Change 202
Understanding Leadership and Management 202
Understanding Resistance 208
Understanding the Need for Teamwork 209
Self Perception 209
Manfuacturing Case 210
Mental Model of MIKE 210
The Nature of Organizations 211
The Nature of People in Organizations 211
Need for Achievement 211
Understanding People in Organizations 212
View of Ed 216
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 217
Perception of Change 2 1 7
Understanding Innovation 2 1 8
Understanding Leadership and Management 218
Understanding Communication 220
Understanding the Need for Team Work 220
Understanding Ed's Role 221
Self Perception 223
Ability to See From Others Point of View 223
Self Awareness 22 3
Understands Own Role 225
Manufacturing Case 228
Mental Model of LARRY 228
Nature of Organizations 228
Nature of People in Organizations 229
Understanding the Need for Rewards and
Recognition 229
Understanding What Makes People Tick 229
Understanding People in Organizations 230
Nature of Planned Organizational Change 232
Perception of Change 232
Understanding the Need for Team Work 233
Understanding Leadership and Management 234
Self Perception 238
Self Awareness 238
Philosophy of Living 240
Manufacturing Case Comparison of Mental Models 240
Introduction 241
The Nature of Organizations 241
The Nature of People in Organizations 241
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 242
Self Perception 242
Utility Case: Mental Model of ROB 244
Introduction 244
The Nature of Organizations 246
The Nature of People in Organizations 247
Risk Taking 247
Understanding Organizational Dynamics 248
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 248
Understanding Planned Organizational Change
Concepts 248
Understanding the Need for Change 2 5 2
Understanding Leadership and Management 254
Perception of Change 255
Understanding Innovations 256
Understand Need for Communication 257
Understanding the Need for Team Work 259
Understanding Organizational Culture 259
Understanding Resistance 25 9
Self Perception 260
Understanding One's Own Role 260
Seeing Oneself as Leader 261
Understanding One's Own Role 262
Self Awareness 263
Utility Case: Mental Model of RALPH 266
Introduction 266
The Nature of Organizations 266
Management Planning 266
The Nature of People in Organizations 267
Understanding People's Needs in
Organizations 267
Understanding Organizational Dynamics 267
Ralph's View of Rob 269
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 272
Understanding the Need for Change 272
Understand Innovations 272
Understanding the Need for Teamwork 272
Understanding Planned Organizational
Change 273
Understanding the Need for Communication 274
Self Perception 275
Utility Case: Mental Model SAM 276
Introduction 276
Nature of Organizations 276
Nature of People in Organizations 277
Risk Taking 277
Organizational Dynamics 278
What Makes People Tick 280
Sam's View of Rob 280
Nature of Planned Organizational Change 282
Understands Planned Organizational Change 282
Understanding the Need for Communication 284
Understands the Need for Teamwork 285
Self Perception 286
Self Awareness 286
Utility Case: Comparison of Mental Models 288
Introduction 288
Nature of Organizations 288
The Nature of People in Organizations 288
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 289
Self Perception 289
References 291
Marketing Case: Mental Model of MARY 292
The Nature of Organizations 294
Management Planning 294
The Nature of People in Organizations 295
Understanding the Need for Rewards and
Recognition 295
Organizational Dynamics 295
Understanding People in Organizations 296
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 297
Understanding Resistance 297
Understanding Leadership and Management 298
Understanding Innovation 300
Understanding the Need for Communication 301
Understanding the Need for Team Work 301
Use Perception to Create Success 301
Self Perception 302
Self Awareness 302
Understanding One's Own Role 303
Seeing Oneself as a Leader 303
Philosophy of Life 306
Creating Reality 306
Marketing Case: Mental model of LINDA 308
Nature of Organizations 308
Nature of People in Organizations 308
Understanding Need for Achievement 308
Understanding People in Organizations 309
View of Mary 310
Nature of Planned Organizational Change 3 1 1
Perception of Change 3 1 1
Understanding Innovation 3 1 3
Understanding Management and Leadership 314
Understanding the Need for Communication 314
Understanding Reward and Recognition 315
Understanding the Need for Team Work 316
Understanding Organizational Culture 316
Self Perception 318
Self Awareness 3 1 8
Understanding Own Role 319
Seeing Oneself as Leader 319
Marketing Case: Mental Model comparison 321
The Nature of Organizations 321
The Nature of People in Organizations 321
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change 322
Self Perception 322
Chapter Seven: Analysis and Interpretation 324
Introduction 324
Recapitulation 324
Transformational Change 329
Identifying Transformational Change 329
Mechanisms of Transformational Change 333
Maintaining Transformational Change 335
Leadership in Transformational Change 337
Situational or Contingency Theories 338
Leader Behavior Theories 339
Power and Influence 341
Charismatic Leadership 342
Transformational Leadership 344
Mental Models 347
Common and Dissimilar Elements of Four Leaders'
Mental Models 348
The Nature of Organizations: 348
The Nature of People in Organizations: 349
The Nature of Planned Organizational
Change: 350
Self-perception: 350
Summary 351
Consultants Uses for Theories of Action 352
Implications for Consultants 353
A Final Thought 3 5 7
References 359
Appendix 1: Interview Introduction Letter 364
Introduction and Purpose of My Visit 364
Protection of Confidentially 365
Conducting the Interviews 365
Appendix 11: Interview Introduction and Questions 366
Appendix III: Codes by Categories 369
The Nature of Organizations: 369
The Nature of People in Organizations: 369
The Nature of Organizational Change: 369
Self Perception: 370
Appendix IV: Mental Model Test 371
CHAPTER ONE: THE QUESTION
In my years of management experience in primarily high
technology corporations, 1 have witnessed many corporate attempts
at transformational change, yet little seemed to actually change from
these attempts. Organizational leaders announced fundamental
changes would be made in how business was conducted; executives
were reassigned to head these efforts; new visions, missions, and
goals were promulgated, and reams of paper were distributed telling
company employees all about the "big changes" that would turn their
company around. Organizations were restructured. Often employees
were laid off. Jobs were changed. Stress was high in people and
often resulted in physical, as well as emotional illness. The talented
employees whose skills were in high demand often left to take jobs
in more stable organizations. As people left, those remaining behind
had to take up the increased workload. Stress increased and
productivity continued to decline. In the end, the corporation
continued its downhill slide, and the executives responsible
wondered why their "well planned" changes did not work.
In the United States, education of executives, I believe, is
woefully lacking. In one critical area, that of planned
transformational change, executives do not learn how to lead it, nor
do they have the opportunity to learn how to accomplish it
successfully. Since the impact of failed transformational change is so
serious to our society, the importance of educating this population
has never been greater. My hope is that this study will contribute to
this educational effort.
The question this dissertation explores is: What are the
mental models of leaders and middle level managers in
organizations undergoing planned transformational change
and how do their mental models affect their perceptions in
assessing the changes in terms of the problems they were
designed to address?
This dissertation will explore:
• the mental models of two groups of organizational players:
leaders and middle level managers,
• the relationships and roles of the mental models of the two
groups of players,
• the similarities and differences, if any, of the relationships
between the mental models of the two groups,
• the extent of congruence of the mental models of the two
groups and how it influences their perceptions of the change
effort,
• the cognitive content of leaders' thinking about the nature of
organizations, the nature of people in organizations, the
nature of organizational change, and percpetions of
themselves.
This investigation includes an examination of:
• the mental models of leaders and middle level managers in
planned transformational change situations,
• the aspects or components of their mental models about
planned transformational change.
• their perceptions of the impact of their mental models on
their planned transformational change efforts,
Mental models are the central focus of this study because of
my assumption that such mental models have a direct impact on an
individual's ability to make sense of the world around him/her and
on the actions that result from this comprehension. Because leaders
occupy the critical position in organizations, they are essential to the
research. They have positional, as well as political, psychological, and
spiritual power and influence, to lead the change effort.
The concept of mental models is important to understand
because they affect what we see and believe. "Two people with
different mental models can observe the same event and describe it
differently, because they've looked at different details. We observe
selectively" (Senge, 1993 p. 175). Actually, we perceive selectively.
We choose, often unconsciously, what we are willing to see. Since we
perceive selectively, our perceptions tend to reinforce what we
already believe to be true; they are our mental models. Our mental
models, too, are often unconsciously held and we assume they are
accurate. Therefore, "...new insights fail to get put into practice
because they conflict with deeply held internal images of how the
world works, images that limit us to familiar ways of thinking and
acting" (Senge, 1993 p. 174). In other words, mental models often
block learning unless they are recognized and challenged. We
develop defensive routines that insulate and protect us from
disconfirming data. Argyris uses the oxymoron "skilled
incompetence" to refer to people becoming "...highly skillful at
protecting themselves from pain and threat posed by learning
situations." (Argyris, Putnam & Smith, 1985a) The result is the
inability to learn, grow, and change.
What organizational members think regarding the
organization, its people, and its change, is the result, to a great extent,
of their mental models. From mental models, which inform
knowledge and understanding, come action and behavior. This
means that mental models influence operations of organizations
through their impact on the actions and behaviors of organizational
members. Therefore, this dissertation explores research subjects'
thinking on:
• The nature of organizations and how they perceive the
relevance and importance of power, group dynamics,
systems, structure, and people;
• The nature of people in organizations and how they perceive
the relevance and importance of what people want, what
motivates them, how they react to different organizational
situations and events;
• The nature of organizational change and how they perceive
the relevance and importance of how and why people react
to change, what causes resistance to it and what reduces it,
and what motivates people to support it;
• The individual's perception of himself or herself including
his/her understanding about him/herself; their own
behaviors, motives, goals, and desires, within the context of
the organization.
Knowledge is constructed. "Knowing something represents an
act of constructing or of creating a meaning..." and "... every 'truth'
represents a construction of meaning: rather than a mere perception
of reality as it is." (Campbell, 1994 p. 10) . In other words, our
understanding of organizational change is perceptually and
contextually based; that is, it applies only to the individual's reaction
to a specific situation and circumstances that are being experienced.
Therefore, it is important for us, as researchers, to understand the
specific situations and mental models with which leaders and middle
level managers are involved.
Examining people's mental models and the thinking and actions
associated with them will give us the ability to view their world
through multiple lenses, thereby providing us with a more complete
understanding of what may be going on. 1 believe, that it is through
reflection and examination from multiple perspectives that we are
able to learn to understand organizational existence, how it functions,
and what our roles are in making transformational change work.
My own perspective in conducting this research is from that of
an outside consultant whose mission is to aid organizations in making
transformational change.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE THEORIES OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter reviews the literature on the theories of
organizational change by first describing, then comparing and
contrasting the three major change theories (of Kanter et al., Van de
Ven and Poole, and Chin and Benne) which provide the basis of the
literature. Additional theoretical research work in this area of
Romanelli and Tushman, Benyamin Lichtenstein, Kurt Lewin, and
finally, Richard Beckhard will also be reviewed.
THE PURPOSE OF THEORY
In order to accomplish the goal of the next two chapters, which
is to review the literature on theories of organizational change, it is
first necessary to be able to distinguish between what is a theory
and what is not a theory,
Kurt Lewin, the social psychologist, stated that there is nothing
as useful as a good theory (Weisbord, 1987). What Lewin meant by
this, in part, was that theory-making accomplishes several critical
functions in aiding our efforts to gain understanding about the
nature of our world. A theory systematically organizes
knowledge and information including principles, concepts,
hypotheses, processes, and systems into a meaningful structure that
helps us better understand phenomena. A theory attempts to
explain causal relationships trying to find reasons why certain
occurrences happen while other occurrences don't happen. It
includes logical and convincing arguments. A theory is broad
in scope, in that it generalizes to other situations that have
similar circumstances. It should possess predictive capabilities.
A theory is an answer to the query of why: things happen (Kaplan,
1964; Merton, 1967). According to Weick, good theory is succinct,
explains, predicts, and delights (Weick, 1979).
We can now see how a good theory is able to help us study
organizational change. It helps us to understand the nature of
organizational change by attempting to answer the questions of why
organizations change and how this phenomenon happens. Theory
enables us to compare and contrast different aspects of
organizational change. It allows us to predict that if certain
conditions exist in an organization, we can expect certain events to be
the result. We can look at organizations in various situations and
circumstances and make generalizations about why and how
organizational change occurs.
Lewin, in stating that "nothing is as useful as a good theory",
also meant that a good theory provides us with the opportunity to
test our assumptions. It is through testing these assumptions that
we expand our understanding of the world around us and also decide
whether the theory has validity for us. Its design enables us to test
its assumptions and determine for ourselves whether or not the
theory useful.
Although Sutton (1987) says, there is a lack of agreement in
our ability to distinguish between a theory and a model, it is
important to attempt to distinguish between them because they
serve different functions. In contrast to a theory, a model is "A
schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that
• 8
accounts for its known or inferred properties..." (American Heritage,
1997). Models help us to study the characteristics of a phenomenon,
but they don't provide an explanation of how the phenomenon works
or why it happens. Theory, on the other hand, answers these
questions from a socially shared perspective. As we progress in
examining organizational change theories in this paper, it therefore
will be important to distinguish between theories and models, since
only studying theories will accomplish our purpose.
Although our discussion has indicated the value of theory,
several points need to be explored that put this value into
perspective. The phrase "socially shared perspective" used above
suggests that caution needs to be used in relying on theory to explain
phenomena. As Gergen points out, "...accounts of 'the way the world
is' don't grow from nature but from the application of a socially
shared perspective" (Gergen, 1991 p. 94). While modernist
philosophers of science attempt to establish a relational foundation
for knowledge and the belief that factual knowledge exists "out
there" independently of the scholar, postmodernists question the
whole notion that objectivity can exist at all.
Before a scientific discovery can be claimed as a "fact", other
scientists must examine the research and be able to repeat it.
"Objectivity, then, is achieved through a coalition of subjectivities"
(Gergen, 1991 p. 84) and as Hanson believes, we come to any
particular event or situation with certain practiced ways of
perceiving it (Hanson, 1958). This means that theory, to be accepted,
must first gain approval from others who themselves come to the
situation with their own preconceived notions and ways of
perceiving reality. "The truth" depends upon the context in which it
is perceived. What the scientific community perceives as "truth"
depends upon "...social factors such as power, social negotiation, and
prestige" (Gergen, 1991 p. 94). "Thus...it is not the 'real world' that
determines scientific description and explanation, but rather social
processes within science and society" (Gergen, 1991 p. 93).
The importance of this discussion, I believe, is that while
theory-making is exceedingly important in helping us understand
the complexities of our world, we must, at the same time, remain
aware of the limitations of theories. In the study of business
organizations, a number of "theories" have purported to have "the
answer" to business problems. Those who make statements of
"truth" cannot make those statements objectively. Therefore,
it is important to question the context in which the author makes
these statements. This information aids in evaluating the worth the
author's work has for us. At the same time, we need to recognize
that theories are still the best way we have of sharing ideas within
our context. Without theories, we have no basis for taking actions.
Actions we do take maybe haphazard and without a real sense of
what their results may be. That is why "business solutions" that are
not based on theory may not only be worthless, but may be
dangerous. Despite these limitations, I will consider a theory to be
"systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide
variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions,
accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze,
predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set
of phenomena" (American Heritage, 1997). Theoretical orientations
• 10
and perspectives help researchers develop a foundation to engage in
research in a systematic, rational methodology. Theories are
essential for this dissertation in analyzing from multiple perspectives
data elicited from leaders and their middle level managers.
Historical Significance/importance of Early Theorists
It is important to examine the works of early theorists in order
to understand their influences on current thought on organizational
change. Four of these influential early theorists are Kurt Lewin,
Richard Beckhard, and Robert Chin and Kenneth Benne.
It would be difficult to determine precisely what contributions
each of these early theorists had upon individual organizational
change researchers. However, that exercise is not as important as
understanding what were these early theorists' contributions to
subsequent thinking in the field of planned change. All of the above
researchers approached the study and implementation of planned
change from similar perspectives. They all were concerned with the
need for understanding "..practical theory and the social dynamics of
utilizing knowledge in effecting change..." (French et al, 1994 p.
111). Beckhard and Benne actually worked with Lewin. Beckhard
had joined MIT's Research Center for Group Dynamics which was led
by Lewin and Benne worked with Lewin on the design of the
"Connecticut workshop" on race relations. Later, along with Lewin,
Benne founded the National Training Labs at Bethel, Maine.
Lewin was first to lay out the concepts involved with
understanding and implementing planned change before Beckhard
and Chin and Benne wrote about them. This is not to say that they
• 11
merely copied Lewin's work. Each of these theorists took Lewin's
work further and in different directions. Beckhard focused on the
work of taking theory and applying it to the practical work of
implementing planned change. Chin and Benne focused on
behavioral aspects as well as developing concepts on planned change
strategies.
Perhaps the most influential theorist was Kurt Lewin (1891 -
1947), Lewin, a social psychologist, was one of the earliest
researchers and theorists on organizational change (see qualifying
paper #1 for detailed information about Lewin). "Nearly every
sincere effort to improve organizations from within can be traced
back to him [Lewin], often through a thicket of tangled, hidden
influences. His work spread from mentor to student, from consultant
to manager to colleague..." (Kleiner, 1996 p. 30). Lewin saw as
fundamental the building of a relationship between the abstract and
the concrete, that is, between theory and practice. "The research
worker can achieve this [relationship building] only if, as a result of a
constant intense tension, he can keep both theory and reality fully
within his field of vision." (Benne & Chin, 1976b p. 4). From this
concern, comes Lewin's concentration on action research and
continuous learning by doing, as a fundamental component of
research.
Lewin made many major contributions that influenced others'
subsequent work on organizational change including action research,
three-step model of organizational change, and the determining role
of culture in implementing change. The basis of Lewin's thinking
was the belief that people inherently have valuable contributions to
• 12
make to their organizations. Also attributed to Lewin are
implementation models of planned change such as those of Lippitt,
Watson, and Westely (Burke, 1992), Edgar Schein (Schein, 1988), and
Ralph Kilmann (French et al, 1994). Lewin posited the importance
of conducting empirical studies of organizations. He developed the
process of "action research" which involved both solving problems
and creating useful knowledge about the process of change based
upon accumulated research. By using this process, other researchers
were able to contribute, in a systematic way, to the body of
knowledge on organizational change. Lewin's three-step change
model was the first to define change as a process involving forces,
either in or out of balance, that determined an organization's actions.
In addition, Lewin understood the profound importance of the
organization's culture in accomplishing change. This work influenced
the later work of others including Edgar Schein.
Richard Beckhard's (1918- ) career overlapped Lewin's and
was influenced by him. However, Beckhard himself, strongly
influenced, in the early 1960s the new branch of organizational
change referred to as organizational development. Beckhard saw
that the greatest challenge to organizations was to grow and develop
in positive ways. Therefore, he focused on the implementation of
planned organizational change which he referred to as organizational
development. Beckhard meant by implementation, that
organizational development and growth needed to be planned,
managed from the top, and aimed at increasing "...organizational
effectiveness and health" (Beckhard, 1969 p. 9). This type of change
consisted of planned interventions in the organization's processes
• 13
and was based upon behavioral science knowledge. Beckhard saw
the need to change whole organizations. Although Beckhard believed
that change had to be led from the top of the organization with a
"vision-driven strategy" he, like Lewin, knew that the only effective
way was to concentrate on groups or teams, not individuals, as the
focus of managing change. This approach is more effective because
group norms strongly affect individual actions. To gain critical
support for change from stakeholders, it was necessary to focus on
both current business results as well as accomplishing strategic
organizational improvements (Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992 p. 25).
Again, like Lewin, Beckhard saw the fundamental need for creating a
workplace where workers could achieve through developing their
full potential. Another Lewin concept, learning by doing as part of
action research, was strongly endorsed by Beckhard.
Robert Chin (1918-) and Kenneth Benne (1908-1992)
developed a three-way classification of change strategies. Chin and
Benne were committed to a normative-re-educative family of
strategies as the most "appropriate to the conditions of contemporary
life and to the advancement of scientific and democratic values in
human society." They did not reject the other two families of
strategies, i.e. rational-empirical and power-coercive. "It is probably
safe to predict that all three kinds of strategies will continue to be
used in action programs [implementation plans]" (Benne & Chin,
1976a p. 13). In addition, utilizing their three-way classification.
Chin and Benne traced the evolution of thought and knowledge about
planned change. This enables us to view the flow of ideas over time
and to point out alternative approaches to planned change.
• 14
Chin and Benne's ideas are similar to Lewin's in that the
former's explains change from the perspective of human needs and
behaviors. Lewin posited that organizations needed to be strongly
motivated to "unfreeze" or begin the change. For example, Lewin
stated that to "unfreeze" the organization employees must perceive a
need for change. Chin and Benne's posit similarly that employees
would logically see the need for change in "rational-empirical"
strategy, be coerced into accepting change in "power-coercive"
strategy, or individuals will change when "...their normative
orientations to old patterns [are given up] and develop commitments
to new ones" (French et al., 1994 p. 112). In other words, change
occurs, when people change both their values, attitudes, and
relationships in addition to changing their information, knowledge,
and rational constructs.
Lewin stated that it is the behavior of organizational members
that is changed. However, Lewin did not indicate the depth of the
behavior change required as being at the deep level of attitudes,
beliefs, and norms as do Chin and Benne.
As indicated earlier, Lewin had a profound impact upon later
theorists. Through his associations from his work at NTL and MIT,
Lewin was able to connect with and influence dozens of researchers.
Those he influenced themselves, in turn, influenced many others in
further developing organizational change theory and implementation
concepts.
The following sections examine the literature on theories of
organizational change by seven groups and individual researchers.
• 15
What is Organizational Change?
In this section, three broad theories defining organizational
change, or in the case of Van de Ven metatheories, are described. In
the following section, these three theories are compared and
contrasted. Later in this paper, additional theories will be described
and compared to our main three theories.
KANTER, STEIN, AND JICK
Rosebeth Kanter Moss is a professor in the Harvard Business
School. Barry Stein is a management consultant in his own consulting
firm. He specializes in helping companies in the United States and
Europe to deal effectively with change. Kanter and Stein together
have presented workshops internationally on issues related to
organizational change. Todd Jick is a professor at the Harvard
Business School. His specialty is the management of change.
Organizational change is conventionally thought of as involving
a movement from "some discrete and rather fbced state" to another
in certain time frames so that movement proceeds from one state at
a certain time to another state and time (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1992 p.
9). However, according to Kanter et al., organizations are fluid and
dynamic. They are always in motion. Organizational components are
moving in many directions at once. Change is considered deliberate
when some aspect of the motion is steered in a specific direction.
According to Kanter et al., change involves two different
phenomena. The first, is that to some degree change is in the eye of
the beholder. Kuhn's "Paradigm" theory states that a number of
• 16
small changes eventually accumulate to a sudden realization or
perception of being a qualitative shift (Kuhn, 1962), "...as in entering
an entirely new state , with phenomena subsequently reinterpreted
in terms of this new paradigm" (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 10). In other
words, the shift to a new paradigm is a matter of perception on the
part of the individual or group who is perceiving the phenomenon.
Small changes, or "small-c" build up one upon the other until there is
the perception that a qualitative shift, or "big-C" has taken place.
Since change involves, at least to some extent, perception, the claim
of change having occurred may be the result of certain motivations,
stated or unstated, on the part of those making the declaration.
Therefore, "we should always ask who has a stake in declaring
something to be 'new and different'" (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 10).
The second, is that organizational change is not completely a
matter of perception. There is an empirical aspect to it. This aspect
refers to the presence of "...a set of characteristics associated with
enduring patterns of behavior both of the organization as an entity
and of people involved in it" (Kanter, 1983 p. 10). Without patterns
of behavior the "fundamental value of any organization" would be
destroyed since it is these repeatable behaviors over time that give
the organization consistency and predictability (Kanter, 1983 p. 11).
In addition, these patterns of behavior over time constitute an
important feature of organizations that Kanter et al. refer to as
"character." "Character" is "...rooted in the organization's structure,
systems and culture" (Kanter, 1983 p. 11).
Further, organizations have the power to shape the behaviors
of its members by encouraging certain kinds of behavior while
• 17
discouraging others. Shaping of behavior is accomplished through
the organization's ability to make certain activities difficult and
others easy. This is accomplished through formal systems of the
organization including roles and responsibilities, rules and
regulations, process and procedures, access to information, and
rewards and recognition.
Since "character" refers to the organization's basic elements, it's
understandable that fundamental and enduring change only occurs
when there is change to its "character." "Transformation-capital-C
'Change'-requires a modification in patterned behavior..." and "An
understanding of organizational character and its sources, and of how
to modify it, is required for effecting deliberate change" (Kanter et
al., 1992 p. 11). Therefore, we can see the importance of focusing on
organizational behavior and not on isolated or idiosyncratic events or
outcomes.
To this point, we have been discussing one way of viewing
organizations by their dynamic interactions. It is these interactions
that we want to control in order to be able to deliberately change
organizations.
According to Kanter et al. organizations are made up of bundles
of activity. "Organizations, as we see them, are bundles of activity
with common elements that allow activities and people to be grouped
and treated as an entity" (Kanter, 1983 p. 12). As activities change
and as people move into and out of activity clusters, the organization
shifts. Organizations, therefore, maybe said to be in motion. The
organization's motion has a central tendency in its direction that
results from a trajectory of past events, pushes arising from the
• 18
environment, and pulls arising from the strategies and goals
constructed by those in power (Kanter, 1983 p. 12). At the same
time activity clusters are in motion and their motion may or may not
be aligned with each other or the organization's. This view of
organizations recognizes that influences upon it come from many
different sources and directions. It is not just top down through the
chain of command. "Thus, organizational activity in the new model
needs to be viewed in terms of clusters of activity sets whose
membership, composition, ownership and goals are constantly
changing, and in which projects rather than positions are central,"
according to Kanter et al. (p.l3).
The individuals in these activity clusters interact with each
other in a variety of ways. Some of their relationships are
traditionally hierarchical; others are determined by certain skills and
experience that the individuals bring to the activity, such as the
ability for program management, the ability to obtain resources, and
the ability to secure commitment from those in power. Activity sets
are often not institutionalized, but instead their functioning is
dependent upon the people who make them up. Activity sets such as
project teams come together, function, and then disband dependent
upon the energy and motivation of their participants, "...this more
fluid view of organizations suggests that perhaps network theory or
social movement theory is more relevant to the emerging economic
world than is bureaucratic theory" (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 13).
Therefore, Kanter et al. see an organization as "... a coalition of
interests and a network of activities within a momentum-bearing
structure..." (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 13). Implications of this view are
• 19
that, organizations are constantly changing whether or not it is
deliberately led change. Also, managers need to be aware of the
array of networks that permeate and surround the organization and
the source and effect of the organization's momentum in order to
control change.
The concept of stability takes on a different meaning when we
view organizations from this perspective. Stability is not seen as
resistance to change but rather as motion that is smooth without
discernible problems.
In putting together their model of change, Kanter et al. discuss
the interconnections among three major factors. These factors are
the forces both internal and external that initiate motion, the main
types of change that correspond to internal and external forces, and
the primary tasks for mangers in managing change. Their last
section on managers' tasks in accomplishing change is part of the
implementation process and is not covered in this paper.
Kanter et al. posit that there are three clusters of forces for
emergent change to occur. According to Kanter et al. these forces
create motion that triggers change. These are environmental
forces, organic or life-cycle forces, and political forces.
These forces impact and relate respectively to macro-evolutionary
change, micro-evolutionary change, and revolutionary change.
Macro-evolutionary Change
Macro-evolutionary change is subject to environmental
forces for change which are the relationships between
organizations and their environments. These relationships deal with
• 20
organizations in similar industries competing for resources, markets,
and customers. This environment is dynamic as new companies
arrive on the scene and others are eliminated. The struggle is
ongoing as the more successful companies fight for domination of
their market attempting to gain advantages over their competitors.
Kanter et al. posit that these environmental forces "shape the
pressures and possibilities for change" (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 27).
The three theories associated with environmental forces of change
are natural selection, institutional theory, and resource
dependence.
Natural selection theory proposes that certain organizations
survive while others do not because of the formers' ability to acquire
resources and successfully occupy their niche. Population ecology is
an example of natural selection theory (biological evolution) applied
to sociology. Kanter et al., explain that in population ecology, change
occurs through the process of random mutation, environmental
selection of forms most fit for survival, and retention of successful
patterns. Natural selection operates at the level of whole
populations, such as competing industries. As whole industries
change, individual organizations are altered in similar ways. A major
drawback according to Kanter et al., is that population ecology does
not take into account changes in the environment and those effects
on organizations.
Resource dependency studies the environmental constraints
caused by organizational interdependence as organizations attempt
to secure the resources they need for survival. Organizations
• 21
negotiate for resources available in the environment in attempts to
gain power and sustain their viability (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).
According to Kanter et al, natural selection also encompasses
other assumptions about survival including survival by luck,
which assumes that success is achieved through experimentation and
chance; survival by similarity or "isomorphism", which assumes
survival is achieved by imitation of the most efficient and effective
organizations in bargaining for limited resources; and survival of
the savvy, which assumes that success is achieved by organizations
through proactive and innovative actions in effectively dealing with
environmental pressures and constraints. Another, more recent
theory, institutional theory, according to Kanter et al., challenges the
above assumptions by stating that organizations survive by
effectively dealing with social and political forces surrounding them.
This theory further states that, "...organizations must fit social
expectations and values" (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 29). Without
considering these forces, according to this theory, even well run,
efficient organizations will fail. As Kanter et al. state about
institutional theory, organizations are subject to the vagaries of
current fads when they adopt new structures and patterns
regardless of efficiencies if they are generally considered the "right
thing" to do.
According to Kanter et al, the above assumptions involving
natural selection, primarily apply to smaller and less powerful
organizations. Kanter et al. explore the advantages and drawbacks to
large diversified companies that are able to dominate their
environment instead of being subject to it. Kanter et al. believe that
22
diversification is mostly detrimental to organization's continued
success due to their need to function in multiple environments which
tend to exacerbate forces for change.
Micro-evolutionary Cinange
Micro-evolutionary change, according to Kanter et al., is
subject to organic or life-cycle forces for change. This refers
to pressures on organizations from life-cycles due to forces of age,
size, level or extent of complexity, or growth rate. For example,
start-up businesses face a plethora of forces including securing
sufficient resources, gaining brand recognition, retaining experienced
management, licensing, and government regulations. These
challenges push startups to change regardless of their strategic
intent.
Growth, particularly rapid growth due to early success,
presents business with additional forces for change. Rapid growth
tends to create a climate of infallibility, the feeling that the company
can do no wrong. This blinds top management to forces that may
well destroy their companies. Other pressures that force change
include the need to increase volume to achieve low-price strategy.
This can result in cycles of reduced quality, efforts to fix quality,
reduced profit, and greater need for volume. In addition, rapid
growth requires large amounts of capital to maintain product
delivery, retain customers, etc.
Life-cycle issues continue as the organization matures. The
forces for change in mature organizations differ from those of
organizations early in the life-cycle. These forces tend to restrict
• 23
change, whereas eariier in the Ufe-cycle they tended to increase
change. As organizations mature their growth necessitates greater
coordination which requires more administrative functions that add
to overhead costs. In addition, groups within the organization often
seek to maintain their power and influence. They, therefore, have a
vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Other forces constrain
top management's freedom to institute change. These include
various stakeholders such as stockholders, the investment industry,
and investors such as venture capitalists. Also, the enterprise's
success tends to make the organization believe in its unique abilities
for achievement. This leads to a lack of self-questioning and the
belief in inevitable success.
A third force for emergent change is politics. According to
Kanter et al., politics refers to:
...networks of restricted access where limited exchange
opportunities and power imbalances are common; tools for
multiple stakeholders, where interest groups bargain and
clash; or setting where informal, parochial, and divisive
behavior stimulates organizational change (Kanter et al.,
1992 p. 47).
The operation of politics in organizations is a dynamic process. As a
result, it is a force for change as individuals and groups jockey for
position and power. Politics can also restrain change, as well as
apply pressure for change. Top management, because of its formal
and informal agreements with individuals or groups, can find itself
forced to perpetuate strategic directions that do not help the
company to succeed. The need to satisfy internal and external
constituent agreements can freeze leadership and prevent forces for
• 24
change. Politics can benefit organizations if it permits greater voice
from opposing ideas and tliereby encourages constructive conflict. In
this case, people battle over ideas and innovation rather than power
and personal gain.
Basic assumptions of Kanter et al's. model
• Change, at least in part, is a matter of perception. People perceive
change differently, what it is or if it has happened at all.
• Change is also, at least partly, empirical. Change occurs when
there are changes to the organization's basic elements of structure,
system, and culture. Change can be measured.
• Transformation requires modification in behavior patterns.
Without this, change is "small-c."
• Organizations get the behavior they ask for (shape members'
behavior).
• Organizations are always in motion. This motion has direction and
is found at all levels.
• Organizations are made up of activity clusters that are dynamic in
nature since they constantly change their membership and goals.
• Managers need to be aware of the array of networks that
permeate and surround the organization and the source and effect
of the organization's momentum in order to control change.
VAN DE VEN AND POOLE
Andrew H. Van de Ven is a professor of organizational change
and innovation and Director of the Minnesota Innovation Research
Program in the Strategic Management Research Center of the
♦ 25
University of Minnesota. Marshall Poole is a professor of speech
communication at the University of Wisconsin at Madison with
research interests including organizational innovation and change
and organization theory.
Van de Ven and Poole state that change can be viewed using a
complex grid of components (Van de Ven, 1988). These components
include types of change, perspectives on the mechanisms which
cause change, and the levels of organization which are affected by
change. In contrast to Kanter's et al. theoretical view of
organizational change which incorporates types of change,
perceptions of change, and causes of change, Van de Ven and Poole,
have posited a metatheory to analyze other theories of change. Van
de Ven and Poole in so doing, actually provide a theory that can itself
be used to explain change events.
Before examining Van de Ven and Poole's work, some terms
used by the authors first need to be defined. Van de Ven and Poole
define change as "...an empirical observation of difference in form,
quality, or state over time in an organizational entity" (Van de Ven,
1988 p. 512) . An entity may refer to an individual; to a work
group; to a program, product or strategy; or to an organization.
Change process is a sequence of change events that unfold along a
time frame. Process theory is "an explanation of how and why an
organizational entity changes and develops. This explanation should
identify the generative mechanisms [or motors] that cause observed
events to happen and the particular circumstances or contingencies
behind these causal mechanisms" (Van de Ven & Poole, 1988 p.
512).
• 26
Types of Change Theory
Van de Ven and Poole describe four types of change theory.
1. Life-cycle theory
This theory refers to change as existing within and being
predetermined in an entity. This means that the developing
organization has within itself the code, pattern, or logic of its
eventual end-state (Van de Ven & Poole, 1988). This code regulates
the process of change. "Thus, the form that lies latent, premature, or
homogeneous in the embryo or primitive state becomes
progressively more realized, mature, and differentiated" (Van de Ven
& Poole, 1995). The external environment can influence how the
entity expresses itself, but the entity's code also influences the
developmental outcome. Life-cycle development is sequential in
nature with each stage of development following from the previous
one. Development is cumulative in that characteristics obtained in
one stage are retained into subsequent stages. The development
sequence is conjunctive with "stages being related such that they
derive from a common underlying process" and "each stage of
development is seen as a necessary precursor of succeeding stages"
(Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 p. 515).
Development in organizational entities, according to life-cycle
theories, follow a progression of activities in a specific "prescribed
sequence" (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 p. 515). Van de Ven and
Poole give as an example the Food and Drug Administration's process
for the development and commercialization of new drug products.
Another example from other life-cycle theories is that of Roger's five
stages of innovation (Rogers, 1983). The five stages are: recognition,
• 27
research on problem, development of idea into useful form,
commercialization, and diffusion and adoption have an order that
"...possess logic and a natural order of Western business practices"
(Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 p. 515). In other words, Ufe-cycle
theories maintain that entities must follow a prescribed orderly set
of activities as their development progresses.
2. Teleological Theory
Teleology is a doctrine of philosophy that states that there is a
purpose or goal that guides changes of an entity. Organizations
progress through a cycle of development that is goal oriented. The
organization is purposeful and adaptive. There is no predetermined
manner in which the organization reaches its final goal.
Development, according to this theory, consists of a "...sequence of
goal formulation, implementation, evaluation, and modification of
goals based on what was learned or intended by the entity"
(VandeVen & Poole, 1995). In other words, the organization
envisions an end state, takes action to attain it, monitors its
advancement, and revises its progress as necessary. Some
teleological theory follows systems theory with the concept of
equifinality, which means that there is more than one way of
achieving the desired ends. However, the organization's environment
and resources constrain what it can accomplish. After the
organization has attained its goal, it may strive to reach new ones,
depending upon the external environment or needs within the
organization itself.
♦ 28
3. Dialectical Theory
This theory is based on Hegelian philosophy that organizations
exist in a world of colliding forces that compete with each other for
domination and control. These colliding forces may be external to
the organization or internal to it with, for example, groups, having
conflicting goals or interests competing for resources. Dialectical
theory "... requires two or more distinct entities that embody these
oppositions to confront and engage one another in conflict" (Van de
Ven & Poole, 1995 p. 517). Stability is defined as a status quo that
exists between two conflicting groups or individuals. Change occurs
when one group or individual gains enough power and resources to
confront the other and challenge the status quo. Thus, through the
conflict of thesis and antithesis a new and different construct
emerges which is called the synthesis. "By its very nature, the
synthesis is a novel construction that departs from both the thesis
and antithesis" (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 p. 517). The dialectic
conflict does not always result in a creative synthesis. One
competing force may supplant the other with no synthesis taking
place. It is also possible that one force totally suppresses the other
and again no creative synthesis takes place. An example of a
situation involving dialectic conflict and confrontation, where a
creative synthesis is the result, can be seen in certain business
mergers, where both companies to the merger battle to create their
idea of what the new merged organization should look like. When
both forces are relatively balanced, one cannot overpower the other
and they therefore must work at creating the new company.
However, if one side is more powerful then it may well overpower
• 29
the other and simply institute the way it currently runs its business.
This latter example is one of dialectic conflict and confrontation with
no creative synthesis taking place.
4. Evolutionary Theory
This theory is based on biological evolution that consists of a
continuous cycle of variation, selection, and retention. Variation in
organizations (new and different forms of organization) arises
randomly. Selection occurs through the process of competition
among organizations for resources. The organization that best takes
advantage of the environmental niche survives. Retention occurs
through forces that perpetuate and sustain certain organizational
forms. "Thus, evolution explains change as a recurrent, cumulative,
and probabilistic progression of variation, selection, and retention of
organizational entities" (Van de Ven & Poole p. 518). A Lamarckian
view states that variations are acquired through learning and
imitation. The Darwinian view of the selection process is that small,
continuous change occurs over a long period of time. Selection occurs
in small, short steps. Darwin wrote, "as natural selection acts solely
by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can
produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by short and
slow steps" (Darwin, 1936 p. 361). Van de Ven and Poole take this
latter approach in defining evolutionary theory of change. They
specifically focus on small cumulative changes in "...structural forms
of populations of organizational entities across communities,
industries, or society at large (Aldrich, 1979; Hannan, 1977; Van de
Ven, 1995 p. 518). Other evolutionary theories take a different
* 30
position on this topic. Saltation thieory states that evolution occurs in
sudden jumps. One such theory is "punctuated equilibrium" (Gould &
Eldridge, 1977) which alternates sudden jumps with long periods of
stability. Punctuated equilibrium as an evolutionary theory of
organizational change is distinguishable from Van de Ven and Poole's
by transformations taking place during short periods of time, instead
of small cumulative changes occurring over long periods of time to
accomplish transformation (Romanelli & Tushman, 1994).
To summarize this section, Van de Ven and Poole have
discussed four theories that account for change in organizational
entities. These theories can be distinguished from each other by, a)
the process of change, b) the motor that drives change, c) the unit of
analysis which refers to single or multiple entities, and d) the mode
of change which refers to prescribed or constructive modes. In the
next section these mechanisms of change are explored in more detail
to explain why change takes place and how it occurs.
Distinguishing Characteristics of Van de Ven and Poole's
Process Theories
The Cycles and Motor of Change
1. In Life-cycle theory, process is immanent, that is, it exists
within the entity. Therefore, the stages of development are
predetermined. The motor for change is the Life Cycle
process itself. 2. In Teleological theory, the process is purposeful
and progresses through the entity's learning process. The goals that
the entity pursues must be generally agreed upon so that the entity
acts in unison. The motor for change is the implementation of
* 31
the selected goal by the entity. 3. In Dialectic theory, the
process is one of conflict between entities having thesis and
antithesis which creates a synthesis or a suppression or destruction
of one of the entities thus creating no synthesis. This cycle can be
repeated. The motor for change is conflict and confrontation.
4. In Evolutionary theory the process is one of repeating cycles of
variation, selection, and retention. Competition is for scarce
resources and the ability to take advantage successfully of a specific
niche. It is the competition that serves as the motor for
change.
The Unit of Change
Change can occur at different levels of organization. These
include the individual, group, organization, and groups of
organizations. Life-cycle and teleological theories operate on a
single entity while evolution and dialectical theories operate on
multiple entities. This is understandable when we consider that
dialectic and evolution theories require conflict or competition
respectively. Life-cycle and teleological theories are immanent from
within the entity and therefore require only one entity to operate.
Mode of Change
There are two modes of change, constructive and
prescribed. Each change theory can be distinguished according to
how the cycle of change occurs. Cycles either develop in a
constructive, or in a prescribed mode. Life-cycle and evolution
theories develop from a prescribed mode since they either come
from a built-in code or from a continuous series of modifications.
• 32
Teleological and dialectic theories must develop from a constructive
mode of change since they are able to develop new and
unprecedented forms.
There is another important difference between the four
theories of change that involves the degree to which change is
achieved. Van de Ven and Poole state that evolution and life-cycle
theory result in "first-order change" only while teleological and
dialectic theory result in "second-order change" (Argyris, Putnam
& Smith, 1985a; Bartunek, 1993; Watzlawik, Weakland & Fisch,
1974). "First-order change" is change which is continuous and a
variation on a theme. This is similar to Kanter's "small-c" change.
"Second-order change" breaks with past assumptions and
frameworks and is analogous to Kantor's "big-C" change.
So far, this discussion has focused on four ideal type theories of
change. However, Van de Ven and Poole point out that the real
world of organizational change is more complex than can be
explained by these four theories. There are two reasons for this
greater complexity. First, change extends in time and space in any
specific case. "The spatial dispersion of units and actors means that
different influences may be acting simultaneously on different parts
of the organization..." (Van de Ven, 1995 p. 526). This means that
change takes time and this allows for different motors to come into
play; therefore, more than one motor can impact a specific change
situation. Second, change is complex and it is unlikely that any single
motor will account for this complexity. As Van de Ven and Poole
state, "... most specific theories of organizational development and
* 33
change are actually composites of two or more ideal-type motors"
(VandeVen, 1995 p. 527).
Van de Ven and Poole point out the importance of closely
examining the relationships among motors of the four theories. They
explore three types of relationships, a) the degree of nesting
which refers to motors operating at the same time but at different
levels in the organization, b) the timing of the motors which
refers to whether two or more motors are operating at the same time
or are alternating at different times, c) the degree motors
complement or contradict each other. These three kinds of
relationships are describing the relative balance between
constructive and prescribed motors and therefore, the "...patterns of
stability and change in an organization" that are the result of motors'
relative balance (Van de Ven, 1988 p. 534), This area of discussion
brings us to concepts involving systems theory. According to Van de
Ven and Poole, as these different motors interplay, they set up either
positive or negative feedback loops. Positive feedback loops are set
up when constructive and prescribed motors "...reinforce[s] change
and can produce exploding complexity" (Van de Ven, 1988 p. 535).
Negative feedback loops are set up when constructive and prescribed
motors counteract or cancel change effects, producing equilibrium.
To further explain these concepts, when, for example, a prescribed
motor (in either life-cycle and/or evolution theory) dominates an
organization, it tends to restrict variation and repress internally
generated variety. Whereas, when a constructive motor (either
teleological and/or dialectic theories) dominates an organization, the
organization may not be able to effectively control conflicting
• 34
subsystems and the result is the creation of too much variety and
variation.
As Van de Ven and Poole explain it, "temporal shifts in the
relative balance between positive and negative feedback loops in the
operation of different change motors can push an organization a) to
flow toward a fixed-point equilibrium, b) to oscillate in a periodic
sequence between opposites, c) to bifurcate far from equilibrium and
spontaneously create new structures, or d) to behave in a random
fashion" (Van de Ven, 1988 p. 535).
Assumptions
1. Change is an empirical observation.
2. Change in an organization is viewed as being either
predetermined or created.
3. Prescribed change is considered first-order change. It is not
something novel or unexpected. It is change "...within an existing
framework that produces variations on a theme" (Van de Ven, 1988
p. 522).
4. Constructive change is considered second-order change. It
is novel and original. It is "...a break with the past basic assumptions
or framework" (Van de Ven, 1988 p. 523).
5. Organizational change occurs at many different levels of the
organization.
6. First-order change is more difficult to perceive since it is
made up of an accumulation of small changes and there is
"...sufficient continuity to anticipate and discern the direction of
change".
• 35
7. Second-order change is more easily perceived since it is
discontinuous with the past.
8. Positive and negative feedback loops that involve the
interplay of "motors" either promote second order change, inhibit it,
or balance forces to create a dynamic equilibrium.
36
Chin and Benne
Chin and Benne present three groups of strategies for effecting
planned change in organizations (Benne & Chin, 1976a). While Van
de Ven and Poole present an explanation of change, Chin and Benne's
approach is to present essentially a broad strategy in which many
specific approaches can be placed within the parameters of planned
change. Chin and Benne assume that these change strategies apply
to all sizes of groups undergoing planned change, that is, that the
processes are similar regardless of size. Furthermore, the authors do
not differentiate among different kinds of systems undergoing
planned change.
Empirical-Rational Strategies
One group of strategies is termed empirical-rational
approach for effecting change. This refers to the belief that people
are guided by reason and that they use rational thought processes in
their own best self interest to determine if behavioral change is
warranted. Several assumptions underlie this approach. First, is that
people are rational. Second, is that people will follow their
own rational self-interests when it is shown to them. Third, it is
expected that people will adopt a change that is shown to them if
they perceive it is in their best self-interest when it is rationally
justified by the proposes.
Empirical-Rational strategies, according to Chin and Benne ,
particularly appeal to Western thought and traditions. Science and
basic research methods, a predisposition to accepting change as
♦ 37
normal, as well as general education, are cornerstones of Western
society's attempt to understand, explain, and disseminate
information about phenomena. Change takes place because we put
knowledge acquired through scientific means into practice. In other
words. Chin and Benne believe that we use our acquired knowledge
in a logical way by taking actions that change how we do things,
usually, we think, for the better, and, I would add, in individualistic
terms. America, in particular, has developed means of taking basic
research and converting the acquired knowledge, through applied
technologies, whether to new forms of organization or consumer
goods. Thus, the flow of research to application, and into individual
use has been established so that knowledge, in general, is not only
rapidly and easily disseminated throughout American society, but is
a readily accepted process. In further relationship to business,
Western culture's propensity for the scientific approach is
demonstrated by line management's efforts to utilize people and
technologies to gain the greatest efficiencies towards achieving
organizational goals. Management, to accomplish this, employs
experts using sociotechnical systems to analyze and develop the most
efficient work systems.
However, problems may be experienced in getting new ideas
across and implementing changes in organization in most need of
them. According to Chin and Benne, institutions which utilize
empirical-rational strategies take the view that change in adopting
new approaches in systems, i.e. applying knowledge and
implementing rationally based changes, is enhanced when the "right"
person is placed into the "proper" position. To achieve this, their
• 38
approach is to rely on personnel selection techniques using various
assessment tools.
Normative-Reed ucative Strategies
A second group of strategies is termed by Chin and Benne as
normative-reeducative. People are greatly influenced, both
individually and socially, by cultural norms, that is, the values,
attitudes, and beliefs that are accepted and communicated
throughout their culture. Cultural norms are internalized and
thereby have a powerful influence upon individual behavior.
According to Chin and Benne, for change to occur at the personal
level, the individual must alter his or her values, attitudes, beliefs,
and habits. For changes to occur at the sociocultural level, alterations
in cultural norms must take place. For changes to occur at the
institutional level, roles and relationships must be altered.
Assumptions that underlie this approach are different than the
previous strategy and focus on human behavior and motivation. This
group of strategies doesn't reject the rational approach, but rather
emphasizes that human behavior is the result of commitment to
societal and cultural norms. According to this approach, people will
only change when "...their normative orientations to old patterns [are
given up] and develop commitments to new ones" (French, Bell &
Zawacki, 1994 p. 112). In other words, change occurs, when people
change both their values, attitudes, and relationships in addition to
changing their information, knowledge, and rational constructs.
Common elements involved in the normative-reeducative
strategies emphasize that the client system must participate by being
• 39
fully involved in developing programs of change. Another element is
that improved technology will not be solely the solution, but rather
that problems involve the client's systems attitudes, values, and
beliefs, as well as, their external and internal relationships.
Alteration of these norms may be required as a means of finding
solutions to its problems. Another common element to this set of
strategies is that change requires a collaborative effort between the
change agent and the client system (This is clearly based on
consultant assisted change situations). Only in these ways can
problems be identified and solutions be proposed and implemented.
"These approaches center in the notion that people technology
is just as necessary as thing technology in working out desirable
changes in human affairs" (French et al., 1994 p. 121). In other
words, including human factors of emotions, values, and behaviors is
as much a critical element as any other (including technological
factors) in solving organizational problems and implementing change.
Several approaches to change fall into normative-reeducative
strategies. These include the sociotechnical systems approach,
mentioned earlier, that strongly emphasize that in order for change
to take place, both the human as well as the technical issues involved
must be equally considered. Another, is the approach that posits
that the individual is the basic unit of the organization. Therefore,
the individual must be freed from restraints that prevent him/her
from utilizing natural intelligence and abilities, and conditions are
developed that support individual's ability to solve problems and
implement change. All of these approaches have in common an
important element; this is the emphasis on experienced-based
♦ 40
learning as a requirement for creating enduring change.
This concept comes from Lewin who saw the value of acquiring
learning from taking action. In this way, he believed, theory could
be developed to advance our understanding of human behavior in
organizations.
Power-Coercive Strategies
The third group of strategies is termed power-coercive. This
refers to the application of power by those who have it onto those
people who have less of it. Compliance is due to legitimate or
authoritative use of power or through coersion. Power-coercive
strategies seek to collect political and economic power in support of
whatever change those utilizing these strategies propose. Thus, those
who have power have the "right" of law on their side and can impose
sanctions on those who challenge their power. To accomplish change,
those opposed must gain power by gaining support "legally" for their
views. Several ways this can be accomplished include strategies of
nonviolence, the use of political institutions to achieve change, and
change through "recomposition and manipulation of power elites"
(French et al., 1994 p. 42).
Nonviolent movements have brought moral values to change
existing norms and the laws that support them. Dr. Martin Luther
King in the United States and Mahatma Gandhi in India sought to
change existing nationwide norms by gaining power for their
movements through challenging non-violently the prevailing norms.
By bringing the world's focus on what they believed to be repugnant
moral values, they amassed tremendous support for change.
• 41
Political institutions are granted power through constitutional
and legislative laws. Change can occur when a group gains sufficient
support to change the laws, place their supporters in key position
within the institution, or throw out those who currently fill those
positions.
Assumptions
1. People are basically rational creatures and they can be
manipulated through logical argument. This is an Empirical-Rational
perspective.
2. Change is a normal occurrence in Western society.
3. Cultural norms have a profound impact upon people in
social settings. This is a Normative-Reed ucative perspective.
4. Individuals will change when they alter their values,
attitudes, beliefs, and habits.
5. When we want to change how people do things we must
consider the interplay of technology and human behavior.
6. The use of power and coercion can gain people's compliance.
This is a Power-Coercive perspective.
Comparisons of the Work of Kanter et al.. Van de Ven and Poole.
and Chin and Benne
This section compares the work of the three researchers
discussed so far in this paper. The comparisons are made on the
bases of three questions:
• 42
1. "What is the change process?" This refers to the forces or
mechanisms involved, how change takes place and what process
or mechanism makes it happen.
2. "What is changed?" This refers to the actual tangible aspects of
change, to what degree has it happened, and how those involved
are aware of the extent to which the change is concrete and real.
3. "What are other distinguishing characteristics that change
research addresses?" This question is used to explore further any
other factors that might help in the comparison of the researchers'
work.
1 . "What is the change process?"
1. a Forces of Change
The forces that initiate change, are viewed similarly by Kanter
et al. and Van de Ven and Poole. Kanter et al. refer to "triggers" in
describing their three forces of change: environment, life-cycle, and
political. Similarly, Van de Ven and Poole refer to "motors" in
describing their four forces of change as life-cycle, teleological,
evolutionary, and dialectic. They also separate these forces into two
groups according to whether the forces are prescribed or
constructive. Chin and Benne don't refer to forces that initiate
change; however, I think we may logically infer that their strategies,
1) the use of reason, logical thought and self-interest, 2) appealing to
human motivation, and 3) recognizing the need to comply with
applied power, are actually forces for change. Therefore, the three
research groups explain the forces for change in somewhat similar
• 43
ways. What they have in common is analyzing change in terms of
the forces that drive it .
1. b How change takes place
Kanter et al. and Van de Ven and Poole describe some of the
above forces in nearly identical ways. The life-cycle force for both
research groups refers to forces on an organization as it ages and
matures. However, Van de Ven and Poole take life-cycle theory
further by positing that it is a prescribed mode because the
characteristics of the emerging organization are predetermined, that
is, built into its development. Kanter et al. cite Greiner's (Greiner,
1972) life-cycle as a typical example of an organization maturing, but
they don't indicate the predetermined nature of the development
process as do Van de Ven and Poole. For Kanter et al., life-cycle force
drives microevolutionary change, that is ongoing change that takes
place within the organization.
"Macroevolutionary" change describes change from the
perspective of the whole organization as it relates to its environment,
according to Kanter et al. Van de Ven and Poole use the term
"evolutionary theory" to describe the same phenomenon. For both it
is an historical perspective that usually includes whole industries.
Since environmental forces play a key role in shaping the
organization, according to this concept, natural selection is an
important element that they discuss. Kanter et al. and Van de Ven
and Poole describe a similar evolutionary theories. Kanter et al. go
into considerable detail in discussing the forces of natural selection
and in particular, that of the concept of "fit." "Fit" refers to how well
• 44
an organization fits into a particular environmental niche. The better
the "fit" the better the chance for survival. Kanter et al. describe
additional forces that play a part in an organization's chances for
survival. These are "population ecology", "resource dependency", and
"institutional theory". Population ecology is the basic biological view
of evolution. This is essentially the same as Van de Ven and Poole's
description of evolutionary theory: change takes place by the
process of random mutation, environmental selection of forms most
fit for survival, and retention of the patterns that are most
successful.
Therefore, Kanter et al. and Van de Ven and Poole, have
markedly similar perspectives in the areas of evolutionary theory
and life-cycle theory. However, they don't agree as strongly in other
areas. Kanter et al. discuss the role of politics in revolutionary
change. Political actions can have powerful impacts on organizations
to the extent that radical changes take place. Van de Ven and Poole
don't discuss politics' role as a force in organizational change.
However, Chin and Benne refer to a "power-coercive" strategy
that describes the use of power and coercive strategies in changing
people and organizations. Kanter et al. would view this as
"revolutionary change."
Van de Ven and Poole discuss two forces of change that the
other research groups don't consider. Van de Ven and Poole discuss
"dialectic" and "teleo logical" theory and their respective motors of
change are confrontation and conflict for the former and purposeful
enactment for the latter. 1 think that dialectic confrontation and
conflict would fit well as a force of change in Chin and Benne's
♦ 45
"rational-empirical" and "power-coercive" strategies as well as in
Kanter et al's "revolutionary theory." The reason for this is that the
dialectic process is commonly associated with and applied to these
situations. For example, Chin and Benne's "rational-empirical"
strategy is based on assumptions that people are rational and logical.
The dialectic process provides a format for presenting logical
arguments. In addition, the dialectic process is also involved in the
situation where a synthesis doesn't take place but where one side
overpowers the other, a situation Chin and Benne describe as
"power-coercive." This often occurs in business mergers where the
financially and politically stronger partner takes over the other.
Thus, dialectic theory has applications to the work of the other
theorists in the areas associated with the creation of a new
framework, or as Van de Ven and Poole would refer to it,
"constructive mode of chainge" and Kanter et al. call "big-C" or
transformational change. This type of change is constructive rather
than prescribed in Van de Ven and Poole's terms.
2. "What is Changed?"
This refers to the actual tangible aspects of change, to what
degree has it happened, and how those involved are aware of the
extent to which the change is concrete and real.
Each of the three research groups have a somewhat different
view of what is changed during organizational change. Kanter et al.
view what is changed from the perspective of "character" which
refers to "enduring patterns of behavior" of both the organization
and the members in it (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 10). Van de Ven and
46
Poole state that what is changed is the "... form, quality, or state over
time in an organizational entity" (Van de Ven, 1988 p. 512). Chin
and Benne explain what is changed when they discuss "normative-
reeducative" strategies, which are the orientations that are composed
of values, attitudes, skills and important relationships common to the
members of an organization. Whether the researchers term what
changes, as character, form, quality, function, or normative
orientations, all of these terms have in common the view of the
fundamental nature of change in organizations and its members.
Change, according to these researchers, does not involve superficial
attributes.
Kanter et al. consider two degrees of change as do Van de Ven
and Poole. Kanter et al. in describing change refer to it as "big-C" or
transformational change, if it involves an entirely new state or, as
Kuhn refers to it a "paradigm" change. They refer to the other type
of change as "small-c, " or " transitional change," using Kuhn's terms.
Van de Ven and Poole refer to change that takes place within the
existing framework and that doesn't create a new framework, as
"first-order change", (Kanter et al.'s' "small-c" change). When change
breaks with the past and creates a new framework, Van de Ven and
Poole refer to it as "second-order change" (Kanter et al'.s "big-C"
change).
Kanter et al. believe that transformational change results from
many "small-c" changes that accumulate over time. At some point,
the accumulated change is perceived as something completely new
and different than what preceded it. Van de Ven and Poole and Chin
and Benne largely view change according to the results that take
* 47
place. They look at the type of strategy that is employed to achieve
"modifications of patterns and institutions of practice" (Benne &
Chin, 1976a p. 22). Individual habits, attitudes, beliefs, and values
are altered when normative-reeducative strategies are employed.
Van de Ven and Poole believe that transformational change occurs
through goal oriented purposeful change (teleological) or
confrontation and conflict (dialectic). Kanter et al. do state that
radical change ("big C" change) can take place during revolutionary
change.
However, Van de Ven and Poole's focus is somewhat different
from Chin and Benne in the way their four change theories are
viewed "...in terms of their action and process," not by the results
of the change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 p. 524). Van de Ven and
Poole look at the dimensions of the unit of change and mode of
change as a means of distinguishing their four theories of change (as
described on page 20-21). Chin and Benne focus on strategies and
the processes of implementation that people use in association with
those strategies in organizational change. Actions and processes of
change are explained by Van de Ven and Poole as either prescribed
or constructive, and by the organizational level that the actions and
processes take place.
Also, these research groups differ according to how change is
perceived. Kanter et al. view change as both a perceptual and an
empirical phenomenon. They see it as an accumulation of small
changes that build until there is a sudden perception that a
qualitative shift has taken place. This means that the small changes
that have taken place were not at a threshold level of perception,
• 48
and therefore, were not noticed. Kanter et al. also view change as
empirical and measurable. However, Van de Ven and Poole only
discuss change from an empirical perspective. Chin and Benne also
view change as measurable and independent of the change strategy
employed.
Kanter et el. are fundamentally different from the other two
research groups in their belief that change, at least in part, is a
matter of individual and sociocultural perception. By taking this
position, Kanter et al. bring the question of "objective reality" versus
"multiple reality" to the issue of organizational change.
3. "What are other distinguishing characteristics that change research
addresses?"
Kanter et al. have a dynamic view of organizational systems.
They describe organizations in terms of motion. Motion is ascribed to
activity clusters. Activity clusters are in constant motion as projects
and teams change their shape and form, as well as, their goals and
processes.
Van de Ven and Poole discuss concepts that describe the
interaction of "motors" in terms of systems theory. In particular,
they describe how positive feedback loops involving "motors" add
"exploding complexity" to change while negative feedback loops also
involving "motors" restrain change or create equilibrium which
balances the forces for change.
These two additional views, to a large extent, account for the
complexity of organizational systems and the difficulty in
implementing change in an entire enterprise. Chin and Benne's
49
strategy approach addresses these complex issues indirectly.
According to Chin and Benne, we need first to alter human behavior
and motivation in order to accomplish organizational change.
ROMANELLI AND TUSHMAN
Elaine Romanelli is an associate professor in management and
strategy at the School of Business, Georgetown University. She
received her Ph.D. Degree from the Graduate School of Business,
Columbia University, Her current research interests include
longitudinal studies of the contexts, processes, and consequences of
the establishment of organizations in the motion picture and
biotechnology industries.
Michael L. Tushman is the Philip Hettleman Professor of
Management at the Graduate School of Business, Columbia University.
He received his Ph.D. degree from the Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His current research interests
include the relationship between technological change, executive
teams, and organizational evolution. They have co written several
articles on an application of paleobiology theory to explain
transformational change in organizations, which they call
"Punctuated Equilibrium."
Description of Punctuated Equilibrium
Romanelli and Tushman (Romanelli & Tushman, 1994;
Tushman & Romanelli, 1985), posit this theory which is based upon
Stephen Jay Gould's scientific work (Gould, 1982; Gould, 1989).
* 50
Romanelli and Tushman write that organizational transformation
takes place over essentially two periods: the first is the "convergent
period" which consists of a long period of stasis and equilibrium.
Small changes (first order change or small "c" change) may occur, but
mechanisms within the organization maintain a stasis so that these
small changes cannot transform the organization. The second period
is the "period of reorientation," w^hich is a much shorter period,
characterized by rapid and pervasive discontinuous change. These
researchers term this type of change "revolutionary".
Stasis and equilibrium are maintained during the convergent
period because of three barriers to radical change in human
systems: cognition, motivation, and obligation. Cognition,
which refers to the mental framework or schemata that structure the
way we think and perceive the world around us, hinders our abilities
to break out of our patterned ways of thinking. Motivation keeps
us tied to what is familiar and comfortable, partly because of the fear
of venturing into the unknown. Obligation, is the network of
interdependences which locks us into resource relationships that
maintain the structure of the organization.
In general, "revolutions" occur when the system needs to
change because of pressures that disrupt it. Pressures that disrupt
can refer to (1) "...internal changes [that] pull parts and action out
of alignment with each other and environmental changes [that]
threaten the system's ability to obtain resources" (Tushman &
Romanelli, 1985 p. 21), and (2) environmental forces. Both of
these forces impact the organization's strategic orientation and make
that orientation inappropriate. Such forces as unforeseen maturation
51
in product life cycles, changes in the legal or social climate, or the
invention of "substitute products and/or technologies" create
revolutions (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985 p. 21). Gersick, another
theorist who supports the punctuated equilibrium theory, refers to
these pressures as energy for change with the actual trigger for
change being a crisis (Gersick, 1991).
COMPARISONS OF ROMANELLI AND TUSHMAN'S WORK TO THE WORK OF
KANTER ET AL, VAN DE VEN AND POOLE, AND CHIN AND BENNE
1 . "What is the change process?"
Romanelli and Tushman posit a theory of revolutionary change.
The concept, as well as the term, is similar to Kanter et al.'s
revolutionary change, because both can be caused by political actions
of top management and the results are sudden transformation.
Romanelli and Tushman differ with Kanter et al's. and Van de Ven
and Poole's evolutionary theories, which state that small changes
accumulated over time and result in organizational transformation.
Romanelli and Tushman state in describing punctuated equilibrium,
that long periods of relative stability are "punctuated" by short
periods of transformational change. Organizations have mechanisms
of cognition, motivation, and obligation that prevent small changes
from resulting in transformational change. Romanelli and Tushman
believe that transforaiational change requires a "trigger" of sufficient
strength to override these mechanisms. Powerful "triggers" include
severe crisis in organizational performance, major environmental
changes, and top management succession. In comparing Romanelli
52
and Tushman with Chin and Benne, Chin and Benne's empirical-
rational strategy, could be a useful concept in Romanelli and
Tushman's disruptive pressures because it provides a rational and
logical basis on which to take action which can be explained
rationally to those subject to the change. For example, as the
organization experiences financial setbacks, new top management
may be brought on board. These new leaders may initiate
revolutionary change in their attempts to turn the company around.
Van de Ven and Poole might consider this example of change as a
combination of two motors, a dialectic one which promotes the need
for new leadership and teleological motor that supports a strategic
plan for accomplishing change.
2. "What is changed?"
Romanelli and Tushman describe "a network of fundamental,
interdependent 'choices,' of the basic configuration into which a
system's units are organized, and the activities that maintain both
this configuration and the system's resource exchange with the
environment" as the concept of deep structure (Tushman &
RomaneUi, 1985 p. 21). In other words, these are the fundamental
elements of an organization and its relationship with its
environment. In Romanelli and Tushman's transformation concepts,
it is this deep structure that undergoes change. This idea of the
fundamental nature of organizational change is similar to those of the
other theorists discussed in this paper. Transformational change
breaks the framework or schemata under which the organization has
operated and existed. This is the same as Van de Ven and Poole's
53
"second-order" change or Kanter et al. "big-C" change. Chin and
Benne's normative culture relates to Romanelli and Tushman's "deep
structure," although the former's does not include consideration of
the "resource exchange" with the environment.
3. "What are other distinguishing characteristics that change research
addresses?"
Romanelli and Tushman's theory is distinct from other
evolutionary theories because change occurs within a single entity.
Other theorists posit that change occurs within a population and it is
the population that is eventually changed.
54
LICHTENSTEIN
Benyamin M. Lichtenstein earned his Ph.D. degree in
Organizational Studies at the Carroll School of Management at Boston
College. His latest paper, explaining his theories, won Best Paper
Award at the Best-Papers Session, Organizational Development and
Change Division, at the Academy of Management Meeting, 1995.
Lichtenstein proposes a theor>^ of self-organization which derives
from systems theory and systems theorists including Noble Prize
winner llya Prigogine (Prigogine, 1980; Prigogine & Nicolis, 1977;
Prigogine & Nicolis, 1989; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984) and Gemmill
and Smith (Gemmill & Smith, 1985).
Description of the Three Stage Self-Organizing Model
Self-organization theory discusses organizations as integrative
natural systems which utilize relatively large amounts of
environmental resources and energy to self-organize their structural
integrity (Lichtenstein, 1995). To further explain, a key concept of
self-organizing systems is that they maintain themselves through
a self-sustaining dynamic process. This is often referred to as a
'far-from-equilibrium state." This means that systems "...are
vigorously transforming energy in all its forms, and diffusing
(dissipating) large quantities of spent resources (entropy) into their
immediate environment" (Lichtenstein, 1995 p. 19-20). A concrete
example of this phenomenon, provided by Lichtenstein, "...is a vortex
in a river; while billions of water molecules flow through the area.
55
the vortex - a relatively stable macroscopic order - persists"
(Lichtenstein, 1995 p. 20).
It is through this process, according to Lichtenstein, that
dissapative structures, such as self-organizing systems, self-
generate order. They accomplish this through actively exchanging
energy with their environment and through internal feedback loops
that generate non-linear amplification effects. This dynamic, open
system process transforms resource flow into structural order. This
process maintains organizational integrity in dynamic stability. The
term natural organization is applied to systems that self-generate
resources, rather than being directed externally.
Under normal circumstances, according to Lichtenstein,
organizational resistance to change is maintained through the concept
of "order parameter." "Order parameter" buffers and protects the
organization from environmental intrusions and fluctuations in
ongoing system activity. However, when a crisis occurs that the
"order parameter" cannot dampen, transformation takes place,
beginning with a period of unpredictability. The organizational
system attempts to regain its dynamic stability through
experimenting with new structures. A new structure is selected
when it can "produce resources which reinforce itself..."
(Lichtenstein, 1995 p. 21). In other words, the system generates a
non-linear feedback loop. As discussed in my Qualification paper #1
(Rathmill, 1997), cause and effect in non-linear systems does not
apply in a one-to-one relationship and further, a small change can
cause a system-wide transformation through amplification as part of
56
a positive feedback loop. It is this amplification caused by positive
feedback loops that begins the self reinforcement cycle.
According to Lichtenstein, there are three stages to self-
organization transformation. First, an organization must accomplish
two critical tasks simultaneously; it must produce the work it is
accountable for, and regulate or sustain itself. This activit>' is called
the dynamic consonance stage. Second, a trigger, as explained
earlier, initiates fluctuations that go beyond the "order parameter's"
ability to control it. A bifurcation or split from the established
structure ensues and increases due to amplification effects of
positive feedback loops. The third and final stage is where the
organization experiments with new structural configurations in order
to resolve the instability. The organization "...rapidly sort[s] for one
[configuration] which successfully generates a new resonance in the
organization/environment" (Lichtenstein, 1995 p. 24). This is called
the transformation stage. The result of these self-organizing
stages, according to Lichtenstein, is to create an organizational
structure that utilizes resources most effectively. These three stages
exist as an ongoing cycle of organizational change. "The normal
evolution of organizations proceeds from transformation to
transformation" (Leifer, 1989 p. 912).
COMPARISONS TO THE WORK OF KANTER ET AL., VAN DE VEN AND
POOLE, CHIN AND BENNE, ROMANELLI AND TUSHMAN
1 . "What is the change process?"
Lichtenstein's self-organization theory is not based upon
biological analogies as is the punctuated equilibrium of Romanelli
57
and Tushman, evolutionary theory of Van de Ven and Poole, or
Kanter et al. It is based upon systems theory and quantum
mechanics. The following comparisons can be made.
Biological Analogies
First, there are differences among the theorists who use
biological analogies. Romanelli and Tushman write that
transformation occurs in alternating periods of convergence and
reorientation in punctuated equilibrium theory, Kanter et al. state
that in their evolutionary theory change is gradual and accumulates
over time before it becomes transformational or "big-C" change. Van
de Ven and Poole's evolutionary theory coincide with Kanter et al.'s.
However, Kanter et al. do say that rapid change (revolutionary
change) can take place because of political decisions.
Neither Liechtenstein nor Chin and Benne use a biological analogy.
Change Mechanisms: Stages and triggers
Lichtenstein and Van de Ven and Poole view the complexities
involved in organizational dynamics and change from the similar
perspective of systems theory. Lichtenstein writes that under
systems theory, organizations can be seen as self-generating their
own order through the use of resources and energy. Continuous
renewal of components maintains a dynamic stability.
Transformational change, according to Lichtenstein, occurs when
energy flux exceeds dampening mechanisms. There are three self-
organizing stages of change, according to Lichtenstein: dynamic
consonance, bifurcation, and transformation. Van de Ven and Poole
similarly state that it is the relative balance between constructive
58
and prescribed motors that create the patterns of stabihty and
change in organizations. Both of these theorists stress the impact of
positive and negative feedback loops on organizational systems. This
impact can amphfy change, constrain it, or balance the forces to
create an equilibrium.
Other theorists posit that change mechanisms are based on
either an evolutionary theory of slow accumulation of small changes
as the case of Kanter et al, (except for revolutionary change) or an
evolutionary theory of alternating long periods of equilibrium and
sudden change over a relatively brief period of time as in the case of
Romanelli and Tushman. Chin and Benne view mechanisms from a
rational, behavioral perspective.
These theorists provide explanations as to what mechanisms
exist that normally prevent change from taking place. Lichtenstein
writes that in every system there exists order parameters that
dampen the effects of positive and negative feedback loops and
external intrusions. Only when the order parameter is overwhelmed
by a crisis, does transformation process take place. Romanelli and
Tushman state that three buffers exist that resist change: cognition,
motivation, and obligation. Chin and Benne see resistance in the
form of people unwilling to give up their old attitudes, beliefs, and
values. Resistance is lowered when people can open themselves to
learn from their ongoing experiences. Kanter et al. posit "The
implementation of dominant strategic direction involves a complex
structure of formal and informal contracts which act to perpetuate
the strategy" (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 50). In other words, resistance
to change comes from people who maintain their own interest, goals,
59
and group memberships. Van de Ven and Poole don't discuss
resistance to change.
A significant difference between Romanelli and Tushman's and
Van de Ven and Poole's, and Kanter et al.'s evolutionary theories is
that in punctuated equilibrium, change takes place within a single
entity not in a population of entities. This means that the individual
organization undergoes transformation. According to Lichtenstein
(Lichtenstein, 1995), this is questionable since evolutionary theories,
as Kanter et al.'s and Van de Ven, requires variation, selection, and
retention in a population for the process to operate. According to
Lichtenstein, Romanelli and Tushman provide no explanation for
variation to occur and no selection process is defined. In addition,
there is no mechanism defined to enable selection of one from among
a number of variations.
In punctuated equilibrium theory, second order change is not a
matter of an accumulation of small changes that eventually
overpower the forces of inertia as it is in Van de Ven and Poole and
Kanter et al. Instead according to Gersick, in punctuated equilibrium,
small changes are linked together, they are not independent.
"According to punctuational paradigms when basic premises change,
all the premises contingent on them are affected" (Gersick, 1991 p.
21). Since small changes are linked to each other, a few of them can
have a profound impact on the entire organization. Although, neither
Gersick nor Romanelli and Tushman mention a similarity of this
linkage concept to systems theor>^ it appears that there is a
connection since the linking of small changes seems to cause an
amplification of change effects that takes place in systems theory.
60
2. "What is changed?"
Transformation impacts the organization's dual integrative
processes that include a) interactions with the environment and
processes used to produce its products or services, and b) activities
that maintain and support the organization. This is similar to
Romanelli and Tushman's deep structure, Kanter et al.'s "character.
Van de Ven and Poole's "... form, quality, or state over time in an
organizational entity", and Chin and Benne's "values, attitudes, skills
and important relationships or normative culture." What all of these
researchers have in common is the concept that what is changed are
the basic, fundamental aspects of the organization that defines itself
and gives it its identity.
3. "What are other distinguishing characteristics that change research
addresses?"
As briefly referred to above, Connie Gersick, is another
proponent of punctuated equilibrium. Her research has been on
organizational change at the project group level (Gersick, 1991;
Gersick, 1988). She found that project groups with life spans of as
little as an hour to as much as several months, all initiated major
transitions in their operations "precisely halfway between their
start-ups and expected deadlines" (Gersick, 1991 p. 24). Triggers for
these transitions came from participants who perceive the midpoint
in time as a signal to get moving before time ran out. In other words,
according to Gersick, it is the perception of time, not an event, that
causes the start of significant change in punctuated equilibrium
theory.
61
KURT LEWIN
Kurt Lewin was a most influential social psychologist who
developed numerous theories involving human behavior in social
situations.
Lewin's Three Phase Model of Change
Lewin theorized that organizational change occurred in three
phases. The first phase is termed "unfreezing" the organization. This
means that the organization's current level of behavior needs to be
disturbed to the extent that it would be open to change. To
accomplish this, Lewin stated that to the organization needed to be
given new or disconforming data that challenged existing beliefs and
attitudes. This, according to Lewin, could be accomplished through
feedback of survey results to organizational participants. The second
phase, termed "movement", involves taking actions that change the
social system from its current level of behavior, to a new level. This
generally refers to actions that come under organization
development interventions amd might include team development and
organizational restructuring (Burke, 1992). The final phase, termed
"refreezing", involves putting in place processes that maintain the
new level of behavior keeping it "relatively secure against change"
(Burke, 1992 p, 56). Processes that can maintain the new behaviors
include change to a participative form of management and
encouraging cooperation and collaboration while discouraging
competition.
62
Schein's Elaboration of Lewin's Model
Edgar Schein, a social psychologist from Harvard University,
helps clarify Lewin's three phase model. Schein states that there are
three ways of "unfreezing" an organization. First , it is necessary for
organizational members to recognize their dissatisfaction with the
way things currently are, and feel a need to see a change. Second ,
they need to compare their current situation with a future goal and
see that it is worthwhile going after. When people see this gap
between what is and what could be, they become motivated by guilt
or anxiety, according to Schein, to close the gap.The Fmal action
necessary to "unfreeze" an organization is to create psychological
safety for organizational members in making these changes. They
must feel that they will not be punished or humiliated for admitting
their contributions to what is wrong in the organization (Burke,
1992).
Schein also elaborates on Lewin's second or "movement" phase.
For people actually to change their behavior, Schein states that they
must accomplish "cognitive restructuring." In other words, people
must both see things differently than they did before, and act
differently in the future. Schein states that this could be
accomplished in two ways. One, is to identify with a new role model
and thereby see things from a different perspective.
The other, is to examine new and relevant information through
scanning the environment. This might entail looking at other models
of organizational and personal behavior.
According to Schein, the third or "refreezing" phase involves
integrating the changes. He states that this phase requires two steps.
* 63
First, the individual needs to make the new way of doing things fit
comfortably into his or her total self-concept. Second, this phase
requires relational refreezing. This involves open examination of the
new behaviors' impact upon relationships with others in the
organization.
COMPARISONS TO THE WORK OF KANTER ET AL, VAN DE VEN AND
POOLE, CHIN AND BENNE, ROMANELLI AND TUSHMAN, AND
LICHTENSTEIN
1 . "What is the change process?"
Lewin's work, even with Schein's elaboration, is primarily a
model of how to implement change in organizations. However, this
model does imply that a crisis, or at least a perception of a crisis, is
necessary to "unfreeze" the organization. All of the other theories
and models of change discussed in this paper posit some kind of
crisis to act as a trigger for change in organizations. Lewin's model
is most criticized for its apparent lack of dynamic forces in explaining
change. Unlike Lichtenstein, Lewin's model seems to lack dynamic
motion. Even the term "refreezing" runs against current perceptions
of organizational dynamics being a battle of forces. In addition,
today's businesses are in a constant state of change and further, the
rate of change in today's markets and technologies does not allow
time for "refreezing." "The cycles tumble on so fast that whatever is
refrozen lasts only weeks or months instead of years" (Weisbord,
1987 p. 94). Lewin's model, with Schein's elaboration, is most similar
to Chin and Benne's because it explains change from the perspective
• 64
of human needs and behaviors. It focuses on what needs to be done
in getting the cooperation of employees to act on required changes.
For example, to "unfreeze" the organization employees must perceive
a need for change, be motivated by guilt and anxiety to act on closing
the gap between the current behavior and the desired future
behavior, and require psychological safety to change their behavior.
In addition, employees need to feel comfortable with the changes so
as to integrate them as part of the "refreezing" phase.
2. "What is changed?"
It is the behavior of organizational members that is changed,
according to Lewin. This is most similar to Chin and Benne in their
discussions of Normafive-Reeducative concepts. However, Lewin
does not indicate the depth of the behavior change as being at the
level of attitudes, beliefs, and norms as do the other theorists.
3. "What are other distinguishing characteristics that change research
addresses?"
Kanter et al. wrote in reference to Lewin's three phase change
model, "This quaintly linear and static conception - the organization
as ice cube ~ is so wildly inappropriate that it is difficult to see why
it has not only survived but prospered..." (Kanter et al., 1992 p. 10).
Kanter et al. continue their criticism by stating that Lewin's model
provides managers with a straightforward way of planning their
actions to accomplish organizational change. It simplifies "...an
extraordinarily complex process into a child's formula" (Kanter et al.,
1992 p. 10).
• 65
RICHARD BECKHARD, WENDY PRITCHARD, RUBEN T. HARRIS
Richard Beckhard was a professor of organization behavior and
management at the Sloan School, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology from 1963 to 1984. He is one of the founders of the field
of organization development. Wendy Pritchard is an occupational
psychologist. She has twenty yeai's of experience in the field of
organizational effectiveness and the management of complex change.
Fundamental Change in Complex Organizations
Beckhard, Pritchard, and Ruben T. Harris, in several works,
present a model not a theory of organizational change (Beckhard &
Harris, 1987; Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992). This model is included
here because of its elaborate nature and its ability to describe and
explain organizational change. As such, it provides the reader with
similar value as do theories. This model explain how organizational
change can be managed. It describes the entire process, including
actions management must take in order to accomplish fundamental
change. They distinguish between incremental and fundamental
change. According to Beckhard et al., attempting incremental change
requires a linear approach, which takes actions in sequential order.
Accomplishing fundamental change, on the other hand, requires
simultaneous consideration of the organization, all of its components,
and the relationships among all of the organization's pieces.
According to Beckhard et al., fundamental change involves change in
the very "essence" of the organization. More specifically, it involves
change in the organizations' "...memories, maps, norms, and values"
* 66
(Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992 p. 16). It also involves its members'
attitudes and behaviors. Change of this magnitude is really a
constellation of changes "...that are both descrete and interdependent
and that must be managed simultaneously" (Beckhard & Pritchard,
1992 p. 8). The model that Beckliard et al., describe is for large-
system change in complex organizations. Large-systems usually
refers to either the entire organization or a significant component of
it.
Beckhard et al. emphasize that change primarily is forced upon
organizations because of increasing environmental pressures. These
outside influences include: increasing governmental regulations,
increasing demands by citizen groups, increasing legislated legal
requirements, increasing pressure from consumer and
environmentalist groups concerning social issues, and increasing
constraints resulting from interdependency with various institutions.
Beckhard et al's. model involves management in first defining
the present and future state including the reason for change and
what the desired new state will be. Second, it involves consideration
of the transition state. This state refers to the period between the
old way things were done and the way it will be done after the
change has been successfully completed. This is a period of
confusion relating to roles, responsibilities, and authority. Issues
that need to be considered, according to Beckhard et al., during the
transition state include determining the extent to which there is
choice about whether to change, determining what needs to be
• 67
changed, determining where the intervention should be focused, and
choosing what intervention technologies should be utilized.
Third, according to Beckhard et al. their model involves
developing plans for managing the transition state. This
involves determining management mechanisms and considering
whether the normal structure or a separate, parallel one should
manage the change effort. According to Beckhard et al., an essential
component of managing the transition state is development of a road
map or process plan for the change. Their process plan is composed
of seven parts: ( 1 ) it is purposeful with activities clearly linked to
goals and priorities, (2) it is task specific with activities well defined,
(3) it is integrated with links among activities clearly made, (4) it is
time sequenced, (5) it is adaptable to take into account unexpected
events and circumstances, (6) it has the full active support and
participation of top management, and (7) it is cost effective in terms
of investment of people and time spent (Beckhard & Harris, 1987).
Fourth, according to Beckhard et al., the model involves
developing mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the
change effort. Issues that need to be considered include: (1)
clearly defining the purpose and function of evaluation, (2)
determining the types of information needed by management and
the appropriate sources of information, (3) choosing data collection
methods appropriate for the scale of evaluation in regards to time,
and effort, and (4) determining the timing of the data gathering and
review by management (Beckhard & Harris, 1987).
68
Fifth, Beckhard et al. state the importance of selecting the
appropriate intervention technologies as dependent upon the
change issues in the organization. For example, when change issues
are induced by environmental factors, Beckhard et al. recommend
approaching organizational change from an open systems
perspective. Their definition and approach to open systems is based
on the work of Eric Trist and Fred Emery. According to Beckhard et
al., organizations exist in an environment, the boundary around them
is permeable, and the organization is able to interact with its
environment. Under open system concepts, planning change
strategy requires: (1) mapping environmental demands, (2) clearly
seeing present and desired organizational responses to these
demands, (3) prioritizing activities that respond to these demands,
and (4) systemizing assessment of the impact of these demands over
time on organizational objectives (Beckhard & Harris, 1987).
In their later research, Beckhard and Pritchard update the
change model discussed above to include: (1) emphasizing the
importance of the role of organizational leader and (2) the
importance in fundamental change strategy to deliberately move
toward implement "...a learning mode, where both learning and doing
are equally valued" (Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992 p. 4). As part of
their role, leaders must show their commitment to the change
through their investment of time and careful examination of their
behavior to insure that it fits the strategic plans.
Beckhard and Pritchard posit that leaders are the only ones
who can create the vision for the organization. A vision is a dynamic
• 69
picture of the organization in tlie future as seen by its leadership.
Furthermore, it is a statement of commitment and priorities by
organizational leaders to realize it. Leaders are responsible for
creating and developing the vision, gaining commitment for it,
ensuring the communication of the vision to all parts of the
organization, diagnosing the organization's current state and
identifying areas needing change, and overseeing the management of
the entire change process. Beckhard and Pritchard further posit that
there are five themes to focus on in fundamental change: ( 1 ) change
in the mission or "reason to be," (2) change in the identity or external
image, (3) change in relationships to key stakeholders, (4) change in
the way work is done, and (5) change in the organization's culture
(Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992). All of these themes are involved in
any fundamental change. Organizational leaders must be aware of
these themes and consider them when taking on change.
A major component of Beckhard and Pritchard's thinking on
fundamental change is the need for organizations to switch to a
learning oriented mode rather than a results oriented mode. While
organizations make fundamental changes, they must, at the same
time, learn as they are doing it. However, it is up to the leaders of
organizations to understand the value of moving to a learning
organization, and it is only they who can make it happen.
* 70
COMPARISONS TO THE WORK OF KANTER ET AL, VAN DE VEN AND
POOLE, CHIN AND BENNE, ROMANELLI AND TUSHMAN, AND
LICHTENSTEIN, AND LEWIN
1 . "What is the change process?"
Beckhard et al. posit that forces for change primarily originate
outside of the organization. These forces originate from various
citizen lobbies, government rules and regulations, laws, and other
factors that increasingly put pressure on organizations and require
them to make fundamental changes. This is a limited view in that it
does not explain any of the other mechanisms that cause change to
happen, however, Beckhard et al. are not creating theory but a model
for planning and implementing organizational change.
2. "What Is changed?"
Beckhard et al. describe fundamental change in a similar
manner as the other theorists discussed in this paper. Beckhard and
Pritchard describe fundamental change as changing the "essence" of
an organization. Their definition is the same or similar to what is
changed in Kanter et al's. "big-C" change. Van de Ven and Poole's
second order change and Romanelli and Tushman's deep structure.
Beckhard et al. also differentiate between incremental or linear
change from fundamental change. It can be inferred that linear
change is "small-c" change or first order change and does not
transform the organization. Incremental change only helps it get
better at what it is currently doing, according to Lichtenstein.
• 71
3. "What are other distinguishing characteristics that change research
addresses?"
Beckhard and Pritchard emphasize to a greater extent than the
other researchers the role of organizational leaders in impacting
change. They state the importance of the leader's vision in guiding
the organization by determining what needs to be changed rather
than first examining symptoms and then determining changes that
need to be made. This is a significantly more proactive approach to
organizational change since it does not wait for problems first to
occur.
SUIVIMARY
At the beginning of this paper, I made the statement that
organizational change is a complex subject. After studying the seven
theories and models described in this paper and additional ones not
presented here, my perception of organizational change has been
reinforced and illuminated. I use the word "perception"
purposefully. These and other theories show there are different
ways of "seeing" what organizational change is and how one sees it
may determines how one deals with it. Since there are apparently
many ways of "seeing" change, it is important for me to understand
where managers are coming from - what their own perception of
reality is. Through this understanding, I can better help them see
their situation and thereby better assist them in their change efforts.
Additional important learnings include:
1) Organizational change is a complex subject.
♦ 72
From studying the theories discussed in this paper, it is evident
that organizational change is a complex subject. Indications of its
complexity is shown by the diverse backgrounds from which the
theories and models were developed, which include paleobiology,
systems theory, evolution, human motivation, speech communication,
and ancient societal organizations; by the large scope of change
events included in their explanations; and the actual dynamic
processes that take place within organizational systems.
2) Is it possible to deliberately plan and implement organizational change?
"Change is extraordinarily difficult, and the fact that it occurs
successfully at all is something of a miracle" (Kanter et al, 1992 p.
370). One reason for this difficulty is the attempt to picture change
as a discrete process with specific steps to take that will lead the
organization to a successful endstate. The theories described in this
paper show that this is not the case. Change involves dynamic
processes that are not fully understood. This is evidenced by the
number of theories being explored.
3) Theories provide a schemata of change that can be used for analysis
The theories discussed in this paper provide a way of thinking
about organizational change. Since they are theories, they help us
organize our thoughts about the subject and enable us to make some
assumptions and predictions about what has happened and what will
happen. Given the schemata, we can then analyze the situation, and
thereby, one would hope, gain a better understanding of what is
going on and what we can do to make the situation better.
• 73
4) Which theoretical approach to planned change should be used?
"Our company is in need of a profound transformation. We've
read all the books. We know all the concepts and theories: transition
management, frame- breaking, paradigms, empowerment, culture
change, and so on. But we don't know how to implement the
transformation. We don't even know how to make the theories
operational -Manager in a leading Fortune 100 company" (Kanter et
al., 1992 p. 369).
From a practical standpoint, it doesn't seem to matter which
approach is used in planning of organizational change, since all of
these approaches give us the opportunity to analyze closely and
reflect on the situation rather than react in a knee jerk fashion to
events.
5) Importance for change agents of understanding planned change
The understanding achieved from the study of planned
organizational change is important for those internal to the
organization such as change managers and important for outside
consultants by providing a framework from which to make plans and
take action. Additionally, the importance of understanding is to
increase the knowledge, on the part of the entire organizational
community, about the complexity and the resulting difficulty in
attempting to implement planned change. A deep knowledge of
implementation requirements is necessary so that change strategists,
change implementors, and change recipients all understand the scope
of the challenges they face. From this understanding the
• 74
organization can approach planned change with the best possible
chances of succeeding.
Chapter Three will provide a review of the literature on
theories of leadership. Thus, when analyzing the data of this study,
these two Chapters will form the reference points for examining
leaders in the context of transformational change.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organizations and Environments.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
American Heritage. (1997).
Argyris, C, Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985a). Action Science .
(1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bartunek, J. M. (1993). The Multiple Cognitions and Conflicts
Associated with Second Order Organizational Change. In J. K.
Murnighan (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in
Theory and Research . . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization Development: Strategies and
Models . Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Or ganizational Transitions .
(2nd ed.). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beckhard, R., & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the Essence . (1st
ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1976a). General Strategies for Effecting
Changes in Human Systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, R. Chin, & K.
* 75
E. Corey (Eds.), The Planning of Change . (3rd ed., ). New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1976b). The Planning of Chang e. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Burke, W. W. (1992). Organaization Development A Process of
Learning and Changing . (Second ed.). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Darwin, C. (1936). TheOrigin of Species . New York Modern
Library.
French, W., Bell, C, & Zawacki, R. (1994). Organization
Development and Transformation: Managing Effective Change . (4th
ed.). Boston: Richard D. Irwin.
Gemmill, G., & Smith, C. (1985). A Dissipative Structure Model
of Organization Transformation. luman Relations. 38 (8). 751-766.
Gergen, K.J. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity
in Contemporary Life : Basic Books.
Gersick, C. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel
Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradign. Academy of
Management Review. 16 (1). 10-36.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and Transition in Work Teams:
Toward a New Model of Group Development. Academy of
Management loumal. 31 (1). 9-41.
Gould, S. J. (1982). Darwinism and the Expansion of
Evolutionary Theory. Science. 216 . 380-387.
Gould, S. J. (1989). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory in Fact and
Theory. lournal of Social Biological Structures. 12 . 117-136.
• 76
Gould, S. J., & Eldridge, N. (1977). Punctuated Equilibria: The
Tempo and Model of Evolution Reconsidered. Paleobiology. 3 . 115-
151.
Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations
Grow. Harvard Business Review. 50 (July- August), 37-46.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery . London: Cambridge
University Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The Change Master: Innovation and
Entrepreneurship in the American Corporation . New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge of
Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders
Guide It. New York: The Free Press.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. New York Harper &
Row.
Kleiner, A. (1996). The Age of Heretics: Heroes. Outlaws, and
the Forerunners of Corporate Change . (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leifer, R. (1989). UnderstandingOrganizatoinal Transformation
Using a Dissipative Structure Model. Human Relations. 42 . 899-916.
Lichtenstein, B. M. (1995). Evolution or Transformation: A
Critique and Alternative to Punctuated Equilibrium. . Boston College,
Chesnut Hill.
Merton, R. K. (1967). On Theoretical Sociology . New York: Free
Press.
• 77
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The New
Institutlonalism in Organizational Analysis . Chicago, IL, London,
England: University of Chicago Press.
Prigogine, 1. (1980). From Being to Becoming-Time and
Complexity in the Physical World . San Francisco: Freeman and Sons.
Prigogine, 1., & Nicolis, G. (1977). Self Organization in Non-
equilibrium Systems . New YOrk: Wiley and Sons.
Prigogine, I., & Nicolis, G. (1989). Exploring Complexity . New
York: Freeman and Sons.
Prigogine, 1., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos . New
York: Bantam Books.
Rathmill, S. C. (1997). Review of Historical and Theoretical
Background of TOM (Qualification Paper 1). Cambridge MA: Lesley
College.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations . (3rd ed.). New York:
Free Press.
Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L (1994). Organizational
Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test.
Academy of Management loumal. 37 (5). 1141-1166.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Process Consultion Its Role in Organization
Development . (Second ed.). (Vol. 1). Reading MA: Addison- Wesley.
Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational Evolution:
A Metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research
in Organizational Behavior. 7 . 171-222.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1988). Innovations and Organizations.
Communication Research. 15 (5). 632-651.
78
Van de Ven, A. H. (1995). Explaining Development and Change
in Organizations. Academy of Management Review. 20 (3). 510-540.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Paradoxical
Requirements for a Theory of Organizational Change. In R. Quinn & K.
Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of
Change in Organization and Management . . New York HarperCollins.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining
Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management
Review. 20 (3). 510-540.
Watzlawik, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change:
Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution . New York:
Norton.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing . (2nd
ed.). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive Workplaces . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
79
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE THEORIES OF
LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONS
INTRODUCTION
A great many articles and books discussing leadership have
been written and many theories on the nature of leadership from
various perspectives have been promulgated. In addition, the
popular press has featured well known leaders of corporations,
including Mary Kay Ash (Mary Kay Cosmetics), Larry Ellison (Oracle),
Bill Gates (Microsoft), Lee lacocca (Ford, Chrysler), Steven Jobs
(Apple), Roger Milliken (Milliken), Anita Roddick (The Body Shop),
Howard Schultz (Starbucks), Ted Turner (CNN, Atlanta Braves), and
Jack Walsh (General Electric), to the extent that they have taken on a
hero status in our culture. Similarly, much has been written about
organizational change, particularly reengineering, downsizing, and
the need for companies to be adaptable and flexible while "thriving
on chaos" (Peters, 1987). Some of these authors include Tom Peters,
Michael Hammer, Alvin Toffler, Warren Bennis, and John Whiteside.
To a lesser extent, writings have emerged, often by leaders
themselves explaining how leadership has turned organizations
around. These leader/authors include David Kearns, Ray Stata, Bill
Gates, Lee lacocca, and Jim McLamere. This chapter examines the
professional literature on leadership and its links with planned
organizational change.
Many researchers and theorists contend that the role of
organizational leader is of paramount importance in successful
80
business. A representative sample of authors include Bechard and
Pritchard, Bennis, Block, Covey, Katz and Kahn, Peters and Waterman,
Tichy, and Weisbord. Others have discussed the importance of
leadership in organizations' attempts at navigating change including ,
Argyris, Bennis and Nanus, Chawla and Renesch, Hurst, Moss Kanter,
Schein, and Senge. Leadership seems to be the one crucial factor in
the need to plan why, when, and how organizational change should
occur. Leadership has this critical role because of its position power
and its focal point for potentially "rallying the troops."
To understanding the significance of the leaders' role in
planned organizational change, this chapter will describe the
literature focusing on what leadership is, how to evaluate its success,
and the nature of the leader's role. A review of the literature on
concepts of leadership from the perspective of leadership theorists
and researchers will also be included.
NATURE OF LEADERSHIP
DeFmition
To examine and then describe leadership, we must first define
it. Stogdill reviewed the leadership literature and concluded that
"there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are
persons who have attempted to define the concept" (Stogdill, 1974 p.
259). This is partly due to researchers' preferences to investigate
what they find most interesting about leadership. Therefore,
leadership has been defined in terms of influence, personal traits,
behavior, charisma, management styles, and others aspects.
Representative definitions of leadership over the years include:
81
Leadership is "the behavior of an individual when he is
directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal"
(HemphiU & Coons, 1957a p. 7).
Leadership is "interpersonal influence, exercised in a
situation, and directed, through the communication
process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or
goals" (Tannenbaum, Weschler & Massarik, 1961 p. 24).
Leadership is "the initiation and maintenance of structure
in expectation and interaction", (Stogdill, 1974 p. 411).
Leadership is "the influential increment over and above
mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the
organization" (Katz & Kahn, 1978 p. 528).
Leadership is "the process of influencing the activities of
an organized group toward goal achievement" (Rauch &
Behling, 1984 p. 46).
Leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful
direction) to a collective effort, and causing willing effort
to be expended to achieve purpose (Jacobs & Jaques,
1990).
Leaders are those who consistently make effective
contributions to social order, and who are expected and
perceived to do so (Hosking, 1988).
The above defmitions represent the diverse thinking on the
nature of leadership. The little that they have in common centers on
a social influence exerted intentionally by an individual over others
to structure activities of groups or organizations (Yukl, 1994).
Major Issues
The following discussion examines the major issues in the
literature of the nature of leadership, in order to help review the
82
various ways leadership is perceived. These issues are listed below,
so that, they can be later considered as we examine the literature on
various leadership theories.
One issue questions whether leadership is a result of role
specialization or social influence. Role specialization views leadership
as one role that occurs naturally in any organization, just as certain
members are "destined" to play the role of follower (Bouchard,
Lykken, McGue, Segal & Tellegen, 1990; McClelland, 1961; Stogdill,
1974; Yukl, 1994). The person who becomes the leader does so
because of certain properties that make him or her suited to be a
leader.
Social influence views leadership as a process that naturally
occurs in social systems and in which a number of members can play
leadership roles (Senge, 1990a; Yukl, 1994). In this view leadership
and followership are interchangeable depending upon conditions
existing at any particular time within the organization.
A second issue, concerns leaders' influence on members of the
organization. It questions which attempts at influence by leaders are
part of leadership. Is it only behavior related to task objectives or
group maintenance, or does influence cover all behavior including
those extraneous or detrimental to the organization? This issue
questions the motives of leaders' use of influence; are they for the
greater good or for selfish reasons?
The third issue, examines the difference between leadership
and management. Theorists seem to agree that management and
leadership are different, but to what extent do they differ, or are
they mutually exclusive? The difference between managers and
83
leaders according to some researchers is that mangers are oriented
toward stability and leaders are oriented toward innovation. In
other words, these researchers believe that managers seek to
maintain the functioning of the organization while leaders seek
growth and renewal for the organization. Bennis and Nanus stated
that "managers are people who do things right and leaders are
people who do the right thing" (Bennis & Nanus, 1985 p. 21). Other
theorists perceive leadership and management in a different way
(Hickman, 1990; Kotter, 1988). They view leadership and
management as distinct processes that can be performed by the
same individual. They do not view leaders and managers as
different types of people. Kotter views management as processes
consisting of planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and
controlling and problem solving; whereas, he sees leadership
comprising of processes including establishing direction, aligning
people, motivating and inspiring them (Kotter, 1990).
Karmel points out that, "It is consequently very difficult to
settle on a single definition of leadership that is general enough to
accommodate these many meanings and specific enough to serve as
an operationalization of the variable" (Karmel, 1978). The definition
of leadership chosen for this dissertation is a broad one of Yukl's
which is all inclusive:
Leadership is defined broadly as influence processes
affecting the interpretation of events for followers, the
choice of objectives for the group or organization, the
organization of work activities to accomplish the
objectives, the motivation of followers to achieve the
objectives, the maintenance of cooperative relationships
and teamwork, and the enlistment of support and
84
cooperation from people outside the group or
organization (Yukl, 1994 p. 5).
LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS
It is important to review briefly literature on the effectiveness
of organizational leaders for several reasons. The position of leader
is, perhaps, the most visible in an organization. Rightfully or not, the
leader is held ultimately accountable for the success of the
organization. The effectiveness of the leader is often measured by
the success of the organization. The managers and leaders
interviewed for this dissertation, likewise, may measure themselves
or their leader by how they each perceive success of the change
effort.
The effectiveness of the leader may be perceived in other
ways. "The most commonly used measure of leader effectiveness is
the extent to which the leader's organizational unit performs its task
successfully and attains its goals" (Yukl, 1994 p. 5). This often
means, the extent to which the projected revenues, profit margins,
market share, and return on investment been realized. These goals
are often considered objective measures of performance by Fortune,
Baron's, The Wall Street Journal, and other publications.
Leaders may be perceived as effective in other ways. One way
is the attitudes of organizational members toward the leader. These
attitudes include followers perceiving the leader as meeting their
needs and expectations, admiration for the leader, and the strength
of commitment in following the leader. For example, when attitudes
are poor, employees may have high absenteeism, make more
85
grievances, seek out other companies, use sabotage, and other
devious mechanisms (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990a; Burns, 1978;
Heller & Yukl, 1969; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958; Vroom & Yetton,
1973).
Another way leaders may be perceived as effective are the
contributions they make to member cohesiveness and group process.
Do members perceive the leader as helping them to work together,
solve problems, make decisions, or reduce conflict (Katz & Kahn,
1952; Katz, Maccoby, Gurin & Floor, 1951)?
The difficulty in determining the leader's effectiveness may
relate to which measure is seen as being the most relevant. This is
dependent upon who is viewing the leader.
Another problem with examining leader's effectiveness, is that
oftentimes, it is difficult to determine the effects of a leader's
decisions and actions. Leaders take numerous actions. Some of these
directly and immediately impact the organization, while others may
indirectly impact the organization in the long term (Lord & Maher,
1991). Examples of direct effects on organizational success include,
sales training, introduction of incentive programs, restructuring how
work is done, and providing needed resources. The effects of these
actions are felt immediately. Examples of indirect effects that impact
organizational success include implementing total quality
management, changing market strategy, focusing on team work and
cooperation, and establishing new information systems. These
actions take longer for their effects to become evident (Senge, 1990a;
Senge, 1990b).
86
Researchers have also studied a leader's actions in terms of
both short term and long term effects, and these effects may be
strikingly different (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1992; Senge, 1990b). For
example, short term profits may be realized through cost savings
measures such as cutting research and development, laying off
workers, and decreasing advertising. However, these cost cutting
measures may result in disastrous long term results including the
inability to maintain product superiority, maintain or gain in market
share, or retain highly qualified workers.
To summarize, a survey of the literature concerning leader
effectiveness describes the variables that must be considered in
determining leader effectiveness
LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND MODELS
Introduction
The following review of theoretical literature on leadership
demonstrates the variety of ways leadership is perceived. This
review divides the literature on leadership into four primary
categories of research: (1) situational leadership, (2) leadership
behavior, (3) leadership traits and skills, and (4) power and influence
in leaders. Other literature on the aspects of leadership that do not
fall within the above categories, will also be described, including
charismatic, participative, and transformational leadership.
Some of the research findings in this review of literature on
leadership may seem obvious and trivial. This may seem
particularly so when reviewing the early research of the 1950s and
1960s. However, we need to take note of the context in which these
87
researchers were working. Little research on this subject has taken
place prior to the 1950s and little was known about management
and leadership except for the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor who
wrote the Principles of Scientific Management (Taylor, 1947). In his
theory of scientific management, Taylor states his belief that workers
need to be controlled in all aspects of the work environment. Taylor
believes that workers needed to be told exactly "what to do, how to
do it, and when it must be done" (Weisbord, 1987). He has little faith
in either workers' intelligence or reasoning ability. Taylor's concepts
have had a profound impact on management of that day. It is in this
context of near absolute management control over unintelligent
workers that the early research was undertaken. For this reason,
early researchers in the 1950s were actually conducting ground-
breaking work in viewing leadership as a reciprocal process with
followers.
( 1 ) Situational and Contingencv Theories of Leadership
Situational leadership refers to determining how the effects of
leader's actions vary depending upon particular situations. In other
words, according to some researchers, we need to pay attention to
the specific situation that a leader is in to determine whether or not
his/her traits or behaviors will be effective (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler,
1964). Since this approach suggests that certain aspects of the
situation enhance or nullify the effects of a leader's traits or
behavior, these theories are often termed "contingency theories"
Factors that make traits or behaviors more or less effective are called
"situational moderator variables" (Yukl, 1994).
88
(a) Path-Goal Theory
A situational or contingency theory is "Path-Goal" theory. Its
premise is that a leader is effective when he or she takes actions
that result in subordinates being satisfied with their work situation
and motivated to work hard. To accomplish this, leaders take actions
that (1) provide rewards for successful completion of goals, and (2)
clear the path of roadblocks and pitfalls for employees and (3) are
explicit about what is expected in the way of performance (House,
1971). House and Dessler state that "... leader behavior will be
viewed as acceptable to subordinates to the extent that the
subordinates see such behavior as either an immediate source of
satisfaction or as instrumental to future satisfaction" (House &
Dessler, 1974 p. 13). These researchers point out that employee
satisfaction can not be equated with the effort subordinates put into
their work.
According to Path-Goal theory, in order to understand how
leader behavior or actions affect subordinate satisfaction and effort,
we must look at its intervening variables. These variables come
from a motivation theory called "Expectancy" theory (Vroom, 1964).
Briefly stated, employee work motivation is determined by a rational
choice process whereby the employee decides how much effort to
expend according to the likelihood of success and the value of
expected rewards or outcomes, while, at the same time, avoiding
undesirable outcomes. The primary impact of the leader is in
modifying these perceptions and beliefs.
The challenge for leaders according to Path-Goal theorists, is
determining what are the roadblocks and pitfalls that can block
89
employee motivation and satisfaction, since they differ depending
upon the situation, the characteristics of the employees, and what
rewards are meaningful to each. (Evans, 1974; Fulk & Wendler, 1982;
House & Dessler, 1974). Depending upon the above variables, leaders
would need to exhibit certain kinds of behaviors. Mitchell describes
four behaviors for leaders: (1) supportive, where the leader
considers the needs of the subordinate and concern for his/her
welfare, (2) directive, where the leader makes clear what is expected
of subordinates and provides them with guidance, (3) participative,
where the leader asks for and takes into account subordinates
opinions, and (4) achievement-oriented, where the leader sets
challenging goals and asks for higher performance (Mitchell, 1974).
(b) Leadership Substitutes Theory
Kerr and Jermier propose that in certain situations, leadership
was superfluous or even unnecessary or redundant (Kerr & Jermier,
1978). Their theory argue that some situations act as substitutes or
neutralizers for a leader. Situations that act as neutralizers nullifying
the effects of a leader's behavior include, for example, not having the
authority to reward employees. Substitutes for leadership are those
situations which make a leader unnecessary, such as situations
where the subordinates clearly understand their roles and know how
the work is to be done. Three categories of neutralizers and
substitutes are: subordinate characteristics, task characteristics, and
group and organization characteristics (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Yukl,
1994). Subordinate characteristics include: (1) experience, ability,
and training. (2) "professional" orientation, and (3) indifference
90
toward organizational rewards. Task characteristics include: ( 1 ) a
structured, routine, unambiguous tasl^; (2) feedback provided by the
task, and (3) an intrinsically satisfying task. Organizational
characteristics include: (1) a cohesive work group, (2) low position
power, (3) explicit plans, goals, areas of responsibility, (4) rigid,
unyielding rules and procedures, and (5) a leader located away from
the organization with limited communication possible (Kerr and
Jermier, 1978).
(c) Multiple Linkage Model
The Multiple Linkage Model developed by Yukl builds upon
previous contingency theories presented above (Yukl, 1971; Yukl,
1981; Yukl, 1989). This model focuses on "...the interacting effects of
managerial behavior and situational variables on the performance of
the manager's work unit" (Yukl, 1994 p. 294). In other words, Yukl
believes that characteristics of a leader's behavior in combination
with the situation determine whether a leader is effective. He
defines effectiveness in terms of productivity and profits of a
leader's organization. Variables play an important part in the
Multiple Linkage Model and managerial behavior and situational
variables are two of four that Yukl describes. The others are:
intervening and criterion variables. According to Yukl, the leader
may, no matter how good he or she is, be limited in what he or she
can do. An example is situational variables such as government
regulations or union-management contracts, "neutralizing" his/her
discretion in making necessary changes or reacting to problems.
Even if there are a minimum of "neutralizers," the Multiple Linkage
91
Model states that the leader's effectiveness is also dependent upon
the characteristics of his/her employees and of their work situation.
In other words, the leader doesn't have a direct impact on the
organization's productivity and profits, instead, the leader must
achieve effectiveness through his/her employees and the work
situation by making employees and the work situation conducive to
being productive (Yukl, 1994). An example of this would be that the
leader may need to increase the level of ability and motivation of
employees through training and education, or the resources and
support services available to complete required work. Yukl
describes a number of these "intervening" variables, including
employee motivation, subordinates' need of skills and abilities,
organization of work to assure efficiency, group member cooperation
to work well together, and adequate resources and support. Finally,
the leader must consider all these "intervening" variables and decide
whether they have an effect on his/her own effectiveness in the
situation in which he or she is currently.
Yukl provides two general propositions that guide leaders in
making decisions about their actions: ( 1 ) "In the short term, unit
effectiveness is greater when the leader acts to correct any
deficiencies in the intervening variables, and (2) "In the longer term,
unit effectiveness is greater when the leader acts to make the
situation more favorable" (Yukl, 1994 p. 300-301).
(d) LPC Contingency Model
Fielder developed his LPC Contingency Model (which stands for
"least preferred coworker score"), to describe how the situation
92
moderates the relationship between leader traits and effectiveness
(Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler, 1964). The LPC score measures a trait that
predicts leadership effectiveness, according to Fielder. Fielder states
that the High LPC leader is primarily motivated in having close,
interpersonal relationships with other people, including subordinates.
The leader with a High LPC will act in a considerate, supportive
manner if it is called for. Achievement of task objectives is a
secondary motive. The leader with a Low LPC score is primarily
focused on task objectives, and will emphasize these objectives when
there are task related problems. Only secondarily is this leader
concerned with good relations. Fiedler suggests that "favorability" of
the situation within which a leader finds him or herself will
determine whether the High LPC leader will be more or less effective
than the Low LPC leader.
(2) Leadership Behavior
The review of literature on leadership behavior centers on
observable behaviors that differentiate effective from ineffective
leadership. The skills and traits behind these behaviors are not
considered to be important. Managerial work and leadership
behaviors are not consistently clearly differentiated; however,
behaviors that people in these positions exhibit have been placed in
four categories: decision making, influencing, exchanging
information, and building relationships. The importance of different
behaviors within each of these categories may vary depending upon
the manager's level in the organization, the manager's function, size
of the unit led by the manager, the extent to which the leader's
93
subunit is interdependent with other people or groups, whether
there is a crisis, and the stage in the organization's Ufe cycle (Yukl,
1994).
Research on effective leader behavior, uses questionnaires,
laboratory experiments, field experiments, and critical incidents to
discover how effective leaders differ in behavior from ineffective
ones. The literature review shows three groups of studies on
effective leader behavior.
Ohio State University leadership studies involve extensive
administration of questionnaires that determined, through factor
analysis, two dimensions of supervisor behavior, i These dimensions
or behavior content categories are labeled "consideration" and
"initiating structure" (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957;
Hemphill & Coons, 1957b). "Consideration" refers to the degree to
which a leader acts in a friendly and supportive manner, shows
concern for subordinates, and looks out for their welfare. "Initiating
structure" refers to the degree to which a leader defines and
structures his/her own role and the roles of the subordinates toward
achieving the group's goals. Research indicates that these two
categories are relatively independent. Findings from this work
indicate that subordinates are happier if their leader is at least
moderately considerate, but inconclusive, as pertaining to the value
of "initiating structure" (Yukl, 1994).
Behavioral research using experiments, is another approach to
the study of leadership behavior in reviewing the literature.
Ipor the purposes of this review, supervisors, managers, and leaders have
been used interchangably.
94
Behavioral research experiments were conducted to answer the
question of causality that the correlation work at Ohio State
University could not. The literature on behavioral research using
experiments, centers on that conducted in laboratories using
university students (Day, 1971; Day & Hamblin, 1964; Farris & Jr.,
1969; Lowin & Craig, 1968; Sims & Manz, 1984). "This research
demonstrated that causality operates in both directions, from
behavior to outcomes, and vice versa" (Yukl, 1994 p. 58). As with
the results of previous Ohio State studies, the findings of the
behavioral research suggest that "consideration" behavior, leads to
increased satisfaction and productivity and were inconclusive for the
"initiating structure" variable (Yukl, 1994).
The Michigan Leadership studies were carried out by
researchers at the University of Michigan (Katz & Kahn, 1952; Katz et
al., 1951; Katz, Maccoby & Morse, 1950). The Michigan research
focuses on identifying relationships among leader behavior, group
processes, and measures of group performance. Field research was
conducted on a variety of leaders and managers in an insurance
company using questionnaires and interviews. The research finds
that three types of leadership behavior differentiates between
effective and ineffective managers: task-oriented behavior,
relationship-oriented behavior, and participative leadership.
Findings conclude, that effective managers concentrate on the
following task-oriented behaviors: planning, scheduling work,
coordinating subordinates' activities, and providing organizational
support. Effective managers also are more considerate, supportive,
and helpful with subordinates than ineffective leaders; that is, they
95
concentrate on relationship behaviors. In addition, effective leaders
also involve subordinates in decision-making (Likert, 1961; Likert,
1967).
The studies above suggest that there are certain behaviors that
"universally" relate to leadership effectiveness regardless of the
situation. Some theorists believe that the use of participative
decision procedures are most effective (Argyris, 1964; Likert, 1967;
McGregor, 1960). Blake and Mouton developed a managerial grid
that describes managers in terms of concern for people and concern
for task (Blake & Mouton, 1964). Research in Japan promulgates a
similar two- factor theory called PM Leadership Theory (Misumi &
Peterson, 1985). This theory proposes that effective leaders are high
in both performance behavior and maintenance behavior. These
studies conclude that the most successful managers are those who
show a high degree of concern for both people and task in all
situations (Yukl, 1994).
(3) Leadership Traits and Skills
Studies on leadership traits and skills propose that some people
have innate and/or learned characteristics that: ( 1 ) make them more
likely to attain or seek leadership positions and (2) increase the
chance that they will be effective leaders. Numerous studies on this
subject have been conducted, though few if any of them identify a
particular set of traits or skills that predict leadership advancement
or effectiveness (Yukl, 1994). The following literature review
describes some of these research efforts.
96
McClelland conducted research on managerial motivation.
McClelland and his associates identify three such motives: the needs
for achievement, power, and affiliation (McClelland, 1965;
McClelland, 1985). The implications of this research are that
managers are more likely to be effective, if they have strong
socialized nPower (need for power), a moderate level of
nAchievement, and a lower nAffiliation. When managers vary from
this trait pattern, it may result in their failure. However, the
specific situation determines the actual optimization of these three
motives.
Miner's theory of managerial role motivation includes
motivational traits for management success in large corporations
(Miner, 1965). Traits that can be used to predict success include the
desire to exercise managerial advancement, to use power, and to
compete with peers, and a positive attitude toward authority.
Implications of Miner's theory include the need for a manager may
need to possess these traits in order to advance to high levels in a
large, hierarchical organization. However, they may not be as
important to advancement in a smaller, less bureaucratic company.
Boyatzis conducted research to discover competencies related
to managerial effectiveness (Boyatzis, 1982). Competencies include
personality traits, motives, skills, knowledge, and self-image.
Boyatzis correlates certain traits and skills in these categories with
effective managers, whereas, correlation's were low for ineffective
managers.
Through longitudinal research with assessment centers,
researchers have discovered traits related to managerial
97
advancement in corporations. These traits include the desire to
advance, dominance, interpersonal skills, cognitive skills, and
administrative skills. Assessment centers help management identify
managerial potential through the use of simulations. Candidates are
measured by a team of judges and a final score is assigned that
signifies the candidates' potential for success in a higher level
position (Bray, Campbell & Grant, 1974; Howard & Bray, 1988).
These studies find that a person with high levels of the above traits,
is more likely to advance if he or she is in an organization that
encourages the development of managerial skills, where challenging
assignments are given with increasing responsibility, and a leader
who is a positive role model.
Studies of successful versus derailed managers were conducted
by the Center for Creative Leadership (Lombardo & McCauley, 1988;
McCall & L£»mbardo, 1983a; McCall & Lombardo, 1983b). These
studies attempt to define traits and behaviors that can be associated
with success and failure of top level executives. These researchers
find some similarities between the two groups, which include,
ambition, strong technical skills, a string of prior successes, and are
seen as "fast risers." The major traits identified and that distinguish
the two groups include emotional stabiUty, composure,
defensiveness, integrity, interpersonal skills, technical and cognitive
skills. Findings do not reveal a perfect formula for successful
advancement. Instead, researchers primarily find similarities
between the successful and derailed managers. Although, some of
the reasons for derailment are evident, others are less so, but can be
attributed to bad luck, such as an economic downturn. Also, traits
98
and skills that may be at one point a strength or unimportant can
eventually hurt a manager as he or she advances, thus leading to
failure.
(4) Power and Influence
This review of literature on leadership considers the work on
implications of power and influence for the effectiveness of
individual managers. This research focuses on the question, "Do
effective leaders have or use different types of power than
ineffective leaders?"
The sources of power used in organizations are classified by
French and Raven (French & Raven, 1959). Their taxonomy consists
of: reward, coercive power, legitimate power, expert power, and
referent power. Additional research finds expert and referent power
is positively correlated with subordinate satisfaction and
performance, although results for legitimate, reward, and coercive
power are inconsistent (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989; Rahim, 1989;
Schriesheim, Hinkin & Podsakoff, 1991; Yukl & Falbe, 1991) Findings
overall indicate that effective leaders use expert and referent power
to influence subordinates.
Another approach to conceptualizing power sources is
examining the dichotomy between "position power" and "personal
power" (Bass, 1960; Etzioni, 1961). It is generally believed today
that these studies have questionable findings because of their lack of
demonstrated validity of the power measures (Podsakoff &
Schriesheim, 1985). In particular, the extent to which coercion and
reward affect subordinates is not well understood. It may well be
99
that effective leaders use a mixture of different kinds or sources of
power (Kotter, 1985; Kotter, 1982).
Two major theories, Social Exchange theory, and Strategic
Contingencies theory have been proposed that examine how power is
acquired, maintained, or lost in organizations.
Social Exchange theory explains the acquisition and loss of
power through "reciprocal influence processes." In other words,
acquisition of power is the result of an exchange of benefits or favors
between people. These benefits may be in the form of material
things, but also can be expressions of approval, esteem, affection,
respect, and other psychological favors (Blau, 1974; Hollander, 1958;
Hollander, 1979; Homans, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
Expectations of the leadership role to be played by an individual is
influenced by that member's demonstration of competence and
loyalty to the group. The degree of influence and status is
proportional to the extent that group evaluates the contributions of
the individual, as compared to other group members. As the
person's expertise and trust is confirmed, members are more willing
to suspend judgment and take up a follower role. In this manner,
the leader gains support for innovation.
According to these researchers, the opposite is also true; that is,
if the leader's proposals fail, the group will reassess the leader's
contributions, and then are less likely to follow. When the leader's
failures are perceived to be a result of incompetence or poor
judgment, the members' negative view of the leader is stronger,
rather than when failure is seen as being due to outside forces.
"Success resulting from innovation leads to greater credit, but failure
100
leads to greater blame" (Yukl, 1994 p. 210). The leader is looked to
by the group to propose new ways of dealing with problems and
issues, in other words, he or she is expected to innovate. A leader
who fails to show initiative actions will lose esteem and influence
(Hollander, 1979). In this research, the leader's role in organizational
change is becoming more pivotal.
The Social Exchange theory also considers the leader's
positional situation. Leaders of corporations, as well as leaders of
small groups, gain influence and status the same way, that is, by
demonstrating expertise and loyalty. However, leaders who have
been appointed by superiors are less subject to subordinates' views
of their competence, and therefore, less subject to their evaluation in
order to retain their power (Evans & Zelditch, 1961). The Social
Exchange theory has been tested in laboratory experiments on small
groups, but longitudinal research to verify application to large groups
and organizations has not taken place (Hollander, 1979).
Strategic Contingencies theory deals with how subunits rather
than how individuals of an organization gain power. However, a
member of a powerful subunit is more likely to become a leader than
members of less powerful and influential subunits (Hickson, Hinings,
Lee, Schneck & Pennings, 1971). According to these theorists, the
power of a subunit depends upon the unit's expertise in coping with
important and critical problems, and the uniqueness of that expertise
being located in a central position within the workflow.
In addition to the above four categories of leadership theory,
there are three other perspectives on leadership in the literature.
The following section reviews that literature.
101
Charismatic Leadership
Charismatic leadership has only recently been researched in
organizations. Weber refers to charisma as occurring when social
crisis takes place and a leader with exceptional characteristics comes
forth with a radical vision to resolve the crisis (Weber, 1947).
Followers perceive the a leader as charismatic if he/she has
extraordinary traits. In years following Weber's work, a major
controversy has taken place over what constitutes charisma.
Numerous researchers have attempted to determine if charisma is a
result of leader attributes, situational conditions, or the interaction
between leader and followers (Berger, 1963; Bromley & Shupe, 1979;
Cohen, 1972) (Dow, 1969; Friedrich, 1961; Kanter, 1968; Shils, 1965).
More recently, researchers have begun to agree that the
phenomenon of charismatic leadership is the result of a complex
interaction between leader qualities and behaviors, and follower
perceptions and attributions in specific leadership situations (Bass,
1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987).
Another review of the literature on this subject also shows
theories of charismatic leadership based on leader traits, leader
behaviors, and facilitating conditions (House, 1977). According to
House, a charismatic leader's impact or effect on followers is both
profound and unusual (House, 1977). House found that followers
perceive the leader's beliefs to be correct. Followers feel an affection
for the leader and they believe emotionally in the mission of the
organization. In addition, according to House, followers feel they can
positively contribute to the success of this mission and have high
performance standards.
102
Smith's empirical studies show that followers of charismatic
leaders are self-assured and fmd the work of the organization as
more meaningful (Smith, 1982). However, these followers did not
give unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the leader.
Other researchers have created questionnaires that attempt to
measure charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Morrman & Fetter, 1990). According to these
researchers, results indicate that subordinates fmd leaders who
articulate vision, model desirable behaviors, and communicate high
performance expectations, have greater trust and loyalty toward
their manager. Such subordinates also work harder, take
responsibility for preventing problems, and complain less about their
work conditions.
To test House's theory of three charismatic behaviors
mentioned above, Howell and Higgins have conducted research
comparing project champions with executives not identified as such
(Howell & Higgins, 1990). They fmd that successful project
champions exhibit greater use of these three charismatic behaviors
than do the other executives.
Howell and Frost conducted laboratory experiments on college
students to test charismatic leaders' patterns of behavior, comparing
their styles with other leadership styles (Howell & Frost, 1989).
Groups whose leaders exhibit, according to Howell and Frost,
charismatic behavior patterns, such as explaining the importance of
the work, communicating high performance expectations, showing
empathy with subordinate needs, and acting confidently, have higher
performance and greater satisfaction with the work, while exhibiting
103
less conflict than directive or considerate leadership behavior
pattern led groups.
A study of leadership in United States presidents is mostly
consistent with charismatic leadership theory (House, Spangler &
Woycke, 1991). They find that presidents with a socialized power
orientation show more typical charismatic leadership behaviors than
presidents who do not exhibit these leadership behaviors. These
presidents are more likely to be viewed as charismatic. In addition,
they rated higher in performance in economic and social categories.
Attribution Theory of Charisma
Conger and Kanungo propose an attribution theory of
charismatic leadership (Conger, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1987).
According to this theory, followers attribute charisma phenomena to
certain leaders. Attribution depends upon specific behavior patterns
perceived in the leader. These researchers state that not all
charismatic leaders have the same behaviors patterns, nor to an
equal extent. Conger and Kanungo believe that followers will
attribute charisma to leaders who exhibit the following behavior
patterns: advocating a vision that is a sharp break from the status
quo; acting in unconventional ways to achieve their vision; making
self-sacrifices by taking personal risk or paying high costs; appear
confident and enthusiastic about their proposals; using personal
power; and use persuasive appeals to obtain commitment (Conger,
1989).
According to Conger, charismatic leaders are able to influence
their followers through the process of personal identification. This
104
refers to the desire of followers to please and imitate the leader that
they admire (Conger, 1989). Personal identification also involves,
according to this theory, the followers perceiving a measure of their
self-worth by the leader's approval of their behavior.
The process of internalization of the leader's values, attitudes,
and beliefs, by his/her followers, is another means by which the
charismatic leader influences others (Conger, 1989). A well
communicated vision, that is relevant to followers' needs and
aspirations, can cause the internalization process and thereby be the
motivational source for followers' actions.
Self-Concept Theory of Charismatic Leadership
Continuing with the question of how charismatic leaders so
strongly influence or have power over their followers, some
researchers have studied why followers of a charismatic religious
leader are willing to give all their possessions away or why followers
of a charismatic political leader are willing to sacrifice their lives for
his/her cause (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). According to some
research on motivation, self-esteem seems to play an important role,
since people are motivated to enhance and defend their self-esteem
and self-worth (Shamir, 1991b). Charismatic leaders, use this
natural human motivation, through appropriate communication
processes, to enhance follower self-esteem, self-worth, and self-
efficacy. Through the use of symbols, slogans, and stories about past
events, charismatic leaders promote social identification and a
collective identity among their followers. They use themselves as
role models for followers to emulate.
105
According to Shamir, the motivational effects of a charismatic
leader are more likely to occur when the leader's vision is congruent
with the followers' values and when the organization's mission can
be linked to these values. Although the charismatic leader has
greater influence when a crisis situation exists, Shamir states, it is
not a necessary component for a charismatic leader to emerge
(Shamir et al., 1993).
Charisma as Social Contagion
A different approach to the study of charismatic leaders is to
examine the portion of followers who never come into direct contact
with the leader, yet are strongly influenced by him/her. Meindl
describes charisma as follower centered, not leader centered (Meindl,
1990). According to this theory, follower response is a result of a
social influence process among followers. Specifically, this process
has been termed "social contagion." This refers to a "spontaneous
spread of emotional and behavioral reactions among a group of
people"(Yukl, 1994 p. 329). Again, according to Meindl, many people
hold a heroic social identity in their self-concept. They want to see
themselves as part of a rightious cause, for which they are willing to
make self-sacrifices. However, usually this social identity is
submerged by other social identities, until a cause emerges that they
can identify with. This theory states that it is not important who
becomes the leader of the new cause, "as long as it is someone who is
sufficiently attractive and exceptional to qualify for the role" (Yukl,
1994 p. 330).
106
Participative Leadership
Participative leadership involves various ways in which a
leader or manager actively seeks the involvement of subordinates in
problem solving and making decisions in the organization. Theorists
have proposed various means that leaders employ to gain
participation (Heller & Yukl, 1969; Strauss, 1977; Tannenbaum &
Schmidt, 1958; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). However, there is probably
general agreement on the following categories that run on a
continuum from no influence by others to a high degree of influence:
autocratic decision, consultation, joint decision, and delegation (Yukl,
1994).
Research on participative management and leadership has
largely been inconclusive due to the methods utilized and the
difficulty in verifying data (Yukl, 1994). In most studies, the criteria
for leader effectiveness was usually subordinate satisfaction and
performance. However, three elements have been recognized in
choosing the appropriate decision making procedures: forces in the
leader, forces in subordinate, and forces in the situation
(Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958).
Vroom and Yetton Normative Decision Model
Vroom and Yetton further specify which decision making
procedures will be most effective (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). Overall
effectiveness, they state, is dependent upon two intervening
variables: decision quality and decision acceptance. These
intervening variables are affected, in turn, by the decision
procedures used by a leader. Decision acceptance refers to the
107
degree of subordinate commitment to the decision, and decision
quality refers to the choice of the best alternative being selected.
Vroom and Yetton identify five decision procedures for
decisions involving multiple subordinates: two varieties of autocratic
decision, two varieties of consultation, and one variety of joint
decision making by leader and subordinates (Yukl, 1994). According
to the normative decision model, effectiveness of a decision
procedure depends on seven aspects of the situation:
(1) the leader's possession of relevant information, (2)
the likelihood that subordinates will accept an autocratic
decision, (3) compatibility of leader and subordinate
objectives, (4) importance of decision quality, (5)
importance of decision acceptance, (6) amount of
disagreement among subordinates with respect to their
preferred alternatives, and (7) extent to which the
decision problem is unstructured (Yukl, 1994 p. 164).
This model presents a set of rules that helps leaders identify
inappropriate decision procedures.
Transformational Leadership
An early theorist on transformational leadership is James
McGregor Burns (Burns, 1978). According to Burns, transformational
leadership is a process in which "leaders and followers raise one
another to higher levels of morality and motivation" (Burns, 1978 p.
20). In other words, the transformational leader activates or triggers
higher-order needs and self-actualization motives (Maslow, 1954).
These leaders lift us to higher ideals, moral values, and self-
108
improvement. Burns believes that anyone in an organization, in any
position, can be a transformational leader through the process of
influencing peers, subordinates, and superiors.
Burns distinguishes between transformational and
transactional leadership. While transforming leaders seek to elevate
followers to better themselves, transactional leaders motivate
followers by appealing to their self-interest. The transactional leader
conducts exchanges with his/her followers. According to Burns,
transactional leaders exchange salary, benefits, and/or status for
follower work effort. Values that are involved in this exchange
process are based on such attributes as fairness, honesty, and
reciprocity.
On the other hand. Burns views transformational leadership as
a process, "a stream of evolving interrelationships in which leaders
are continuously evoking motivational responses from followers and
modifying their behavior as they meet responsiveness or resistance,
in a ceaseless process of flow and counter flow" (Burns, 1978 p. 440).
In other words, transformational leaders exist in an ongoing
relationship with their followers, trying different behaviors and
determining the appropriate response, in an ever changing attempt
at motivation.
Another theory, which is built upon Burns' work, proposes that
the transformational leader should be measured by the effects on
followers (Bass, 1985), Followers of transformational leaders feel
trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect for the leader. The
transformational leader gains followers and motivates them by:
109
• making them more aware of the importance of their tasks
and accomplishing their outcomes
• subordinating their self-interests for the good of the
organization and
• activating their higher-order needs.
According to this theory, there are four basic components of
transformational leadership: charisma, intellectual stimulation,
individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation (Bass,
1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990a). According to Bass, charisma refers to
the process of arousing strong emotions on the part of the followers
and identification with the leader. Intellectual stimulation is the
process where leaders create the awareness of problems and
influence followers to perceive these problems in a new way.
Individualized consideration is the process where leaders provide
support and encouragement to followers. Inspirational motivation is
defined as creating the appealing vision and focusing followers on
the effort through the use of symbols and stories. It also refers to
the leader modeling appropriate behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1990a).
Bass views transactional leadership as does Burns, that is, an
exchange of rewards for compliance. Bass' definition, however, is
broader and includes behavioral components of contingent reward,
active management, and passive management by exception.
Contingent reward refers to a clarification of required work to obtain
rewards and the use of incentives and contingent rewards to
influence motivation. Active management by exception includes the
monitoring of subordinates' work and taking corrective action when
work is not done properly. Passive management by exception refers
«
110
to corrective actions and punishments for deviations from acceptable
performance standards. Bass views Goal-Path leadership theory as
an example of transactional leadership. In addition, Bass believes
that transformational and transactional leadership are not mutually
exclusive and that any leader may use both, depending upon the
situation.
Bass differentiates between transformational and charismatic
leadership. Bass states that "Charisma is a necessary ingredient of
transformational leadership, but by itself it is not sufficient to
account for the transformational process" (Bass, 1985 p. 31). In
other words, according to Bass, a person can be a charismatic leader
without influencing people to transform their self interest for a
cause. The major difference in the approach between the two kinds
of leaders is that transformational leaders, while inspiring strong
emotions and identification with the leader, seek to empower and
elevate followers. In addition, transformational leaders are also,
teachers, mentors, and coaches to their followers. According to Bass,
leaders who are only charismatic seek the opposite, that is, to
weaken followers and make them dependent upon the themselves,
while instilling in them personal loyalty.
Bass defines charismatic differently than other leadership
theorists discussed such as House and Conger and Kanungo.
Charismatic leaders, according to Bass, believe that they possess a
supernatural purpose and destiny. Followers may worship the
leader and idolize him/her as a superhuman hero or spiritual figure.
By viewing leaders in this way, followers tend to project certain
characteristics as part of psychodynamic mechanisms that leaders
111
can trigger. Therefore, such behaviors as projection, repression, and
regression can be the result for individual followers. These
behaviors can then be magnified by group processes (Yukl, 1994).
Bass further explains the polarized responses of strong love or hate
emotions that such leaders elicit as the reason that charismatic
political leaders become targets of assassination. Unlike
transformational leaders who can be found at any level or position in
an organization charismatic leaders are rare according to Bass. They
emerge most often when the organization is in crisis and formal
authority has been unable to deal effectively with the situation.
112
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the Individual and the
Organization . New York: John Wiley.
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership. Psychology, and Orgnizational
Behavior . New York Harper.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond
Expectations . New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990a). Developing Transformational
Leadership: 1992 and Beyond. Journal of European Industrial
Training. 14 . 21-27.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies of
Taking Charge . New York: Harper & Row.
Berger, P. L. (1963). Charisma and Religious Innovation: The
Social Location of Israelite Prophecy. American Sociological Review.
23., 490-494.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid .
Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blau, P. M. (1974). Exchange and Power in Social Life . New
York: John Wiley.
Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., McGue, A., Segal, N. L, & Tellegen,
A. (1990). Sources of Human Psychological Differences: The
Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science. 250 . 223-228.
Boyatzis, R. (1982). The Competent Manager . New York: John
Wiley.
»
113
Bray, D. W., CampbeU, R. J., & Grant, D. L (1974). Formative
Years in Business: A Long Term AT&T Study of Managerial Lives .
New York: John Wiley.
Bromley, D. G., & Shupe, A. D. (1979). Moonies in America: Cult.
Church, and Crusade . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . New York: Harper & Row.
Cohen, D. L (1972). The Concept of Charisma and the Analysis
of Leadership. Political Studies. 20 (2 99-3 OS).
Conger, J. A. (1989). The Charismatic Leader: Behind the
Mystique of Exceptional Leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a Behavioral Theory
of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings. Academy of
Management Review. 12 . 637-647.
Day, R. C. (1971). Some Effects of Combining Close, Punitive, and
Supportive Styles of Supervision. Sociometry. 34 . 303-327.
Day, R. C, & Hamblin, R. L (1964). Some Effects of Close and
Punitive Styles of Supervision. American Journal of Sociology. 69 .
499-510.
Dow, T. E. (1969). The Theory of Charisma. Social Quarterly. 10 .
306-318.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex
Organizations . New York: Free Press.
Evans, M. G. (1974). Extensions of a Path-Goal Theory of
Motivation. Applied Psvchology. 59 . 172-178.
Evans, W. M., & Zelditch, M. (1961). A Laboratory Experiment
on Bureaucratic Authority. American Sociological Review. 26 . 883-
893.
114
Farris, G. F., & Jr., F. G. L (1969). Effects of Performance on
Leadership, Cohesiveness, Satisfaction, and Subsequent Performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology. S3 . 490-497.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness . New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership
Effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology . . New York: Academic Press.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The Description of Supervisory
Behavior. Personnel Psychology. 37 . 1-6.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The Bases of Social Power.
In D. Cartwright (Ed.). Studies of Social Power . (150-167). Ann Arbor,
MI: Institute for social Research.
Friedrich, C. J. (1961). Political Leadership and the Problem of
the Charismatic Power. Journal of Politics. 23 (February). 3-24.
Fulk, J., & Wendler, E. R. (1982). Dimensionality of Leader-
Subordinate Interactions: A Path-Goal Investigation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance. 30 . 241-264.
Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A Factorial Study of the
Leader Behavior Descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.),
Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement . (39-51).
Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Heller, F., & YukI, G. (1969). Paraticipaton, Managerial Decision
Making, and Situational Variables. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance. 4 . 227-241.
115
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E (1957a). Development of the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E.
Coons (Eds.). Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement . (6-
38). Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State
University.
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957b). Development of the
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E.
Coons (Eds.), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement . ( 6-
38). Columbus OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State
University.
Hickman, C. F. (1990). Mind of a Manager. Soul of a Leader . New
York: John Wiley.
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings,
J. M. (1971). A Strategic Contingencies Theory of Intra-organizational
Power. Administrative Science Quarterly. 16 . 216-229.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and
Application of New Scales to Measure the French and Raven Bases of
Social Power. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74 . 561-567.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, Status, and Idiosyncracy
Credit. Psychological Review. 65 . 117-127.
Hollander, E. P. (1979). Leadership and Social Exchange
Processes. In K. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social
Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research . . New York: Winston-
John Wiley.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American
lournal of Sociology. 63 . 597-606.
116
Hosking, D. M. (1988). Organizing, Leadership, and Skillful
Process. Tournal of Management Studies. 2S . 147-166.
House, R. J. (1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 16 (321-339).
House, R. J. (1977). A 1977 Theory of Charismatic Leadership.
In J. G. Hunt & L. L Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge .
(189-207). Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The Path-Goal Theory of
Leadership: Some Post Hoc and Priori Tests. In J.Hunt & L.Larson
(Eds.), Contingency Approaches to Leadership . . Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois Press.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality
and Charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A Psychological Theory of
Leadership Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36 . 364-
396.
Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial Lives in
Transition: Advancing Age and Changing Times . New York Guilford
Press.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. (1989). A Laboratory Study of
Charismatic Leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 43 . 243-269.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Leadership Behaviors,
Influence Tactics, and Career Experiences of Champions of
Technological Innovation. Leadership Quarterly. 1 . 249-264.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military Executive Leadership.
In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadership . ( 281-
295). West Qrange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
117
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and Social Organization: A
Study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities.
American Sociological Review. 33 (4). 499-518.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge of
Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders
Guide It. New York: The Free Press.
Karmel, B. (1978). Leadership: A Challenge to Traditional
Research Methods and Assumptons. Academy of Management
Review. 3 . 475-482.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1952). Some Recent Findings in Human
Relations Research. In E. Swanson, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley (Eds.),
Readings in Social Psycholog y. . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of
Organizations . (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L (1951). Productivity.
Supervision, and Morale Among Railroad Workers . Ann Arbor, MI:
Survey Research Center, University of Michigan.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity.
Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation . Ann Arbor, MI:
Institute for Social Research.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for Leadership:
Their Meaning and Measurement. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance. 22 . 375-403.
Kotter, J. (1985). Power and Influence . New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. (1988). The Leadership Factor . New York: Press Press.
Kotter, J. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs
From Management . New York: The Free Press.
118
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The General Managers . New York: Free
Press.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management . New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its Management
and Value . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lombardo, M. M., & McCauley, c. D. (1988). The Dynamics of
Management Derailment (Technical Report No. 34). Greensboro, NC:
Center for Creative Leadership.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and Information
Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance . Boston: Unwin-
Hyman.
Lowin, A., & Craig, J. R. (1968). The Influence of Level of
Performance on Managerial Style: An Experimental Object Lesson in
the Ambiguity of Correlational Data. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance. 3 . 440-458.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality . New York:
Harper & Row.
McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983a). Off the Tract: Why
and How Successful Executives Get Derailed (Technical Report No. 21).
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. N. (1983b). What Makes a Top
Executive? Psychology Today (February). 26-31.
McClelland, D. (1965). N-achievement and Entrepreneurship: A
Longitudinal Study. Tournal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1 .
389-392.
119
McClelland, D. (1985). Human Motivation . Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society . Princeton: Van
Nostrand.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise . New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On Leadership: An Alternative to the
Conventional Wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in Organizational Behavior . (Vol, 12, 159-203). Greenwich,
CT: JAl Press.
Miner, J. B. (1965). Studies in Management Education . Atlanta:
Organizational Measurement Systems Press.
Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. (1985). The Performance-
Maintenance (PM) Theory of Leadership: Review of a Japanese
Research Program. Administrative Science Ouarterly. 30 . 198-223.
Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy Models of Job Satisfaction,
Occupational Preference, and Effort: A Theoreitcal, Methodological,
and Empirical Appraisal. Psychological Bulletin. 81 (81). 1053-1077.
Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on Chaos . New York: Harper & Row.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Morrman, R. H., & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on
Follower's Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors. Leadership Ouarterly. 1 . 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985). Field Studies of
French and Raven's Bases of Power: Critique, Reanalysis, and
Suggestions for Future Research. Psychological Bulletin. 97 . 387-411.
120
Rahim, M. A (1989). Relationships of Leader Power to
Compliance and Satisfaction: Evidence From a National Sample of
Managers. Tournal of Management. 15 . 545-556.
Rauch, C. F., & Behling, 0. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an
Alternate Approach to the Study of Leadership. In J. G. Hunt, D. M.
Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and
Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and
Leadership . (45-62). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Schriesheim, C. A., Hinkin, T. R., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1991). Can
Ipsative and Single-Item Measures Produce Erroneous Results in
Field Studies of French and Raven's Five Bases of Power? An
Empirical Examination. Tournal of Applied Psychology. 17 . 106-114.
Senge, P. (1990a). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of
the Learning Organization . New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. (1990b). The Leader's New Work: Building Learning
Organizations. Sloan Management Review. 32 (Fain.
Shamir, B. (1991b). Meaning, Self, and Motivation in
Organizations. Organization Studies. 12 . 405-424.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational
Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-concept Based Theory.
Organization Science. 4 . 1-17.
Shils, E. (1965). Charisma, Order, and Status. American
Sociological Review. 30 . 199-213.
Sims, H. P., & Manz, C. C. (1984). Observing Leader Verbal
Behavior: Toward Reciprocal Determinism in Leadership Theory.
lournal of Applied Psvchology. 69 . 222-232.
121
Smith, B. J. (1982). An Initial Test of a Theory of Charismatic
Leadership Based on the Response of Subordinates. , University of
Toronto, Canada, Toronto.
Stogdlll, R. M. (1974). Handhook of Leadership: A Survey of the
Literature . New York: The Free Press.
Strauss, G. (1977). Managerial Practices. In J. R. Hackman & J. L
Suttle (Eds.), Improving Life at Work . . Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to Choose a
Leadership Pattern. Harvard Business Review. 36 (March-April). 95-
101.
Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, L R., & Massarik, F. (1961).
Leadership and Organization . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, F. W. (1947). The Principles of Scientific Management .
New York: Harper & Row.
Thlbaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of
Groups . New York: John Wiley.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation . New York: Wiley and
Sons.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W, (1973). Leadership and Decision
Making . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic
Organizations, translated by T. Parsons . New York: Free Press.
Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive Workplaces . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 6 . 414-440.
122
Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in Organizations . (Isted.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in Organizations . (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations . (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice_Hall, Inc.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). The Importance of Different
Power Sources in Downward and Lateral Attempts. Tournal of
A pplied Psychology. 76 . 416-423.
123
CHAPTER FOUR: LITERATURE REVIEW OF MENTAL MODELS
Introduction
According to a review of the literature, mental models are a
recent concept for examining how individuals and groups view the
world around them and the ways these views impact their actions
and behaviors in organizations. The importance of the concept of
mental models, according to Senge, is that the way we see the nature
of our world determines our responses to that world (Senge, 1993).
Actions we take are in response to our internal "pictures" of how the
world works. Therefore, mental models both assist and hinder us.
Mental models assist us through the process of generalization, so that
every situation we encounter is not experienced as being distinct and
novel. However, mental models hinder us through the same process
of generalization by lumping situations we encounter into predefined
experiences and thus Umiting the novelty and thus, the flexibility, of
our responses.
Description of Mental Models
Although researchers have occasionally used different terms,
there seems to be agreement in the literature on the concept of
mental models and how they are described. A sampling of
researchers' descriptions of mental models from the literature
follows.
Senge describes mental models as "... deeply held internal
images of how the world works, images that limit us to familiar ways
of thinking and acting" (Senge, 1990a p. 174). Bartlett describes a
• 124
mental structure called "schmata" which he defines as "... an active
organization of past reactions, or of past experiences, which must
always be supposed to be operating in any well-adapted organic
response" (Bartlett, 1932 p.201). In examining the term mental
models, Brewer concludes that the term could refer to "all forms of
mental representation, general or specific, from any domain, causal,
intentional or spatial" (Brewer, 1987 p. 193). In further describing
mental models, they have also been referred to as "... rules and
regulations, habits, managerial frames, assumptions, mind-sets,
paradigms, conventional wisdom, industry recipes, customs,
institutional memory, and so on" (SMR, 1997 p.l3).
The following section reviews the literature on the
development of the concept of mental models.
Development of the Concept of Mental Models
The term "mental model" has been used, at least since the
1930s, by cognitive theorists in their explanations of human learning.
According to some of these theorists, the human mind engages in a
mediating process between stimuli and human responses (Lovell,
1980). In other words, behavior does not result directly from a
stimulus; instead, it is the result of a mediating process. This
mediating process is part of our experience and active cognition
(Lovell, 1980). Using a term equivalent to "mental models,"
"schmata," Bartlett states, develop from our life experiences and
grow and change throughout our lives (Bartlett, 1932). Another
cognitive theorist, Craik, explains that the mind functions through
mental models (Craik, 1943). Craik believes that reasoning is
' 125
accomplished through the use of mental models that imitate or
represent real life relationships and processes. Tolman refers to the
term "cognitive maps" to describe the process humans use in learning
(Tolman, 1948). According to, Tolman we build representations of
the environment and then refer to these before we commit to taking
actions. The term "mental model" has gained acceptance in
management literature (DeGeus, 1988; Porac, Thomas & Baden-
Fuller, 1989; Senge, 1990b).
Piere Wack was one who early on understood the power of
mental models and developed their use. Wack was not an academic
researcher when he joined Royal Dutch/Shell to work on future
scenarios for their Group Planning organization in 1971. He created
scenarios that challenged management's then current mental models
"... so that managers would question their own model of reality and
change it when necessary" (Senge, 1990a p. 179).
Other researchers, including Bartlett (1932), Schank (1982),
Lakoff (1987), and Johnson- Laird (1989), describe how people
represent knowledge about their external environment through the
use of mental models, which are also referred to as "cognitive
models."
Physiological research supports the concept that our
understanding of the external world is a result of our interpretation
of data, rather than being a matter of responding to factual
phenomena. This research applies to the concept of mental models.
One example of this interpretation of data includes research cited by
Sacks as well as Cheselden, Gregory and Wallace, Hebb, Hine, and von
Senden (Sacks, 1995). According to these researchers, the human
♦ 126
brain has a center that receives stimuli from the optic nerves and
translates these data into what is commonly referred to as sight
(Sacks, 1995). In other words, sight is an interpretation of data that
our eyes perceive. To further demonstrate this concept, sometimes
the brain center doesn't interpret data very well. According to Sacks,
the center for interpreting optic input (stimuli) in the brain needs to
learn how to make meaning out of the data it receives. This ability is
accomplished early in a child's developing brain. i Sacks states that
the brain may "unlearn" its ability to interpret data when sight is
lost. Sacks writes of his work with a patient named Virgil who lost
his sight at age six and got it back forty years later. Virgil had great
difficulty in seeing normally when his sight returned. His brain did
not interpret data well; in particular, it was unable to perceive the
wholeness of objects. For example, he could make out paws, tail, and
nose as part of a dog or cat, but could not put the pieces together to
distinguish a dog from a cat, or what a whole dog or cat looked like
(Sacks, 1995, 108-152).
Sacks' research seems to indicate that what we as individuals
see in the external world, at least in part, occurs through a learning
process. In other words, we learn to see; we learn to distinguish
objects from the background; we learn to distinguish size and shape;
and we learn to see space and distance in relation to ourselves
(Sacks, 1995). Therefore, we can deduce that aspects of our mental
models are learned over time and built through our experiences and
perceptions.
ISacks doesn't indicate the time period nor how long this development takes.
• 127
The following is a literature review that describes the role of
mental models in organizational change.
The Role of Mental Models in Organizational Change
"Given human frailties as information processors,
mental models allow individuals and organizations to
make sense of their environment and act within it. The
problem, of course, is that mental models may be, or
become, inaccurate" (Barr, Stimpert & Huff, 1992b).
In other words, mental models determine how stimuli will be
interpreted and used by individuals and organizations. Since
humans are selective in what stimuli is received, mental models even
determine what we notice (Sacks, 1995). Rumelhart states mental
models "... facilitate learning by allowing humans to fill gaps in both
information and memory, and to construct updated models of reality
(Rumelhart, 1990). Thus, mental models are vital to us for
information processing by constructing models of how we see the
world instead of requiring us to build new models for each new
situation we encounter. "Mental models are considered
indispensable to information processing because they organize
knowledge in simple, robust and parsimonious ways, in a world
awash with information of staggering complexity" (Vandenbosch &
Higgins, 1995).
The down side of mental models, according to Senge, is that
they often result in blocking learning and transformational change
• 128
(Senge, 1990a). This occurs when mental models become rigid and
fixed.
The concept of mental models also applies to organizations;
however, in this case, it is the mental models of interacting
individuals that are being examined. Organizations confront the
same problems as individuals when they take their mental models
for granted and don't challenge their assumptions and
generalizations. When an organization falls victim to rigid mental
models, it loses its creativity and ability to grow. While mental
models cannot be continually questioned without stopping all
activity, it is crucial that they be made explicit and that opportunities
are provided for sharing and examining them. According to Argyris
and Schon, individuals and organizations may go through processes
of single loop and double loop learning. Single loop involves error
correction rather than challenging the existing "...framework of
norms for performance" (Argyris & Schon, 1978 p. 21). It is only
double loop learning that uses the processes of inquiry and reflection
that results in organizational learning.
According to the literature, the concept of mental models seems
to be extremely important to understand for organizations to have
the capacity to implement transformational change (Argyris, Putnam
& Smith, 1985a; Argyris & Schon, 1978; Senge, 1990a). Cases cited
by Senge indicate that those involved in transforming their
companies, including Pierre Wack at Royal Dutch/Shell and CEO Bill
O'Brien at Hanover Insurance, demonstrate that transformational
change would not have been successful without having been able to
"surface and discuss productively their different ways of looking at
• 129
the world" (Senge, 1990a p. 182). A longitudinal study by Barr,
Stimpert, and Huff on two railroad companies indicates the important
role of mental models and the ability of company executives to adapt
and change their models for organizational success (Barr, Stimpert &
Huff, 1992a).
An often cited example of the role that mental models play in
organizational change, is the Swiss watch making industry (Brown,
1994). Although, the Swiss pioneered the development of the quartz
crystal watch mechanism, Swiss executives did not see quartz
movements' impact on watch making. This left the Japanese free to
exploit the new technology at the expense of the Swiss watch making
industry.
Argyris, through his research, understands how managers'
mental models, that consist of their deeply held attitudes, beliefs and
assumptions, cause them to behave in often counter productive ways.
Argyris posits that we develop "'... defensive routines' that insulate
our mental models from examination" (Senge, 1990a p. 182). In
other words, Argyris sees how managers have great difficulty in
learning from other managers because of "defensive routines" that
they use to protect their mental models from being challenged. This
results in behavior that Argyris calls "skilled incompetence" (Argyris,
1985b; Argyris et al., 1985a). As part of their "defensive routines,"
managers might, for example, discuss with others their ideas and
thoughts on business strategies while, to protect their mental models,
refusing to discuss the basis for their opinions. Instead, such
managers will debate the virtues of their ideas over others and
stubbornly hold to their positions. This behavior, Argyris terms.
• 130
"espoused theory," which refers to those principles and attitudes that
we say, and may actually think, we believe in. Managers' deeply
held beliefs, on the other hand, Argyris terms, "theory-in-use"
(Argyris & Schon, 1978; Argyris et al., 1985a). "Theory-in-use" is
manifested when stress and crisis occur that cause managers to act
from their deeply held beliefs. Therefore, mental models consist, in
part, of "theories-in-use" that we use to understand the world
around us and "espoused theories" that we use to protect our
emotional investment in ideas and positions that we hold.
Individual's mental models are extremely difficult to change
since people are heavily emotionally invested in them. Argyris says
that in order to change them, double-loop learning is required. The
process of conducting double-loop learning is called "theory of action"
(Argyris & Schon, 1978). Argyris and his associate at MIT, Donald
Schon, believe that "theory of action" is at the core of organizational
learning and the ability to transform organizations (Senge, 1990a). It
is a process of "...becoming increasingly aware of your own stumbling
blocks and those of others, and continually building the capacity in
yourself to stop the action..." and ask yourself what are your real
assumptions and beliefs? "Theory of action," is a process of
examining our own mental models and the behaviors they cause
(Chawla & Renesch, 1995).
Argyris' "theory of action" is one example of using the concept
of mental models to assist leaders in transforming their
organizations. Another approach that relies strongly on mental
models is called "map analysis." This is a process of extracting,
analyzing, and combining individual mental models into cognitive
• 131
maps (Carley, 1997). Individual cognitive maps are then combined
to produce a team map with information as to the possible
effectiveness of a team and what it may need to develop greater
teamwork.
There are many examples in which management's mental
models have resulted in suboptimal decision making and action. The
American automobile industry's obsolete view of consumers in the
late 1960s and early 1970s and its subsequent inability to recognize
changing needs and wants has had severe consequences for
American manufacturing and the loss of jobs in that industry
(Vandenbosch & Higgins, 1995).
According to the literature, the relationship between flexible
executive mental models and competitive performance has
significant implications for executive learning. Superior competitive
performance is likely dependent upon management's ability to learn
and make sense of uncertain and ambiguous competitive
environments. An example of utilizing the concept of mental models
and executive learning for organizational change is Executive Support
Systems (ESS) (Vandenbosch & Higgins, 1995). "These systems are
designed to provide executives with high-quality information in a
form that is easy to access, and use, and is relevant to decision
making" (Vandenbosch & Higgins, 1995 p. 2). ESS is designed to
contribute significantly to managers' abilities to read their
environments and shape their organizations' competitive
performance. The role that ESS plays is that of providing stimuli for
executives in adapting their mental models. These stimuli may lead
to learning in one of two ways. First, they can help to confirm
♦ 132
managers' existing mental models. An executive may learn to hold
his or her position more strongly as a result of the information
provided by an ESS. Second, information contained in an ESS may
challenge existing mental models, and encourage and facilitate the
development of new ones. Managers may learn to think about their
businesses in entirely or partially new ways through their processing
of the information contained in their ESS.
This chapter posits that to a great extent, an organization's
culture shapes individual and group mental models. Culture, as
defmed, in part, by Schein, is:
A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group
learned ,.., that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel ... (Schein, 1992 p.
12).
Schein continued by stating that:
The function of cognitive structures [mental models] such
as concepts, beliefs, attitudes, values, and assumptions [in
other words, one's culture] is to organize the mass of
environmental stimuU, to make sense of them, and to
provide, thereby, a sense of predictability and meaning to
the individual (Schein, 1992 p. 298).
In other words, an organization's culture has a powerful impact
on shaping the mental models of those who belong to it. We are
positing that how people perceive the world around them and even
what they perceive, is shaped primarily by their cultural
environment.
♦ 133
However, individuals and groups that belong to an
organization's culture have, in turn, the power to shape (or reshape)
that culture. This is most often accomplished in organizations by
leaders. Leaders are able to alter a culture by helping individuals
and groups change their mental models by first presenting a
"disequilibrium" (Lewin, 1951) or "creative tension" (Senge, 1990a)
in the current situation or state. The leader then reveals a new
vision that helps organizational members "unfreeze" their mental
models, begin reshaping how they perceive their world, and thereby
change their culture.
134
REFERENCES
Anonymous. (1997). What are Mental Models? Sloan
Management Review. 38 (3). 13.
Argyris, C. (1985b). Strategy. Change, and Defensive Routines .
Cambridge MA: Ballinger.
Argyris, C, Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985a). Action Science .
(1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C, & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A
Theory of Action Perspective . Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L, & Huff, A. S. (1992a). Cognitive
Change, Strategic Action, and Organizational Renewal. Strategic
Management Journal. 13 (Special Issue), 15-36.
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L, & Huff, A. S. (1992b). Cognitive
Change, Strategic Action, and Organizational Renewal. Strategic
Management Journal. 13 (Special). 15-36.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental
and Social Psychology . London: Cambridge University Press.
Brewer, W. F. (1987). Schemas Versus Mental Modles in Human
Memory. In P. Morris (Ed.), Modelling Cognition . . New York: John
Wiley.
Brown, L C. (1994). New "Mental Models" for Credentialing and
Peer Review. Health Svstems Review. 27 (May/Iune). 37-39.
Carley, K. M. (1997). Extracting Team Mental Models Through
Textual Analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 18 (Special
Issue) . 533-558.
• 135
Chawla, S., & Renesch, J. (Eds.). (1995). Learning Organizations:
Developing Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace . Portland, Oregon:
Productivity Press.
Craik, K. (1943). The Nature of Explanation . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
DeGeus, A. P. (1988). Planning as Learning. Harvard Business
Review. March-April . 70-74.
Kleiner, A. (1996). The Age of Heretics: Heroes. Outlaws, and
the Forerunners of Corporate Change . (1 ed.). New York: Doubleday.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science . New York-
Harper.
Lovell, R. B. (1980). Adult Learning . New York: John Wiley.
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive
Groups as Cognitive Communities: The Case of the Scottish Knitwear
Manufactures, lournal of Management Studies. 26 (4). 197-416.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1990). Schemata: The Building Blocks of
Cognition. In R. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical
Issues in Reading Comprehension . . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sacks, O. (1995). An Anthropologist on Mars . New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, Inc.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Or ganizational Culture and Leadership . San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990a). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of
the Learning Organization . New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. (1990b). The Leader's New Work: Building Learning
Organizations. Sloan Management Review. 3 2 (Fall).
Senge, P. (1993). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook .
136
Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men.
Psychological Review. 55 . 189-208.
Vandenbosch, B., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Executive Support
Systems and Learning: A Model and Empirical Test. Journal of
Management Information Systems. 12 (2). 99-130.
137
CHAPTER FIVE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose
This research is my personal journey, seeking understanding of
organizational change and transformation and the role that leaders
have in effecting it. In addition, I explore the concept of mental
models and use this concept as a tool that may help consultants
analyze and improve a leader's efforts in changing their organization.
Theoretical Basis for Conducting Qualitative Research
Qualitative Research
According to Denzin and Lincoln, qualitative research refers to
many approaches to the study of a multitude of subjects and areas.
However, Denzin and Lincoln provide a generic definition:
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus,
involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its
subject matter. ... [QJualitative researchers study things in
their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or
interpret, phenomena in terms of meanings people bring
to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use
and collection of a variety of empirical materials-case
study, personal experience, introspective, life story,
interview, observational, historical, interactional, and
visual tests-that describe routine and problematic
moments and meanings in individual's lives. Accordingly,
qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of
interconnected methods, hoping always to get a better fix
on the subject matter at hand (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994 p.
2).
• 138
Bogdon and Biklen posit that there are five features that all
qualitative research possess, although a particular research design
most likely does not have all five, and these features vary in degree
employed: (1) Research is conducted in a natural setting and data is
obtained from this source. The researcher is the primary tool in data
collection. (2) Research is descriptive and anecdotal. (3) Research is
concerned with process not just outcomes. (4) Data is not collected to
prove a hypothesis, rather any meaning obtained comes from data
analysis. In other words, concepts emerge or bubble up from the
data, or as Glaser and Strauss refer to the process, "grounded theory"
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). (5) Researchers are primarily interested in
subject's perceptions about the area being studied (Bogdan & Biklen,
1992).
The multimethod focus of qualitative research is important to
emphasize. According to Denzin and Lincoln, qualitative research is a
set of interpretative practices with no single methodology
predominating (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Unlike the positivist
approach (see below) which believe that there is an objective reality
"out there" and use scientific methods to validate their theories,
qualitative researchers substitute for validity by using multimethods
or trangulation in an attempt to gain in-depth understanding of the
problem being investigated (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). In addition,
Denzin and Lincoln posit that qualitative research has "... no theory,
or paradigm, that is distinctly its own (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994 p. 3).
Instead many theories and paradigms claim to use qualitative
research methods and strategies including constructivism, cultural
139
studies, feminism, Marxism, and ethnic models of study. "Qualitative
researchers use semiotics, narrative, content, discourse, archival, and
phonemic analysis, even statistics ... and draw upon and utilize the
approaches, methods, phenomenology, hermeneutics, feminism,
rhizomatics, deconstructionism, ethnographies, interviews,
psychoanalysis, cultural studies, survey research, an participant
observations, among others" (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994 p. 3). In other
words, qualitative research is a very broad and open field that
allows a multitude of strategies and approaches to study a wide
range of topics and areas.
Phenomenological Approach
The research in this dissertation takes a phenomenological
approach to qualitative research. A phenomenological approach
refers to attempts at understanding the "meaning of events and
interactions to ordinary people in particular situations" (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992). In other words, we try to gain an understanding of
how subjects perceive certain aspects of their world, what their
reality looks like through their own eyes. The phenomenological
approach posits that people construct knowledge about the world
around them. "We invent concepts, models, and schemes to make
sense of experience and further, we continually test and modify
these constructions in the light of new experience" (Schwandt, 1994
p. 125-126).
Symbolic Interaction
Additionally, this research utilizes symbolic interaction
perspective which is compatible with a phenomenological approach
• 140
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). The basic concept of symbolic interaction is
that people place meaning upon all aspects of their lives. These
aspects, such as events, objects, other people, and situations, have no
independent meaning of their own. In other words, people confer
meaning upon them. "The meaning people give to their experience
and their process of interpretation are essential and constitutive, not
accidental or secondary to what the experience is" (Bogdan & Biklen,
1992). In order to understand people's actions and behaviors,
according to symbolic interaction, we must first understand the
meaning they give their experiences (Schwandt, 1994). By
understanding the symbols and meaning people confer upon their
life experiences we can better understand their actions.
Additionally, the meanings that people have are partially
determined with the help of others (Schwandt, 1994). Meaning is
constructed through interaction with such influences as other people
and mass media. Individual's mental models are another way of
expressing this idea of constructed meaning in symbolic interaction.
One aspect of the research in this paper is to describe the
constructed meaning (mental models) of leaders and other
organizational members. According to symbolic interaction theory,
people's actions and behavior are primarily based on these
constructed meanings and not upon personal traits, internal drives,
and unconscious needs and motives. It is people's perception of
events and situations in their lives and how they interpret them that
determine their behavior. An interpretive process also modifies
these meanings. Meanings are modified through experiences in
• 141
particular situations in which the individual is engaged according to
Mead and Blumer (Schwandt, 1994).
Another concept that is important to symbolic interaction
theory is the construct of "self." "Self is defined by the individual
through interaction with others. According to Bogdan and Biklen,
"...people come to see themselves in part as others see them" (Bogdan
& Biklen, 1992 p. 37). Therefore, it is through the self s interaction
with others and its perception of others' reactions to the self that
defines the individual.
Portraiture
Another approach to qualitative research that is also
compatible with phenomenological concepts and which I employ in
my research is portraiture. Portraiture, according to Lawrence-
Lightfoot, is a research process that bridges the boundary of art and
science that "combines empirical and aesthetic description" creating a
narrative that is rich in description and captures the "essence of the
actor's experience and perspective..." (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis,
1997 p. 12-13). The authors describe portraiture as creating
... a narrative that is at once complex, provocative, and
inviting, that attempts to be holistic, revealing the
dynamic interaction of values, personality, structure, and
history. And the narrative documents human behavior
and experience in context ... [it is] the only way to
interpret people's actions, perspectives, and talk is to see
them in context (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997 p. 11).
As I present indepth descriptions of subjects' mental models in
narrative form, in this paper, 1 am using a variation of the
• 142
portraiture method. In this approach I am attempting to produce a
"convincing and authentic narrative" (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis,
1997 p. 12). The authentic nature of these narratives is an
important aspect of the research since reUabiUty and validity of the
research is difficult to demonstrate or maintain. Instead, rigorous
detail of subjects' perspectives and acknowledgment that bias can
enter into the data is used to create authentic narratives.
Research Design
What organizational leaders think regarding the organization,
its members, organizational change, and the individual's own
existence within this environment is the result, to a great extent, of
their mental models. Therefore, it is important for the researcher to
understand both the contexts and mental models with which leaders
and middle level managers are involved, since the ways in which
transformational change is carried out may reflect the mental models
of the initiators and implementers of that change effort. In order to
study individuals' mental models in the context of transformational
organizational change, this research explores four areas of subjects'
mental models: ( 1 ) their thinking about the nature of organizations,
(2) their beliefs about the nature of people in organizations, (3) their
understanding of the nature of organizational change, and (4) their
own self perception in their changing organizational environment.
Rationale for Use of Subject Codes
It should be mentioned that these four categories are well
established in organizational change literature as representing
traditional views of organizational dimensions. For example, Conner
143
views organizational dimensions during change as consisting of eight
patterns. The primary one is "Resilience," with the other seven
supporting patterns consisting of "Synergy", "Nature," "Process,"
"Roles," "Resistance," "Commitment," and "Culture" (Conner, 1993).
Weisbord's Six-Box Organizational Model of organizational
dimensions consists of "Purpose," "Structure," "Rewards," "Helpful
Mechanisms" (coordinating technologies), and "Relationships" (Burke,
1992). The Burke-Litwin Model posits that organizational
dimensions consists of: "Leadership," "Organizational Culture,"
"Systems," "Individual Needs and Values," "Motivation," "Task
Requirements," "Structure," "Management Practices," "Mission and
Strategy," "Work Unit Climate," and "Individual and Organizational
Performance" (Burke, 1992). The four categories presented in this
dissertation encompass all of the above organizational dimensions.
The research is open to examining any of them which relate to the
mental models of the subjects.
The importance of studying and examining mental models is
also well established in the literature!. The importance of the
concept of mental models, according to Senge, is that the way we see
the nature of our world determines our responses to that world
(Senge, 1993). Bolman and Deal write extensively on the importance
of understanding our "frames", i.e. mental models, and having the
skill of seeing organizational situations from different "frames" and
thereby improving leaders' opportunities to make better decisions
(Bolman & Deal, 1997). Oshry examines the mental models of "Tops,
1 For more information on mental models please see the literature review on
mental models in this dissertation.
144
Middles, and Bottoms" in the power hierarchy of the organization
and the control they have over organizational life (Oshry, 1995).
It's important to note that the research conducted for this
dissertation on CEOs and middle level managers is a study of self
reports without verification. What leaders and managers discuss,
what they actually believe, and what they do in reality may be
different, and according to Argyris, often is. Argyris believes that all
individuals have personal theories, i.e. mental models, for action, and
that these personal theories are assumptions that guide behaviors in
organizations.2 Argyris constrasts our "espoused theories" (what we
say we believe) with our "theories-in-use" (what we truly beheve)
by positing that there may be a large gap between what individuals
say they believe, what they actually believe, and what they actually
do. Management styles, leadership styles, and political motives and
actions are areas where great gaps between "espoused theories" and
"theories-in-use" may often be found. The result is that "Managers'
talk is often unconnected to their actions. They typically see
themselves as rational, open, concerned for others, and democratic,
not realizing that their actions are competitive, controlling, and
defensive" (Bolman & Deal, 1997 p. 145). What makes the situation
even more complex and difficult to deal with, from the perspective
of an individual in an organization and those who work with him or
her, is that individuals often employ self protecting behaviors to
avoid embarrassment and/or threats to their self perceptions,
2 See Chapter Four: Literature Review of Mental Models for detailed
information.
• 145
consciously and/or unconsciously. These self protecting behaviors
may "blind" the individuals from their true feelings and motives.
The extent of awareness of subjects' thinking effects their
responses to all four categories. Although the subjects may have
reported on "espoused" mental models, rather than mental models
"in use", this research cannot address this distinction because all
reports are based on individual perceptions, not through researcher's
observation. The focus of this research is on individuals' mental
models and not on evaluation or verification based on behavior.
The following description further explains these four areas.
The Nature of Organizations
The nature of organizations category refers to subjects'
perceptions of how organizations operate, what makes them tick.
More specifically, it refers to how subjects perceive and understand
the relevance and importance of organizations' structure, function,
systems and processes, rules and policies, planning and control
systems, networks, matrix and other design structures, and
relationships among component parts, both in general and in their
particular context. For example, one research subject likened an
organization to a living organism:
I view organizations very much like organisms, human
organisms. It is a whole and needs to be seen and treated as such.
When layoffs occur, you need to focus on the remaining people
and what the implications are on them both from a functional
point of view, as how the jobs are redefined, and how the fabric
• 146
and texture of the organization is put back together so that it will
actually work.
It is important to study their perceptions of the nature of
organizations since, as Bolman and Deal state, " Like an animal's
skeleton or a building's framework, structural form both enhances
and constrains what organizations can accomplish" (Bolman & Deal,
1997 p. 39).
The Nature of People in Organizations
The nature of people in organizations category refers to the
ways subjects perceive and understand what members of
organizations want, what motivates them, how they react to different
organizational situations and events, and how group dynamics
impact members working in meetings, teams, task forces, and
informal situations, both in general and in their specific context. The
importance of considering people's needs and motivations was
recognized by Douglas McGregor, an early researcher in human
performance (McGregor, 1960). He was one of the first to posit that
"...people's skills, attitudes, energy, and commitment [are] vital
resources capable of either making or breaking an enterprise"
(Bolman & Deal, 1997 p. 101). McGregor also posited that "The
motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming
responsibility... are all present in people. Management does not put
them there," stated McGregor (McGregor, 1960).
Other researchers have written extensively on needs of
workers and what motivates them in the work place
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1991; Deming, 1986; EE. Lawler, 1973; Hackman &
147
Oldham, 1980; Herzberg, 1966; Maslow, 1954; McClelland, 1961;
Weisbord, 1987).
The following quotes from subjects demonstrate examples of
this category:
I don't know how to describe it to you , but sort of a shutdown
mentality that seems to kick into place when people are
unwilling to or unable to accept that the situation is not exactly
how they anticipated it to be and hence they have to do some
things differently.
An organization has to be future oriented, you see it with human
beings. Human beings can maintain a level of energy and
enthusiasm and excitement as long as they are focused on where
they're going. Whenever they begin to focus on where they are
or where they have been they lose that level of excitement and
enthusiasm and energy. And energy is probably the most critical
component of driving an organization because that's what has
people create value. To think about where they can go, how they
can get there, what it is they need to do becomes the critical
aspect.
Thus, the category "the nature of people in organizations" will
comprise that portion of the subjects' mental models which relates to
their perception of individual's personal roles and behaviors within
institutions.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
The nature of organizational change category refers to
subjects' perceptions and understandings of the relevance and
importance of change, what causes resistance to it, what reduces it,
and what motivates people to support it. Included in this is the role
of organizational culture and norms and their contribution to
148
promoting or inhibiting change. This category also refers to the
subjects' understandings about all participants' roles in
organizational change, leader, as well as managers and workers.
Examples of tasks involved in effective organizational change that
need to be considered include dealing with conflict, loss, realignment,
and training and will be included in this category.
The following quotations from subjects demonstrate examples
of this category:
I think that leadership is critically important in creating both
environment and the broad stroke concepts about where your
going and how your going to get there.
I try to create a set of expectations. We launched a series of
planning meetings in which relationship issues were placed on
the table and then we initiated on a personnel level a program of
personal performance and development plans that allowed me
to, with each officer, agree on a change process for each person to
a development process.
Self Perception
The self perception category refers to subjects' perceptions and
understandings about themselves, their behaviors, motives, goals,
and desires, within the context of their organization. This category
also includes their discussions about the extent to which they are
willing and able to examine themselves as to what they think and
how they act in their organizational setting.
McGregor is forthright in his views on the requirement of self
perception. In the introduction to "The Professional Manager" by
McGregor, Schein stated:
149
The essence of the message [McGregor's] is that people
react not to an objective world, but to a world fashioned
out of their own perceptions, assumptions, and theories of
what the world is like. Managers, like all the rest of us,
can be trapped by these assumptions into inappropriate
and ineffective decisions, [by] "... releasing us from this
trap, by getting us to be aware of how each of our worlds
is of our own making," we would then be free to make
better choices (McGregor et al., 1967 p. xii).
The following quotations from subjects demonstrate examples of this
category:
Oh, then I am a good leader, because I'm telling you, I could be a
Jonestown type leader. These are fairly sophisticated people here,
but I really believe these people would follow me off a cliff if I
asked them.
The same subject contradicted herself later by stating:
I see this mistake coming. I left her a long voice mail message,
'X, this is Y.' Now she needs to hear a voice mail message
coming at 11:00 at night. 'I was looking over your memo and I
am a little bit concerned about your meeting tomorrow.' Rather
than, 'I think it's great X, that you're meeting with these people.
I love the idea that you're working through these people, good
luck.' That's the right message. But instead I'm saying , 'Do you
Icnow what your plan is and I'm just concerned .' She probably
listened to that message and thought 'I don't believe this bitch.'
Yeah, that's so anal.
Another subject states:
So even though I'm 50 years old, I continue to be able to screw up
and find things I managed to overlook along the way.
• 150
Data Gathering, Sampling, and Analysis
The research plan was to interview leaders of five for-profit
companies and one, or a maximum of two, of their middle level
managers in each firm of companies currently or recently
experiencing transformational change.^ For a company to be
qualified for this research, they had to meet two criteria. One
criterion for determining the existence of transformational change is,
in part, a subjective one. As Kanter et al. state, people need to
perceive that transformational change is taking place, as opposed to
other types of change such as "small-c" change (Kanter et al, 1992).
Further, what may be considered transformational in one
organization may not be perceived that way in another. Therefore,
interviewed subjects had to express their understanding of
transformational change and perceive that their organization had
recently or was currently experiencing transformational change. The
other criterion for determining the existence of transformational
change deals with certain empirical aspects. These include the
presence of changes in fundamental ways the organization is run,
changes to patterns of behavior of its members, and changes in
accepted norms and values professed by its members. Examples of
empirical evidence of transformational change include companies
undergoing "downsizing," reengineering, implementation of team
based management, rapid growth, and entrepreneurial start-ups.
The companies that participated in this research were not
randomly selected but were determined upon availability. It proved
3 See Chapter Three: Literature Review of Organizational Change for detail
description of transformational change.
151
to be quite difficult to gain the participation of organizational leaders
in this study. Without the help of one organizational leader and one
member of my dissertation committee it would have been impossible
to complete this research. Their connections were invaluable.
Several interviews fell through and the committee decided that four
companies with ten interviews was sufficient. The questions were
designed to be open ended and the same set of questions were used
in every interview (see Appendix II). The questions, although set up
in a specific sequence, were really only guides for the researcher to
be certain to cover the desired material. In every circumstance, the
interviewed subjects covered all aspects of the desired material with
a minimum of prompting. All interviews were audio taped,
duplicated, and later transcribed. Interviews of organizational
leaders took place in their offices while the other interviews usually
took place in meeting rooms. Duplication of the tapes turned out to
be critically important since one transcriber accidentally erased
three interviews before transcribing them. A cover letter was sent,
usually by fax, to each interviewee (see Appendix I). The letter
described the intent of the interview, guaranteed anonymity, and
defined planned transformational change. This research adhered to
human subject conventions as stipulated in Lesley College
regulations for such research. Interviews took place between
November 13, 1997 and March 5, 1998. The duration of the
interviews varied from forty minutes to one hour and forty-three
minutes. Reliable and prompt transcription services within budgeted
guidelines were difficult to find. This accounts for length of time of
up to four weeks after an interview for the transcription to be
152
produced. However, notes were taken about the interview and my
perceptions of the interview situation immediately afterwards,
usually within two hours.
Data
The interviews were essential for capturing needed
information that would be used to establish the congruency or the
degree of incongruency between espoused theory and actions of
organizational leaders. The interviews of the middle level managers
were used, in part, to determine the actual actions and behaviors
that leaders manifested. Other material was utilized to gain insight
into the leaders' thinking, actions, and behaviors including annual
reports, advertising in the mass media, firms' Internet home pages,
and internal company memos where available.
To facilitate the coding of each transcription HyperResearch
was utilized (Dupuis & Hesse-Biber, 1994). Although this software
can not accomplish some of the operations and analysis that other
software such as QSR NUD*1ST can, it fit my purposes of easily coding
the interviews and then grouping them according to each category.
Coding
I found coding personally to be an intense and difficult
exercise to accomplish. However, as I proceeded with the coding
work, I became much more adept at selecting codes and hence the
process seemed to become more accurate (see Coding Accuracy
below). The development of the codes beyond the four main
categories that I had predetermined that I wanted to investigate was
an emergent process, that is, codes developed from the interviews
153
themselves. As coding proceeded, no new codes could be derived
from the transcription material, a few of the existing codes were
removed, and in a few cases wording was changed to better reflect
the concept they represented. The HyperResearch software
previously referred to enabled the comparison of coded material
throughout the coding process. This enabled me to constantly refer
to and check the codes I selected against previously coded material.
This assisted in the consistency and accuracy of code selection.
Coding Accuracy
A sample of interview material was utilized as a test for the
purpose of determining the accuracy of the researchers coding (see
Appendix D). A total of 20 samples representing each leader and
each of the four categories were administered to five adults. The
test subjects were requested to choose any four of the samples and
code them according to the discussion conducted before the test and
using the reference material handed out to them. Thirty minutes
were allotted for testing. The results of their coding were compared
with the same material previously coded by this researcher.
Correlation's were obtained in the 75% range between the total test
subjects and this researchers coding.
One problem that I was confronted with repeatedly was that a
particular interview segment could be selected as representing more
than one code. When this happened the selection was duplicated and
assigned to the appropriate codes. In the test described above,
interview selections with more than one code assigned was kept to a
minimum.
154
Validity and Reliability Issues in Qualitative Research
The issue of validity in qualitative research! is a complex one
(Altheide & Johnson, 1994). Positivism justifies the use of
quantitative methods in the social sciences by citing experimentation
and theory making process of the hard sciences such as physics and
chemistry. Positivists seek the discovery of universal laws that
explain actual or real events in the world. These real events are
explained in an inductive manner by universal laws (Altheide &
Johnson, 1994). The concepts of reliability and validity are closely
linked since reliability or the stability of methods and results
indicate the validity or accuracy of findings (Altheide & Johnson,
1994). In other words, positivists approach the study of social
science approximately the same way that scientists approach "hard
science." Positivists' methodology attempts to discover laws about
people and society in a manner similar to "hard science." Therefore,
when an experiment that "proves" a universal law is repeated by
others and the same findings result, reliability is established.
Validity is also established by this process since a reliable
experiment is likely testing the intended phenomena.
Other schools of thought including postpositivism,
postmodernism, constructionism, feminism, and
phenomenologicalism differ in their views of qualitative research
and the issue of validity. According to Hammersley, a scientific
ethnographer, "An account is valid or true if it represents accurately
those features of the phenomena that it is intended to describe,
explain, or theorize... All knowledge and claims to knowledge are
reflexive of the process, assumptions, location, history, and context of
155
knowing and the knower" (Altheide & Johnson, 1994 p. 487-488). In
other words, validity depends upon the intent of the research or
from what frame of reference the researcher approaches the
research. Validity also depends on the audience/community that is
interpreting the research. Since reality is a social construct according
to the schools of thought mentioned above and the researcher cannot
exist outside of his/her assumptions, the idea that knowledge needs
to be valid does not seem to be an applicable issue to these schools'
research (Altheide & Johnson, 1994).
This paper attempts to present a rich description of leaders'
thinking in their own words. Through analysis of descriptions of
leaders' actions from other managers and my perceptions including
that of their organizational situation, accurate mental models are
constructed and described. By strenuously striving for authenticity
and accuracy, I believe the knowledge presented here is useful in
addressing the purpose of this research.
156
REFERENCES
Altheide, D. L, & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for Assessing
Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research , (pp. 485-499).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for
Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods . (2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA" Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing Organizations
Aristry. Choice, and Leadership . (2nd ed.). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, W. W. (1992). Organization Development A Process of
Learning and Changing . (Second ed.). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Conner, D. r. (1993). Managing at the Speed of Change . New
York: Villard Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow. The Psychology of Optimal
Experience . New York: Haraper & Row.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis . Cambridge:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced
Engineering Study.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative
Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dupuis, P. R., & Hesse-Biber, S. (1994). HyperResearch (Version
1.65). Randolph, MA: ResearchWare, Inc.
157
E.E. Lawler, I. (1973). Motivation in Work Organizations .
Nonterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L (1967). The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . Chicago: Aldine.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign . Reading,
Mass.: Addison- Wesley.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man . Cleveland:
World.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The Art and
Science of Portraiture . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality . New York
Harper & Row.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society . Princeton: Van
Nostrand.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise . New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McGregor, D., Bennis, W., & McGregor, C. (Eds.). (1967). The
Professional Manager . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oshry, B. (1995). Seeing Systems. Unlocking the Mysteries of
Organizational Life . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, Interpretivist
Approaches to Human Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research , (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Senge, P. (1993). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook .
Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive Workplaces . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
158
CHAPTER SIX: RESEARCH FINDINGS
This chapter presents the data collected from interviews I
conducted in four different companies and ten subjects. This data
consists of coded interview statements of the subjects taken from
interview transcriptions and my perception and explanation of their
meaning as it relates to the four categories previously defined and
the codes within those categories (see Appendix C for a list of codes).
In this manner, the mental model of each subject is developed and
presented. Finally, a comparison of the mental models of the
subjects in each company is presented.
Although it was necessary to edit the transcripts for clarity of
expression, I believe that the subjects' statements, as presented here,
represent an authentic and accurate representation of the
interviewee's words and thoughts while preserving each subject's
"voice" or their unique way of expressing their thoughts and ideas.
Each company is described in turn with the CEO or president
presented first with a description of my perceptions of the company.
The other member or members of the company follow.
159
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS CASE
MENTAL MODEL OF JOHN
Introduction to the Enterprise
This enterprise is one of many direct marketing companies that
have proliferated throughout the United States in the last 30 years.
These companies operate in a number of different ways depending
upon corporate proclivities. Usually the corporate office produces or
acquires products and sets policies and procedures under which the
sales forces operates. Corporate offices also set sales profits and
bonuses, and do most of the advertising. The field sales force are
independent contractors. The sales force offers products to potential
customers at "home parties." Some direct marketing companies are
regional, others national, and some international in scope and
operations. Some of the best known examples of direct marketing
companies are Mary Kay Cosmetics and Tupperware. In order to
preserve anonimity of the subjects who kindly opened their doors to
this researcher, details about corporate headquarters have been
disguised or omitted, including its products.
This company which directly markets products for the home,
had been successful for many years in terms of business growth and
profits earned. Some years ago growth and profits leveled off and
the corporation then began to decline quickly. The company was
close to failure when it was purchased.
• 160
A new executive took charge as president. He came to the
company about three years prior to the interviews conducted for this
research. During this time, the company has undergone
tranformational change; however, since transformational change is
not an event but a series of phases or stages, corporate headquarters
continues to undergo transformational change as the company
develops and grows with John's leadership (Kanter, Stein & Jick,
1992; Kuhn, 1962).
The corporate headquarters, located in a suburban setting, is
modern, professional, and stylish in appearance both externally and
internally. Inside, the building is spacious with a feeling of openness.
The offices and cubicles are color coordinated in soft pastels with a
modern style to the office furnishings. It has a warm, friendly
feeling while simultaniously appearing business like. The amenities
are nearly lush with microwave ovens and refrigerators for
personnel use and plenty of free hot coffee and bottled water.
The working atmosphere at corporate headquarters is one of
constant activity. You don't see people hanging around water coolers,
but this doesn't mean people are all business. Humor is a major
component of the organization's culture and it runs throughout the
corporate structure, being examplified best by the president. He has
a good sense of humor as do many of the executives and other
personnel. At meetings, laughter is always present.
Another component readily visible throughout the company is
one of caring; caring about each other, the business, the opportunity
it provides for a satisfying work environment, and personal
achievement while earning good salaries. Again, this is perhaps best
• 161
examplified by the president; people reported that this caring
attitude preceded the president's arrival and was an important part
of the culture, but under the strain of financially bad times, it
dissipated.
John's Mental Model
John is the corporate president. John's mental model was
written by collecting information from two one-on-one interviews
with him, perceptions of middle managers about him, and
information from other personnel in his company.
John demonstrates his strong understanding of what planned
organizational change is, how to make it happen, and what his role as
leader should be. He shows this through the issues and topics he
considers important and the actual content of his discussions. John
perceives that his company has been successful in transforming itself
from a company whose sales were at best stagnant, that was unable
to solve effectively routine problems, faced poor labor relations, and
dealt with a rigid corporate way of thinking imposed from the
former parent company. Although John sees the company still
needing to grow and improve, particularly in project management
and developing leadership at all levels of the organization, it has
dramatically increased sales, improved ability to resolve issues,
developed collaborative labor relations with the union, and has
altered its corporate structure and culture to become more flexible
and adaptable.
♦ 162
Nature of Organizations
John indicates an understanding of organizational and business
fundamentals in terms of how organizations operate and the
structure and function of systems and processes.
• There wasn't an awareness here that the company was deeply
troubled but the informal structure was sort of self reinforcing
of the way things had always been done.
• If you don't have people who are good at managing projects
you can create the environment all day long, and you don't
get the accomplishment of tasks done in that environment. I
think the focus and priorities have been right, but many of
the projects just haven't been accomplished including
ref ocusing of sales programs, refocusing marketing programs,
etc., etc.
Additional information on John's mental model of the nature of
organizations is provided by the following anecdote which he told
me. This story relates his conception of the need for management to
gain a deep understanding of organizational systems and processes.
It also shows John's innovative approaches and risk taking in
attempts educate his management team.
John challenged the management team to become sales
representatives for two months and to sell $1,350 of products. If
they accepted his challenge and succeeded, he would take them and
their spouses to New York for dinner at the Four Seasons restaurant,
drinks at the Intercontinental Hotel, and a night at the Waldorf
Astoria. By becoming sales representatives for two months, the
management team would have the opportunity to experience first
hand the challenges that the sales force routinely face. They would
163
be able to learn how the existing processes and systems actually
work to help and/or hinder their sales efforts.^
Nature of People in Organizations
Understanding Resistance
John indicates, through his discussions, that he has a strong
grasp of how people function in organizational settings and the
factors that contribute to why they act the way they do.
• My sense of it is that it is less active resistance in most cases
than it is a sort of enemy kind of response; don't know what
to do, don't know how to do it. Hence people tend to shut
down.
• I find virtually throughout this organization at this point,
that there is a bit of denial about where we are at this
moment and hence what we need to do is to get ourselves
onto an appropriate growth track again.
• I guess the way I would characterize it, the organization
began to decide they couldn't deal with that issue, that it was
just too hard and too complex to deal with and hence there
was an increasing level of indecision.
• There's a certain shutdown. I don't know how to describe it
to you, but sort of a shutdown mentality that seems to kick
into place when people are unwilling to or unable to accept
that the situation is not exactly how they anticipated it to be
and they have to do some things differently.
1 Italics are used to retell information John provided outside of direct
quotations used.
164
Understanding Organizatinal Dynamics
John shows that he understands the interplay of forces of
various factors such as interpersonal dynamics and business
structures within organizations. He sees in his company
organizational dynamics being driven by sales results instead of by
leadership and planning. The following statements demonstrate
this.
• Self esteem and the self confidence of the central
organization has largely been driven by the results that were
coming from the field.
• Focusing is very difficult in this environment because there
is still the sort of natural tendency to try and find out what's
wrong versus finding out what's right and they focus on
dealing with symptoms rather than dealing with issues.
• Well, there is a fair amount of firefighting; there is also a lot
of finger pointing which is probably the most destructive
aspect of this. It's sort of like one's heart attacking one's
liver, saying the liver isn't doing it's job, that's why
everything is fucked up, and I've come to the conclusion
after all these years in management that when times are less
than good there's an almost natural inclination for that to
happen and it requires an enormous effort by management
and leadership just to keep the organism from almost self-
destructing.
John believes that interpersonal dynamics when destructive,
can impact the entire organization. The following statement
demonstrates this thinking.
• While it's not an easy group to manage, it's been particularly
troublesome because of some dynamics both in personalities,
of both the new people I introduced and the people who have
165
been here. The compound complexities of interaction of
human beings within the organization. And once that heat
versus hght thing starts to happen it has very, very strange
ramifications throughout the organization and righting that
can become a full-time job.
Understanding the Need for Achievement
John understands that people strive to achieve and that this
striving is an important factor in transforming organizations. John
tries to create an environment where people can succeed.
• And energy is probably the most critical component of
driving an organization because that's what has people create
value and thinking for themselves about where they can go,
and how they can get there. What it is they need to do
becomes critical.
• I have an aversion to telling people what to do, because I
don't think that's generally constructive in creating a long
term environment in which people succeed.
Although John has the company offering generous incentives
for achievement, he believes that it's important to create an
environment where people think for themselves and value their own
success as well.
Others View of John
Another CEO, whom 1 met, describes John in the following way.
• I really find John to be a good example of someone genuinely
kind. Even though I've never had a people conversation
with John, he is very sensitive and open. Not the typical guy,
I gotta tell you. Most of the guys are much more focused on
territorial aspects, and I know it's stereotyping.
166
Understanding the Nature of Planned Organizational Chang e
Understanding The Value Of Recognizing The Need For Change
John understands the need for organizational members to
believe that there is a reason that the organization must make
changes. This is demonstrated by such statements as:
• The company had been failing and there was an expectation
of employees that unless things changed, the company would
fail.
• There was not the normal inertia among the employees that
one encounters in an organization which is at least
reasonably satisfied with its progress. There was a reasonably
fertile environment for undertaking refocusing and changing
of the company.
Understanding The Importance And Value Of Leadership And Management In
Organizational Transformation
John recognizes the need for leadership, as well as competent
management, at various levels within the organization, not just at the
top, by stating that:
• X is a very competent administrator. Unfortunately, her
personality and approach is more managerial than leadership.
• You need to lead your group in terms of providing focus, the
framework, and inspiration based on combinations of
various rewards and recognition that will have them aspire
to do well, both in their own terms and in organizational
terms. Without that leadership, one falls into a situation
where you're sort of constrained by the limit of your own
[CEO's] capabilities and time. And I don't care who the
individual is or how capable they are, in a organization such
as this, one has to be able to delegate effectively, that is to be
167
able to rely on individuals to make good solid creative
decisions on an ongoing basis in order for the organization to
function. This is one of the issues that we are dealing with
right now Steve, that it becomes increasingly dependent on
the leader. You very quickly reach the limit of what that one
individual, again regardless of how competent they may be,
can do, and that is as true in a function head as it is in a CEO.
• I think it's an interesting arrangement between Ed
[manufacturing vice president] and Bill [human resources
vice president] because Ed is a leader and John is much more
of a manager. They have really complementary skills at least
from my pint of view. Bill is a very very strong almost task
oriented manager, while Ed is much more of an inspirational
leader.
• I think leadership is critically important for creating both
environment and the broad strokes concepts about where
you're going and how you're going to get there.
• If you don't have the vision about where you're going, the
pieces that you're doing today are likely to be random. If you
don't do the pieces you need to do today, you're not going to
get to your vision.
Jolin understands that leadership skills are needed for
transformational change to occur. John is able to perceive
differences between management skills and leadership skills and
that each brings certain needed aspects to transformational change.
Understanding Planned Organizational Change Concepts
John indicates that he grasps many of the fundamental
activities and tasks involved in implementing transformational
change.
168
• A restart of knowing what we know now, a refocusing and
restart on those things that are going to be most critical to
take us from where we are now to the next point.
• Now if that management style is adhered to, too rigidly, it can
become problematic because the need of the business is
evolving particularly as you go through change. However, if
you don't have it at all, your evolution becomes much less
focused.
Understanding Organizational Culture
John indicates an understanding of organizational culture by
recognizing differences in corporate cultures and that certain types
of organizational cultures can be problematic for him in running the
company as he wants to.
•
Basically as you are aware that X [another company ] is a
company that had a very corporate kind of environment.
• 1 think a big part of it was cxdtural, not in the sense of Sally
being African American, but in the sense of having grown up
in a culture that was much more directive at X, versus one
that is more a negotiating culture, which it is in our case, and
Sally became quite frustrated and could become quite rigid
when confronted with someone who disagreed with her.
• The reality of that situation was that we needed to lead the
field organization and refocus their efforts. Because of all this
baggage, meaning the strong corporate culture Sally came
from, she couldn't do that effectively.
• The way business was being handled had sort of entrenched
itself in terms of issues that were just not being dealt with on
a timely basis and decisions not being made. All this is sort of
169
a malaise that effects an organization that has lost its
confidence in itself.
Several anecdotes related by other people in John's company
add further evidence of his mental model in this category. In the
example below, Tom [a sales director] illustrates John's
understanding of his role as leader of the organization, the need for
open and honest communications, and the need for people to work as
a team.
John perceived the need, when he first took over the company,
to change certain aspects of the existing culture as he perceived it.
He wanted to gain all pertinent information about the existing
situation but was blocked because managers and directors were used
to protecting themselves by managing the perceptions of the former
presiden t. To accomplish this, John held a n umber of long and
intense brainstorming sessions with the management team. He
facilitated these meetings to bring out all of the problems and issues
facing the company. He demanded honesty from everyone and
patiently reinforced this aspect of the new culture that he desired
until meetings became productive and insightful. John did not take
the approach that he was the expert because he freely admitted that
he had little understanding about this kind of business. He showed
respect for the management team's knowledge of the business by
actively listening to them without rejecting any ideas. After
approximately three weeks of problem solving and planning
meetings John with the management team began implementing the
turnaround.
Understanding One's Own Role
• We had never really dealt with that [problem] well and here I
will take however much responsibility there is to take on that.
• I realized a fundamental change was needed, but what 1
didn't do as well as 1 needed to, in retrospect, was to force the
170
editing process. That is the underpinning of fundamental
change so that what indeed happened was the addition of
new initiatives versus the replacement of the old for the
new.
John indicates that in his role as CEO he felt was not forceful
enough with others to bring about sufficient scrutinizing in the way
the company dealt with certain issues.
Understanding the Need for Rewards and Recognition
In addition to the previous example of the rewarding of the
sales representatives, John told a story of the need for appropriate
and prompt rewards and recognition to reinforce desired behaviors.
During the first year under his leadership, John challenged the
executive team with a high quarterly sales goal. Divisions that
reached their goal won an incentive trip to the Caribbean. The top
five divisions were given money to celebrate being the "Best of the
Best" with their groups. Of the 1 00 Divisions, 75% made their goals.
When the goal was surpassed, John distributed bonuses to the sales
directors and came in on a Saturday to sign the checks so that they
would be received the following Monday morning.
John believes that positive reinforcement is crucial in his
organization. It is important to John to create an environment where
people can safely take risks and, at the same time, where success is
rewarded and failure is seen as a learning experience. The following
statement clearly shows this.
• The environment that's been created is one that is not
punitive, and reinforces success rather than punishes failure.
Perceives Successful Cliange
171
John perceives success in the company's transformational
efforts.
• Overall, as one looks back at the results of the last three years,
they are clearly positive. We've got a company that's nearly
twice the size that it was three years ago. It is significantly
profitable; it has a very positive cash flow, and the
expectations have been increased significantly.
Self Perception
John is introspective and self aware of himself as a leader,
manager, team player, and human being. He is conscious of his role
in rebuilding and revitalizing his company, but downplays the size of
his contribution. In particular, he underestimates, at least in
conversation, his impact on his company's transformation. In other
situations where I had the opportunity to discuss briefly his
contributions to the turnaround, he insisted that he didn't do it alone;
the other employees made it happen. However, it is his ability to
create an organizational environment where others can succeed that
seems to me to be truly his major contribution.
Seeing Oneself as Leader
Throughout this interview, John demonstrates that he sees
himself as a leader. An additional statement also indicates this.
• What I'm doing right now is sort of encouraging and kick
starting by saying that we are in control of our destiny we
have to do this and make it happen.
172
Philosophy of Living
In a lot of our discussions, John places his thoughts about
business and people in the larger context of our whole lives. The
statement following is a clear example of this.
• Those who maintain a focus on accomplishment in whatever
sense are considerably more alive in my view than those who
have lost that focus on accomplishment. People well into
their 70's, 80's, and 90's, can be very alive and vibrant and
terrific. All of that relates to their continuing to focus on
moving forward. The flip side of that whiich we've all seen, is
someone who stops focusing and in essence becomes passive
and /or only reflective about their past and tends to be much
less vibrant and alive and is actually moving toward death
rather than continuing in life.
Self Awareness
John tends towards self deprecation. However, he is well
aware of his abilities and where he needs to be dependent upon
others.
• The next stage that needs to happen which I'm less good at,
and have more dependence for having people around me
who are good at it, is to convert that into a reasonably specific
managerial plan of projects, and project objectives that need to
be accomplished.
• I have my faults, but one of them is not that I have difficulty
dealing with reality.
• So I got hoisted in some respects by my own petard in as
much as I probably wasn't tough enough on people in terms
of demanding that either the damn projects be managed or
that I'm going to replace them.
173
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS CASE
MENTAL MODEL OF JANE
Jane is the director of customer service having joined the
company to take that position 1 8 months prior to this interview.
Jane's mental model was written by collecting information from one
interview, from other personnel in the organization, and personal
observations by this researcher during the interview visits.
Much of the interview with Jane C. was spent, at her initiation,
discussing the topic of leadership. Jane C. has used her leadership
skills to focus on improving the customer service operations. She
appears very business-like, efficient, yet thoughtful and friendly.
The Nature of Organizations
Understanding Organizational Systems and Processes
Jane mentioned several recent issues related to management
planning and organizational processes and systems such as
antiquated reporting systems, lack of measurements, and strategic
planning. She was hired to correct these issues. This is
demonstrated by such statements as:
• We did some market research over the past year to determine
what we should be doing, what we should be offering
especially comparing ourselves with some other very active
and growing companies.
• Customer service prior to me getting here did not have
service level statistics. They are a call center environment yet
didn't know how many calls they were handling, what their
174
service level was in handling calls, and what the vital
statistics were for operating that area. They had a system but
the system was so old and was so wrong, that for years it ran
while they knew it was garbage and the numbers they were
getting were garbage.
The Nature of People in Organizations
Jane demonstrates in our discussions an understanding of what
motivates people and what their needs are in the work place.
Sensitivity to Otiiers' Feelings and Emotions
Jane shows a sensitivity to people's feelings. In the following
statement, she focuses on one of her employees who is concerned for
her career because of her illness. Jane doesn't dwell on the possibly
negatively impact of the illness on her organization, but shows
support and compassion for the employee.
• I had someone who recently underwent cancer treatments.
She's a trooper. She was undergoing radiation and still
working half a day for the six weeks that she was having
treatments. And she was very concerned about the impact of
her disease on her future in the company. She talked with
me about what her career goals were and what she wanted to
do and how she felt this was really going to throw a wrench in
everything. The kind of things that I shared with her were, of
course, you know that's not you primary concern right now,
what you need to be concerned with is getting well and, as far
as your career, we can absolutely work on a plan to keep you
on track for where you want to be, what you want to be
involved in, even if you are out of commission, so to speak,
for the next six weeks, that's, six weeks out of how many years
• 175
have you been here and how many years you will be here.
That's not significant.
Understanding the Need for Rewards and Recognition
Jane indicates her understanding of the need to positively
reinforce desirable behavior. She encourages her employees by
recognizing their efforts and giving kudos for their accomplishments.
• I'm very, very quick to compliment them by saying I'm so
glad you took the initiative to decide that; that's the same
thing I would have decided.'
• I compliment them for coming to me about things like that.
'I'm glad you feel so comfortable to come and talk to me about
it.'
Understanding Organizational Dynamics
Jane indicates the need for an understanding of organizational
dynamics, particularly interpersonal ones, that exist in organizations.
This is demonstrated by the following statement where she
acknowledges her need to earn the respect of her employees,
realizing that first impressions are important.
• You may have noticed I'm kind of young and when I came
into this position, I'd been in a management position for
about 8 to 10 years at different companies. It's very important
for me first to earn respect of the group; that's probably my
biggest challenge when I first come in. People have a
tendency to quickly judge, oh she's young she couldn't know
what she's talking about. I don't want people to focus on my
age. I want an opportunity to earn their respect by my
knowledge and experience from previous employers, from
education, and whatever.
176
Jane understands conflicts that make it difficult to gain
agreement among people. This is demonstrated by the following
statement:
• But then on the other hand you can never get them to agree
about anything. There's so many different organizations and
there's so many different business structures out there that
any one decision we mal<e is not going to satisfy all of them.
In the following statement, Jane seems to indicate her need to
show her respect for the people in her organization when she first
joined the company. This statement also shows her understanding
for developing good communications with them, starting with
demonstrating good listening skills.
• They actually have said to me since then that a lot of the
questioning techniques that I used actually felt very nice
because it meant that someone new coming in wanted to hear
about how things were being done instead of assuming that
it's just like every place else.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Understanding Leadership and Management
The conversation with Jane was dominated by discussions
about leadership and management. Jane often related what her
leadership style was, how she used it, and what results she expected
to attain in leading her department.
* 177
In the following statement, Jane describes how she persists
with her "direct reports" 2 in trying to get them to consider and then
accept a change to extend the hours of customer support. Her style
seems to be one of finding out what their issues are about the change
and forcing them to challenge their thinking. Jane understands that
people need to see that the change is necessary before they are
likely to accept it fully. She appears to try hard at getting her
management team to understand the need for the change.
• I never dropped the idea. I mentioned it to them every once in a
while. What do you think; don't you think we need to do this?
What do you notice about other places that you call. Finally, I
realized why they were cringing wasn't so much extending the
hours and staffing and the additional stuff that comes along with
that, as much as it was their own security of hours that they would
work. That was what they were concerned about.
Jane covers several key issues involved in accomplishing
organizational transformation in the following segment when she
discusses developing leadership in her direct reports. One is ongoing
communication with her department. Another is creating leaders at
all levels of the organization. A third is subordinate decision-making
and involvement in planning and implementation.
• I try to ask questions of my supervisors and managers to get
them talking with those who report to them, in order to lead
them in a particular direction. It sounds like diplomacy or
manipulation, but it's really very effective because, after all,
it's their decision and it wasn't mine, even though, I planted
the seeds. It was their decision and they're much more
willing to accept it.
2 Meaning her work with people who directly report to her.
• 178
Jane seems to understand when it is necessary for her to make
a decision, even if her organization isn't ready to accept the change
she purposes. Even in these situations, she includes her group in
designing the implementation plan.
• There have been times when I think I've felt it was critical to the
department in a way that they could not notice, but because of my
experience and how I want the department to be viewed by the rest
of the company I have made a decision for them and I've said,
'listen, you know we've talked about this several times. I feel
we've got to act on it. We cannot wait any longer to do it.' Like the
evening shift, I feel that we need to do this now and I want them to
help me put together a staffing plan, rather than delay the process by
continuing to try to get their input. I guess I feel 1 have to make that
decision and then I can get their participation.
• I always try to get their participation or get them to think of the
change and then get them to implement it. Depending upon the
business needs and time frames, I determine whether or not I'm
going to force the decision and make it for them, and then help
them put together a plan. Or I may keep playing with it for a while
to get their input, and get them to think about how to implement it.
Jane attempts to create a work environment that supports risk-
taking and rewards her managers' efforts to develop their
managerial skills. This is demonstrated by the following statement:
• If they make the wrong decision, that's a lesson learned for all of us,
and if it was a costly decision, 1 won't have to teach them again. I
consider it training money well spent.
Jane shows a fundamental understanding of how to bring
people together to work as a team. As the statement below indicates,
sharing and understanding each other's roles, responsibilities, and
missions helps accomplish team work.
179
• I had to address with them their positions, their responsibiUties,
their roles in the company and if they didn't understand these
things we needed to talk about them. We define our roles and we
create mission statements for each department. We worked on it
together to enhance team work by understanding each other roles
and responsibilities. I didn't write their mission statements for
them I helped them the same participatory way I talked about
before.
Jane recognizes the need for effective leadership at the highest
levels of the organization. In the following statement, she discusses
the problems that result at her level when top level leadership is
ineffective.
• I want our senior executives to be our leaders. If they cannot
get along on issues, then surely it shouldn't be a surprise if
some of their direct reports aren't getting along on issues too,
because you know, it stems from the top.
Several of the senior executives whom she felt were ineffective
were indeed replaced by John after he had given them ample
opportunity to improve their performance.
Understanding the Need for Communications
Many of the comments that Jane made in this interview show
her understanding for the need to communicate well with her
subordinates. Many of her comments show her skills at eliciting
information and gaining understanding of subordinates' thought
processes. In the statement below, Jane also lets her management
team know that she is available to support them.
• I meet with my direct reports maybe once every couple of months,
just to ask them how's everything going in their areas; how are they
* 180
feeling about things; what's concerning they right now; and how
they see their biggest projects going. I also ask what can I do to
support them and if there's something that they need more support
from me on.
Besides informal communications, Jane states that formal
communication is important too. The two statements below relate to
this.
• We've also implemented in both customer service and order
entry, quarterly performance appraisals. Representatives who
I have working in customer service and order entry need to
know what our expectations are even more so than say a
manager or an executive.
• Customer service and order entry need regular feedback on
how they're doing, and we need it as a department to improve
our service.
Understanding Resistance
In the two statements below, Jane demonstrates an
understanding of employee resistance. In the first, she shows an
understanding of how people react to ongoing change, and in the
second, she believes that being the new manager of the department,
she won't face much resistance.
• Some of them are very committed to this change. We have
new 'Easy Ideas' coming out all the time, every month there's
a new 'Easy Idea.' I think it's really impossible for us to expect
them to keep up with every new 'Easy Idea.' They will latch
on to the ones they like best and they will continue using
them repetitiously, and that's what I see most of them doing.
• Initially, I think they were eager to please and they were kind
of anxious to see what kind of person this is that they would
♦ 181
be working for. So they were trying to do everything they
could to please me so they weren't going to resist anything.
Need for Change
In many of the discussions, Jane indicates the need to improve
her department and the reasons for doing so, particularly to improve
service to their customers. Jane discusses frequently with her
department the need to change, sometimes drastically, how their
department operates. The following statement bluntly indicates with
plain language about this situation.
• They had a system but the system was so old and was so
wrong that for years they knew it was garbage, the numbers
they were getting were garbage.
Perception of Change
Jane believes that her and her department's efforts have been,
at least partly, successful. This kind of statement, as the one found
below, goes hand-in-hand with recognition she gives to her
employees of their accompHshments.
• I think we have a ways to go, but I'm very pleased with the
performance appraisal process we've put in place and with the
feedback that we've tried to provide to the rest of the
company. We have reports that are circulated to the
executives and sales directors on a regular basis. We have
voice mail messages that are circulated to them weekly letting
them know what's going on with this, that, and the other;
information that they were not getting before now.
« 182
Understand Need for Team work
Throughout our discussions, Jane speaks frequently about team
work. In the selections below Jane first defines what team work
means to her and then gives two examples of the importance of team
work to accomplishing her department's goals.
• Teamwork means if you and I are on a team together, I'm
sharing with you what I'm doing. If I'm doing something
that's going to effect you, then we work together to make
decisions. I don't operate autonomously from you and make
decisions that have an impact on you and then fight with you
about it when that happens. You and I may not agree on what
play we should make, at which game, but you know what
direction I'm going to go with this decision and why I'm
doing it. We know each other's reasons and we're not quick
to judge.
• The benefits to me of taking that approach is that I develop
another self, an empowered team. It's not a team that, when
I'm out of the office or when I'm pulled away for another
project, 1 need to answer every question for them. They learn
how to work on their own.
• We have a distribution center in another state and the
distribution center director and I work very closely. Now in
most companies we're at each other's throats all the time
because if you don't ship something and 1 get a call about it,
I'm mad at you about it, or you key something wrong and I
have to fix it. We're very very fortunate to have a marvelous
relationship. We disagree about things; he causes me some
problems and 1 cause him problems, but we really have a good
working relationship. We can tell each other the truth, there's
nothing political between us. There are no hidden agendas
between us. We want to get the job done. I feel that same way
about most of the other people I work with. Actually, for us
183
where I work, I feel that way about everybody. All of the sales
directors, all of the marketing department, the sales
department staff, all the finance, all of the different
departments seem to work very well with me, and I with
them.
Although Jane finds it valuable to develop teams, she also
indicates that an over dependence on working as a team can have a
detrimental impact upon the business. The statement below
concerns such involvement of field sales people.
• I think it's been a limitation to our success in that they are so
involved in making decisions that they may not fully
understand and it's too hard to get a consensus from them so
only the loudest ones get the vote. I think that hinders us.
Self Perception
Jane makes statements that indicate she understands her own
goals and motives as leader of her department. She thinks about
how others see her, is introspective about her plans and actions, and
is aware of her impact upon others.
Ability to See From Others' Viewpoint
As a manager, Jane shows concern for how her subordinates
view her. She doesn't want to appear condescending, not only
because it's not in her nature, but because it is destructive to the
team approach she is trying to build.
• I don't want to be condescending to them at all. I'm very
careful about that and so far I've not had any feedback from
them that they feel I'm being that way.
# 184
Seeing Oneself as a Leader
Many of the statements that Jane makes in this interview show
evidence that she sees herself as a leader. As leader, Jane discusses
her leadership style of coaching, guidance, setting goals, and
supporting her people in reaching them. She sees herself striving
towards greater accomplishments. Taking a leadership position is
normal and comfortable for her. The following statements
demonstrate these points.
• I coach and kind of guide them. If I don't feel they're coming
to the right conclusion I help by dropping hunts.
• If there's any contribution I can make to corporate
headquarters it's for that group to run independently and to
run well, so that anybody can step in and keep it runrung.
• This type of style to me is very normal, it's what I grew up in.
This isn't the case for my management team; they're used to
people who tell them, 'here's what were going to do.' I won't
do that. I said, 'you make a proposal to me of what you think
we ought to do, I will discuss it with you and talk about what
are our options and I will help you come to a final decision
that you are comfortable with, but I'm not going to sit here
after only hearing a few of the facts from a very emotional
conversation and make a decision for you.'
• I need to focus more on productivity. I focused a lot on the
softer things: their ability to manage their groups; their ability
to appraise their groups. I haven't really pushed them or
myself. We've got productivity standards but I haven't
pushed us to exceed those standards.
• I quickly assessed who I thought were my strongest and
weakest players, I also managed to help them go to certain
185
seminars and training classes, and I've conducted some
training classes on how to do performance appraisals.
• In one way they are very loyal. They appreciate, I guess, my
confidence in their abilities to do things and they appreciate
my support of them. Now, we disagree on things and often
times I may go to them and say, 'You know I'm really
concerned about your approach on this project. Let's talk
about what some of the others issues are from other
departments like marketing, sales, whomever, and look at
what's important to them. I know what's important to you,
but let's look at it from a big picture.' That's mainly what I've
seen my role being is to try to bring a bigger picture to them.
Perhaps Jane feels some level of ambivalance between the
leadership style she describes, and what appears to me to be her
tendency for power and control.
• From the way that I manage I'm not the kind of person that
holds onto to power that much. Power and titles mean
nothing to me.
Also, she describes her concern for gaining the respect of her
people, yet also states she doesn't care if they like her or not.
• I ask them how do you feel things are going in the
department; what concerns you, what doesn't concern you?
To me that's what I'm concerned about. I don't really care
whether they like me or whether they don't like me. I'm just
concerned are we getting the job done.
Self Awareness
Jane is aware of what motivates her and what gives her
satisfaction, which is leading her department, developing her people,
and accomplishing goals as a team. She seems to be aware of her
' 186
strengths and weaknesses. The following statements demonstrate
these points.
• I'm motivated by accomplishment and that makes me feel
accomplished.
• I mean I consider them and the front line group. They really know
more about that department than I do and I think that's the way it
ought to be.
• They said that it's just easier if I tell them a solution. And I
said, 'yes, but that's not really the way it should be is it, I'm
not going to know always the best solution for you.'
• It's like when your child speaks their first word, it's so
gratifying for me to see them develop.
Ability to See From Another's Viewpoint
Jane demonstrates in the following two statements that she
considers how others feel and think about working in the
organization. The first statement indicates that she understands that
some people in her department are not likely to be as open as
needed in communicating their needs. Jane anticipates their
difficulty and tries to find a solution. In the second, Jane expresses
an understanding of how difficult the situation is for the president of
her company and the pressures he has to deal with.
• I'm not asking them to tell me, 'You did a lousy job
supporting me on this project.' I'm trying to give them an
easy way of saying that. Instead, I say to them, what area can I
give you more support in? I know that a couple of them, if
they have felt that there was something going on that I wasn't
supporting them enough, they'd come to me and say it.
They've said, 'You know I've got this such and such going on
and I really need to know how you feel about it, and your
187
opinion about it and your opinion about my performance in it
as well.'
• I feel for him [the president] that that's an enormous amount
of pressure to have. I've mentioned before you can never
make them all happy. Somebody's complaining about this,
somebody else is happy about that and they're never all
happy, so I feel for him being in that role.
View of the President
The following statements demonstrate some of how Jane views
John, the president of her company.
• I knew people who had worked with him; I knew vice
presidents and presidents I had worked for prior to taking this
job. I asked them what they knew about this guy. They all
gave me the same response I see here; he encourages
participation in management decisions which obviously was a
good signal to me because I know that is a major part of my
management approach and style, that is to encourage people
to come to their own conclusions on decisions. I see John as
doing that. I also see him during difficult times as saying,
'We're not coming to the decision as quickly as I'd like to, so
I'm going to help step this up some. Here is the decision I
want us to come to, now let's go implement it.' I see that
management style in him in other areas.
• John's been very involved with the field and then, like an
icon or leader for the field, they adore him. Everything that's
good about our company emanates from him as far as the
field is concerned and they think he is a like a savior to our
company and I guess specifically considering the rough times
they've had in the recent past, I can see how they feel that way
about him.
188
I know particularly in my department they admire John. They
feel that what he has said he's going to do with the company
he has either accomplished or made every attempt to do so.
At Christmas time I invited everyone to come work in order
entry and help us process all of the Christmas orders and
John did. He came in on a Saturday for a few hours and
because he does things like that, they feel he's very down to
earth and they also feel very comfortable with him.
189
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS CASE
COMPARISON OF MENTAL MODELS
Introduction
The CEO, John and the Director of Customer Service, Jane, have
mental models that are far more similar than dissimilar. In an
organization such as theirs, their view of people and what their
needs are, are quite similar. Both similarly view the organizational
dynamics, both interpersonal and systems. That is, they see the
importance of being aware of and attempting to understanding the
complex interaction of people within organizational systems. Both
see themselves as leaders and feel comfortable in that position. They
both approach organizational transformation are similar ways, by
including employees in decision-making, planning, and
implementation.
John and Jane come to their positions facing similar challenges.
John took over the company several years ago as it was declining at
an increasing rate. His initial challenge was to increase the value of
the company as an investment opportunity. Jane arrived about 18
months later facing the challenge of improving and upgrading
customer service. Both the problems they faced were similar, and
their responses to these problems also appear to be similar. They
both needed to create transformational change in an organization
that had become demoralized through mismanagement and neglect
and they both consciously used their leadership skills along with
their strong interpersonal skills in setting and achieving new goals.
190
In his interview, John speaks primarily about the organization
as a whole. He sees some fundamental problems with the
organization that are caused largely by people's denial of the current
situation and their focus, not on the future, but on the past and
present. The current situation of denial and lack of focus on the
future, John believes, was caused by the poor business results that
the company experienced for a number of years prior to his arrival
and the failure of leadership throughout which resulted in spirit and
energy of the personnel being dissipated.
Jane faced a department that had allowed customer service and
order entry to languish. Her department did not measure its service
quality and personnel were not given regular performance
appraisals. The department did not have a good reputation with its
field sales people.
The Nature of Organizations
Both John and Jane understand business systems and
processes, with John having vastly greater experience and the
resulting knowledge of business operations, strategy, and structure.
Neither spent much time in their interviews discussing business
operation in general. They both made reference to this category
when they discussed specific issues and situations.
The Nature of People in Organizations
John and Jane similarly perceive what people's needs are in
organizational settings, what motivates them, and how people react
to different situations and events in organizational life. In her
191
interview, Jane focuses on her need to communicate well with her
group, at first to give them goals to strive for, then to facilitate their
development of goals, and throughout show her support for and
recognition of their efforts.
John primarily discusses interpersonal dynamics and what the
cause of some the serious problems are as he perceives them. John
displays a broad view of people in organizations. He talks about an
organization being a living organism. This is a holistic, systems view
of organizations. John also focuses on resistance and denial that, he
believes, exists in the company and are the result of a complex
interplay of forces, both human and systemic. Jane's situation is
more concrete and discrete than John's and if she does, indeed, think
in these broad terms, she did not mention them.
John believes that it is the responsibility of the CEO to pay
attention to relationships. He discusses the importance of
interpersonal relationships and his role in facilitating them.
Jane sees her people in need of being trained in working
together to set goals and accomplish tasks. She provides structure
for them to contribute. Jane reflects John's belief of reward,
achievement, and being personally supportive.
John views organizations in holistic terms. He discusses the
interdependences of organizational parts and the ramification of
actions and events on the functioning of the organization and its
people. Jane's scope is less broad, as appropriate to her position.
However, she does see the impact of interrelationships both within
her group and with other departments in the organization.
192
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
On transforming organizations, John's and Jane's mental models
have a number of similarities. They both believe that leadership and
management play an important role in moving an organization
through transformational change. Both talk about leadership not just
at the top but throughout the organization. Jane explains her
participatory leadership style in relationship to actions she takes in
transforming her department. Both Jane and John speak of creating
a work environment that is focused on rewarding accomplishments
rather than punishing failure.
Jane explains in detail the way she develops change in her
department by focusing on rewarding achievements, viewing
mistakes as learning experiences, working hard at creating a
management team with both responsibility and authority, and
developing formal and informal communications among her direct
reports.
Both John and Jane understand that to gain full support for
transformation, people must see the need for change and be involved
in decision-making on design and implementation of changes. At the
same time, both believe they are able to determine when they need
to step in and make decisions without undermining the collaborative
process.
Self Perception
Both John and Jane have strong self awareness of themselves
as leaders of their respective organizations. John appears to feel
completely at ease and comfortable in his leadership position. Jane
• 193
appears to feel somewhat less comfortable in her position. John is
introspective and looks within himself to examine and question his
actions and motives. Jane has displayed some ambivalence between
her understanding of what her leadership style and behavior needs
to be and her apparent natural inclination for control. They are
aware of their own goals and what motivates them and both are
strongly goal and achievement oriented. They appear to be sensitive
to the feelings and emotions of others and demonstrate the ability
and importance of seeing from others' viewpoints.
194
REFERENCES
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge of
Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders
Guide It. New York: The Free Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
195
CHAPTER SIX: RESEARCH FINDINGS-MANUFACTURING CASE
MENTAL MODEL OF ED
Ed is the senior vice president of operations and general
manager of manufacturing for this manufacturing company. He was
brought in to restore this company's manufacturing capability after
years of neglect by former management. New management bought
this facility and set it up as a largely autonomous unit. The
manufacturing plant is located in the poor, rural South. It is a
unionized facility with a long history of antagonism between
management and labor. A few years before the current owners took
over, they had brought in an outside management group to run
manufacturing. These efforts, according to many accounts, squeezed
out profits which often came at the expense of the workers. This
exacerbated the situation. Ed was brought in to deal with the poor
production and quality, the need to rebuild a major component of the
manufacturing facility, and renegotiations with the union.
Ed teamed up with the vice president of human resources and
together they developed plans to radically alter the working
environment and return the plant as a viable manufacturing facility.
Ed is a quiet, gentle man with a dry sense of humor as I
discovered during his interview. I met with Ed at his headquarters
office and later spent two days visiting the manufacturing plant,
talking to a number of employees, and interviewing two other
managers. Our recorded conversation was brief; nevertheless, it
196
seems to be a true representation of both Ed's mental model and
actions as I discovered on my visit to the manufacturing site.
Ed has worked in previous positions for the president at other
companies and brought these experiences into our conversations as
well.
Nature of Organizations
Our conversations only peripherally touched on organizational
systems and processes. Management planning was discussed in the
context of a skill that supervisors and managers lacked and that Ed
and Bill (VP of Human Resources) saw as a critical need which they
spent much of their time addressing.
Nature of People in Organizations
Need for Achievement
A common theme throughout this case of a manufacturing
company is the people's desire to achieve. No matter what their job,
the workers repeatedly indicated not only their desire, but their
ability to make significant contributions to the business if given the
opportunity. The example below demonstrates Ed's discovery of this.
• He got to working with his folks and he was on hoot owl, that
is, the other two shifts rotate between first and second while
hoot owl is a fixed shift. This supervisor could never adjust
and kept wanting to get off the shift. All of a sudden, his
group which was always in third place, started getting on the
band wagon, and started working together, and they are now
197
the best, and now I can't get him off the shift. He is enthused;
he is cranked and I've never, ever seen this. I mean the
supervisors when they first came down they looked like a
bunch of wet puppies, but now some of them are actually
supervising and actually managing and having an impact on
what goes on and that's fun when you see that happen.
Reward and Recognition
Ed and Bill took every opportunity to reinforce positive
behavior that they were striving to instill in their managers. As the
statement below indicates, they appear to take actions that achieve
this.
• We do give them a chance to showcase their talents and to get
some kudos in recognition.
Understanding Organizational Dynamics
The next statement seems to indicate Ed's understanding of
some of the organizational dynamics that were taking place in the
plant. This statement refers to the behavior of former top
management at the plant and Ed's view of their behavior. These top
managers were later replaced by middle level managers who proved
their ability to manage and lead the facility.
• The top management group certainly struggled with the
installation of the new equipment. It took them longer than
it should, they over ran their costs, there were cases where
rather than knowing to ask for help it became a pig headed
matter of pride, that I'm going to do it and I'm not going to
198
ask those guys up North for help. In some cases, it was
literally foolhardy to meet a commitment to turn the
equipment on when safety system controls were not tested to
validate that they do what they're supposed to do. They were
more concerned about getting this thing working by that time
and they were going to do it. In retrospect, in seeing what
happened afterwards, that was not a good, sound business
decision. While there's always pressures on deadlines and
dates, safety in doing things the right way has to take
precedence.
The statements below show both Ed's awareness and his
approach in dealing with complex dynamics that greatly hindered
needed communication. The first paragraph is an explanation of the
situation as Ed found it when he first came down to the plant.
Traditionally, manufacturing groups did not work together.
There was literally a large curtain separating two ends of the
manufacturing process. I learned that you had better not try to tell
workers on the other side of the curtain what to do or how to do it.
In addition, supervisors were reluctant to manage the manufacturing
process, to step in and give orders.
♦ So they started getting the message. I asked them what
happens when you have a quality problem on the line? They
responded that nobody ever listens to them. Guess what
guys, I'm going to put a bell on the end of that buzzer that's
going to be a horrible alarm that's going to sound like no
other alarm in the business. When that alarm goes off I don't
199
want to hear anyone say they don't know there is a quality
problem because I've been there a number of times at 5:00 pm,
when management all leaves, and I find out an hour later
there was bad product coming through the factory and all the
talent to solve it has left. So now we have this horrendous
horn that goes off the second we start to see bad product
coming off the backend, they fix it, the inspectors are up
working with the supervisors on the front end just the way a
company should work, how people should interact and when
you start looking at each of the elements.
Understanding People in Organizations
Another theme that was frequently mentioned not only by Ed,
but in many of my conversations with personnel at the plant, was
respect for workers. My conversations with managers Mike and
Larry during my site visit repeatedly reinforced this theme. They
said that previous management seemed to go out of their way to
demonstrate a lack of respect for, not only workers, but also other
managers.
Ed is keenly aware of this and his management and leadership
style demonstrates his understanding of this need. In many ways,
he shows respect for managers and workers alike. Ed's and Bill's
behaviors demonstrate their respect. For example, they are very
good listeners, carefully listening to what others say and mean. They
reach out to include others in the decision-making process. They and
others say that when they make a promise, they fulfill that promise.
200
The next statement demonstrates Ed's thinking about his
understanding of what workers need in organizations and his
feelings about being able to help those workers from his
management position. Additional discussion on this topic will be
found in the Self Perception category.
• You had people there [in a former company he led in another
poor rural location] who literally were below the poverty line
even though both husband and wife were working. It's like a
bad country and western song; 1 mean the first day I was there
one of the ladies' sons-in-law choked during dinner and died
of a chicken bone in his throat. It was literally just one
disaster after another. And these people were just picked on
all their lives and I mean, this is going to sound bizarre, but
just being there, treating them as human beings, turning that
plant around, treating them with dignity and respect was very
meaningful for me.
Ed appears to understand what workers need in order for them
to perform well in their jobs. He takes a hand-on approach in
demonstrating the kinds of behavior he expects from the supervisors
and works with supervisors to create learning experiences that have
lasting impacts on them.
• [In response to the question on how he got supervisors to
improve their management skills] Train them, show them
how to supervise, you can't leave, you must hang over them,
work with them. You know one of the things that's funny
201
when we really empowered the supervisors. Bill came up
with the concept of center of the universe, which is what I've
always told sales and marketing operations, 'we're the center
of the universe. ' So, we made these guys think they were the
center of the universe and everybody in this building worked
for them. What do you need, what do you need to do? Why
is this stuff coming out bad? And Bill had a good QC [quality
control] analogy. He asked the supervisors, 'What do you do?
Well, we look at the stuff coming off the back of the belt and
then we try to determine what's gone wrong?' And of course
they fell right into our hands. So Bill says to them, 'When
your car isn't running right do you usually look up the
exhaust pipe to see what's wrong with the engine?'
Ed was demonstrating that supervisors need to go to the
source, not the symptons of problems.
Ed seems to have keen insight into human nature which is
demonstrated by the way he deals with people and his sensitivity to
other's problems as the statement below indicates.
• I think probably in the last 5 or 6 months when we have really
been focusing on the supervisors, and 1 mean the guy on third
shift, is kind of a rough looking character with a cigar hanging
out of one side of his mouth and occasionally his tongue
hanging out the other, and he's kind of a bulldog, and a heart
of gold, but I mean you can tell he was always running against
the tide and then all of a sudden he got with it.
202
Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Perception of Change
Ed mentions that some critical manufacturing numbers have
shown marked improvement as indicated below. However, in
interviews with Mike and Larry, they state that far more has
changed. The entire working environment has changed, according to
Mike and Larry, for the better. They relate that the site is fun to
work in now, people are treated with dignity and respect, and the
results are profitable.
• So we made some pretty dramatic results, I mean in the first
year we lowered product cost by about 15% over what it had
been and in the last two months we literally have been
running 15%-20% better than that.
Understanding Leadership and Management
A critical concern of Ed's is to develop local leadership to take
over operations at the plant, and to free him from hands-on daily
operations. When Ed joined the company, local management at the
plant was unable to operate effectively as the following statement
indicates.
• I had hoped that more of the managers would grow further in
their positions. I think sometimes there's a fear that people
hold back things or look at me to be the change agent versus
the local management. It's hard in a remote location to find
truly good managers that not only know the industry, which
is somewhat important, you need to have a few people who
203
know that, but that really know how to plan and execute, that
really believe that this is the right way to manage versus this
is what the guys from up North want and therefore, this is
what were doing.
Ed demonstrates his understanding of management and
leadership in the following statements. In the first statement, Ed
realizes that he must continue to run operations because no local
managers have yet developed the necessary skills to do so.
• We didn't see any true leadership evolve in the two to three
positions that it could have evolved in, so to an extent I am
still very hands-on, and even though I'm up here probably
two thirds of the month and down there one third of the
month.
• We identified three or four managers that are kind of one
level down that are going to be the future of that organization.
The problem is the next level up, the people making $50,00-
$60,000, $70,000 really aren't as proactive as we want them to
be; they don't take a true leadership role and certainly their
planning and execution skills aren't where they need to be.
This is the level of management that was replaced when he
saw, that despite his coaching, they had not changed. They were
replaced by Mike and Larry who had been middle level managers in
the plant.
• I have to keep a fairly strong hand and probably to some
extent micro-manage people a lot more than I like to do in
204
terms of my style. You can't say here's the vision guys, here's
where were headed, go get there, you've actually got to walk
them each step of the way and did you do this, why did that
shp hke this. Not only set the expectations, but do every bit of
checking to make sure the expectations are executed in both
performance level and in terms of how you want people to
act, how you want them to manage and supervise.
• When you're in an environment where the company is
shrinking for ten years and the way you survive is to keep
your head below the horizon so that nobody takes a shot at it,
you don't end up with a crisp organization, you don't end up
with people that make decisions, and there's so many
decisions in this company that had been made by default, and
you know in many cases the only bad decision is no decision
at all. So I think to a large extent that the owners wanted Bill
and me because of how we worked together in the past, and
hopefully would have some kind of rub off effect as we turned
this company into the kind of organization he wants it to be.
• [In response to the question, 'What did you see was local
management's role in this turn around? What did you want
their role to be?'] Initially very secondary, we came to
understand more and more, that even the supervisors were
part of the problem. And I think a lot of that came out of the
fact that they really had no training and they really didn't
have any support.
205
When Ed first came on board, he readily perceived how the
way local management treated the workers negatively impacted
results.
• When they were confronted by a fellow union member, the
easiest gut reaction was to say. If you don't cut tliis out we'll
bring in some more of this stuff from Mexico,' and they really
knew how to rub salt in their wounds more so than be true
managers.
Local management seemed to have lost control of their plant.
Ed related stories of workers committing physical and mental abuse
on their supervisors. Ed quickly took steps to change this situation
as demonstrated below.
• Managers were intimidated, and while we were somewhat
good Joe's, we certainly drew the line and let them know that
insubordination won't be tolerated. 'Any supervisor that gets
threatened or sworn at, you're out of here on your head. ' We
did have trouble makers, people knew who they were; we
went after them; we got them; they are out.
The following statements indicate the extent to which Ed
needed to be involved with managing and training the new local
management. Normally, the senior vice president doesn't get
involved in day-to-day operations, but Ed seems to realize this was
the only way to turn the plant around.
206
Eventually we started working directly with the supervisors. I
mean for instance, this Fall when we came out of this
equipment project, which not only cost more money but kind
of slowed the whole place down. We really needed to set the
performance expectations for the group, what we're going to
do, how we're going to do it, how we want to look at yield,
how do we want to look at down time, how are we going to
measure it, let's set some goals for ourselves, let's put some
charts up on the board, let's track daily production, what is the
goal, how are we going to go about doing this? What if we pay
one guy on the team money to come in for a half hour early to
get that machinery ready will that cut down the time rather
than have the rest of the guys sit around with a cigarette?
Certainly the setting of expectations and challenging the group
are still largely a role that Bill and me define and then we
work hard through the managers to make sure that
performance reviews truly reflect performance. 'No, 1 don't
want to hear that he's a good guy; tell me why you're always
in third place when the other two shifts are ahead of you.'
That's what I want to see in the performance review. We just
made an effort at personally working through the supervisors
in terms of kind of setting the expectations and having key
management meetings three or four times a year. 'Okay, in
October here's what were going to do and this is October 1, and
here's where I want to be by the end of October. Oh by the way,
the president is coming down on November 1, and you're
207
going to do a presentation, I'm just faxing him up these goals
now, let's make sure we get there okay? And I know you
haven't done a presentation before, let me tell you how to talk
about it.' So I rehearse them and I bring them through it.
• We've got to get the supervisors and managers to think,
anticipate, improve quality and production. We say to them,
'Okay, let's look at downtime, lets look at productivity, let's
look at yield, and let's make a game plan for each of these.
What do you need to see, supervisors?' I mean, the
supervisors didn't know how much was being lost to bad
materials, how much was lost to raw specifications; they just
didn't know. They just said, 'I lost 10%. Okay, lets break that
10% down. Can we do that? Let's examine down time; how
much of it is truly set up versus equipment failure.' And
then we set up challenges for the maintenance crew. 'I don't
care if you have 300-400 pound machines. I don't want to be
up and running in 20 minutes; I want to be up and running in
ten minutes and next year let's figure out how to be up and
running in five minutes, in shift change. How do you
anticipate that and how are you going to change it, how are
you going stage the stuff so one team rolls out while the other
rolls in?'
• I think we worked real hard at that relationship. I think we
work real hard at making sure that local management at times
doesn't screw it up. I mean there was just a tremendous
fascination prior to Bill and me coming in with the union
208
contract. 'Well, we can't do this because of the contract,' to
the point where the managers were more interested in
managing the contract then they were managing the facility
and we said, 'Let's manage the facility, don't worry about the
contract. If shit comes up the president will handle it.' And
the bottom line is when we started doing that, then a lot less
shit came up.
Understanding Resistance
The following two statements demonstrate Ed's understanding
of people in organizations when dealing with resistance.
• There is still some resistance. Some people try to beat you
because you're management, or you're union, let me see if I
can twist the rules a little bit. 'Never mind with the language
of the contract you guys. You know this isn't right and we're
being square with you.' We've had some good give and take
outside of the guidelines of the contract. We had a guy dead
to rights to fire him. He's a pretty good guy and we don't
want to prove a point, so we go out of our way to show that
we've gone more than half way in terms of helping them out.
So we kind of build a bank of lOU's and use them when we
have to.
• We share most of the challenges of the business with the
executive committee of the union. We talk about the fun and
games stuff, schmooze them about the outing this year, 'Okay
now, let's get down to hard tacks.'
209
Understanding the Need for Teamwork
In many of the statements that Ed makes, he indicates his
understanding that all the people in the plant need to work together
as a team in order to succeed. In particular, the message that
workers and management need to operate as a team is clear.
Self Perception
Ed demonstrates sensitivity and feeling for the conditions of his
fellow human beings. He demonstrates his understanding that in his
position he has the opportunity to help change people's lives for the
better.
• ... these people were just picked on all their lives and I mean,
this is going to sound bizarre, but just being there, treating
them as human beings, turning that plant around, treating
them with dignity and respect. I felt like Saddam Hussein;
they had posters of my head up all over that factory. I still get
three or four letters every six months or so from different
people telling me how I changed their lives. To me it wasn't
anything other than how I always treated people.
210
MANFUACTURING CASE
MENTAL MODEL OF MIKE
Mike has worked for this manufacturing company for many
years having started as an hourly worker and eventually moving up
to his current position of manager of the plant facilities. During his
tenure at this manufacturing company Mike has held almost every
position connected with the manufacturing process that an hourly
worker could hold.
Mike enjoys his work and the challenges associated with it.
While I was visiting the plant, Mike showed me how he is using
computers to regulate precisely certain machinery in the
manufacturing process. He also hooked his home computer up to
these machines so that he could monitor them on his off hours.
Mike is proud of his accompUshments. In spite of having little
education, he has progressed steadily into more responsible
positions. When Ed [senior vice president and general manager]
decided that the top level managers at the manufacturing facility
would not work out, Mike, along with Larry, were promoted into
those positions.
Mike has strong feelings about the dignity of working people
and their positive contributions to an enterprise. If management
would only allow workers to utilize their skills, experience, and
knowledge, they would add significant value to their company. By
treating workers with dignity and respect, management will discover
that they have a loyal and committed workforce.
211
The Nature of Organizations
Mike did not directly discuss an understanding of management
planning or organizational systems and processes.
The Nature of People in Organizations
Need for Achievement
Mike makes statements that demonstrate he believes people
need challenges and achievement in their lives. He seems to believe
that achievement is an ongoing process particularly in
manufacturing.
• You have to have new goals. The goals for this year are not
going to be the same as the goals for next year. I think your
goals should always become harder. Hopefully our goals for
next year are higher, our standards are higher, because no
matter what you do in the manufacturing process there is
always somewhere of making it a little bit better. It may get to
the point where, you are wasting resources trying to make it
better. Then that is another decision that a person in that
position has to make. He has to make the decision does it
make good sense for us, can we make it better, are we going to
spend X amount of money to do it because 10 pieces won't pay
for it. Someone has to be, someone has to be the set of eyes
that is looldng, actually asking those questions.
Mike relates his own achievement of rising to the top
management in the facility.
212
• I held several jobs, then went into the mechanics position
with no background and I was actually raised in a machine
shop. In the machine shop you can actually teach yourself. I
went from the mechanics position to an R& D position. I've
been involved with basically everything out on the plant
floor. Now I'm in charge of facilities, meaning basically
anything to do with the plant other than the people
themselves. If it's mechanical, if it doesn't walk out of here in
the evenings, I'm responsible for it.
Understanding People in Organizations
In the statements below, Mike shares some of his
understandings and beliefs about people in the workplace. These
topics include the need people have, according to Mike, to invest
their working lives into something that's going to endure, and a place
where their jobs are secure. Another topic involves the workers'
feelings of attachment and loyalty for their company.
• You know, no one wants to go to a job everyday and have that
job fail after they have worked there 20 years. People want to
know that the work place is going to be there. A place from
which they can retire someday. You know people actually
look at it that way. People want the security.
• These peoples' hearts were not with the outside management
group. Their hearts were with this manufacturing company
213
and from what I remember, a lot of people were asking, 'What
did we do wrong?' I've actually been asked, 'What did we do
wrong for this manufacturing company? You know we tried
our best.'
Mike's statement below seems to demonstrate the depth of
feeling these workers have and how personally they take events in
their workplace.
• No one ever explained anything to the workers, that either
they did something wrong or they didn't do something right.
When you don't tell and something drastic takes place and no
one explains to you why that change is taking place, people
just assume that they did something wrong.
A recurring theme in Mike's interview is the need workers
have to be respected by management. Respect, according to Mike,
involves being taken seriously by being participating in the running
of the plant, problem solving, and decision-making.
• People need to know that their opinions count. They need to
know that they can give input and that input is actually
listened to. Of course, not every input is good okay, not every
idea is a good idea but if you don't listen to that person's idea
for the rest of their lives they are going to think that they had
a good idea but you didn't listen to them. You may listen to
their idea and it may be something you might want to go
with; you may listen to an idea and say I'll think about that
and basically struggle with it because it's not really that good
of an idea; you may take it to the team. Eventually, you bring
214
these people's idea to light and come up with something. You
may listen to the idea and immediately come to a point in
minutes and immediately explain to that person that your
glad that he gave you the information, these are the problems
I see with it. I mean that's what they want to know, they just
want to know that you listened. They work in this job every
day; eight hours a day and I'm going to tell you right now that
no one does the job better than the person doing it.
In Mike's interview, he repeatedly brings up the new
managers' (Ed, Bill, and the president) style of leading the
organization. According to Mike, this style and approach of dealing
with people closely fit the workers needs as demonstrated in the
statement below.
• When the president came over it was instantaneous. These
people were so happy it was like hooray we are safe, we are
needed by someone. They were given the opportunity to
voice their opinions. Ed and Bill, and the president walked
the floor; they got out there and they talked to people. These
people were not used to that; the people over in the office
[under the old management] were in the office and we were
out here. They were not used to having top management
walk out on the floor and extend his hand and have a regular
conversation with them, instead of talking from behind the
speakers or a microphone and saying that this is what's
happening, I'm here this month, this is what I want to tell
215
you, and walk away from the microphone and no one ever
gets to ask him questions.
Mike seems to believe that worker commitment is vital for a
company's success. Commitment is seen by Mike to be reciprocal;
workers "go the extra mile," put in the extra time and energy and the
company in turn, commits to long term strategies to keep the
business operating as demonstrated in the next two statements.
• Commitment comes into everything. If the company asks
you to do something and you don't feel that the company
committed to backing you or that you feel why am I doing
this because they're not going to be here next year, why am I
wasting my time, I am not going to get your full potential. If I
ask, 'hey can you help me do something,' and you have these
feelings that I am not going to be here for the long haul, are
you going to give it 100 percent effort, or are you going to do it
just enough to get by?
• It's human nature. People have to know that they are
building something that is going to last. They have to know
that they are not wasting their time and that the work that
they are doing is striving towards a goal. I mean everyone
works thinking that they are making it better. I mean you
wouldn't want to if you knew tomorrow was the last day you
were going to be here. Would you come in today and work
the hardest that you ever worked since you ever came here?
216
Mike again, in the statement below, emphasizes the need for
management to involve workers in the operations of the enterprise,
in this example, by listening to workers' ideas and suggestions and
trusting that they know what's best for the company.
• [In response to the question, 'So the message to management,
organizational leaders is what then?'] Listen to what the
workers want to tell you. No one knows how to do their job
better than the person you asked to do it, because if that
person doesn't know how to do the job you don't need them
there to begin with. If you are trusting that person to do a job
for you, you should be having enough faith in that person to
know that that person is doing the job to the best of their
ability. If you don't want to listen to the opinions of those
people, don't want to know what that person has to say about
doing that job better for you, shame on you.
View of Ed
• Ed is a great person to listen and I think that he absorbs
everything that the team around him, gives him, and he is
not afraid to instantaneously or after gathering all the
irvformation came back to you and say, 'Okay you told me this
and now I found out that it is not so.' or, he is not afraid to
come back and say, 'You told me this, I wasn't sure of it, but
you are right.
217
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Perception of Change
In the following two statements, Mike perceives significant
changes have occurred since Ed and the new management team took
over. These changes involve improved communications between
management and labor, less antagonism and conflict, as well as
better production numbers.
• We are pretty much on a first name basis with all of our
employees and everyone knows that they can actually walk up
to us and tell us they have a problem with this or that or wait
until the end of the week and bring it up a meeting. I mean
they can walk up to you and say, 'I've got a problem.' And
they know if the problem has merit, it will be resolved.
• I think that the attitude here now is a lot more relaxed. Look
at some of our production numbers or reject rates in the last
two months. The conditions have improved. Conflict has
pretty much dissipated. I think it is pretty good. I can't ever
remember it being like and I've been here since 1985. I mean
people will come up to you, sit down, and talk to you about
things that either involve the facility or have nothing to do
with this place, but they are comfortable enough to come up
and talk to you.
218
Understanding Innovation
In the statement below, Mike demonstrates his understanding
of the innovative process, particularly about the need for stimulation
to compete successfully.
• If you are engulfed in your own environment and kept to a
point where there are few challenges, and if you are not
challenged you are not going to try new projects, you are not
going to try new products, and you are not going to try to
better yourself compared to the rest of the world. If no one
asks you to better the Japans, to better the Chinas to be better
than the whole world, if no one says, 'Guys we need to be
better than them,' you are going to assume that you are
already better than them right and you are never going to get
better.
Understanding Leadership and Management
In the following three statements, Mike describes previous
management's behavior and the impact it had not only on the
workers, but also on manufacturing operations.
• They [previous managers who were brought in to manage the
plant] came down basically to talk to existing management,
weed people out, put their own accountants in, people that
had been here for years doing jobs were gone, and they did it
more or less over night. Their approach was whatever you
were doing before was wrong because we are here now and
this is the way it is going to be done.
219
• This place seemed, in the years past, to be run basically like a
dictatorship. It was management that made the decisions. I
don't care if 50 people on the floor said okay we can do that
but it would easier to do it this way. There was a lot of
distrust between the work force and management.
• The workers thought they were being ripped off [by the former
management group] and it snowballed into attitudes that
seriously affected production. It really hurts you when you
need someone to go the extra miles. It's tough when you
need some help or some input and you don't receive it. If you
had a better working relationship with the crew who could
come up and talk to you about getting the job done. Some
times the workers don't see things that could go wrong that
would hurt production. It's the workers way of being
vindictive. I don't think they were intentionally doing things
to hurt the place okay, it was their way of saying, 'Wake up
you guys. We have a part here you know we are important.'
In the next statement, Mike indicates his view of the
importance of the workers.
• I think the management in this manufacturing company
takes into consideration the people. We need those skilled
people just as much as we need natural gas, or water, or
electric heat. You could have every piece of up to date
equipment; you could have everything you need to make the
ultimate factory; if you don't have the skills to use that
220
equipment you have nothing but a warehouse full of
equipment.
Understanding Communication
Mike frequently brings into his interview the importance of
communication. He seems to believe that good communication is a
simple concept to understand and gain payback from.
• Everything to gain, everything to gain, I mean what is there to
lose? You know the time you took to listen is the only thing
you have to lose.
Understanding the Need for Team Work
In the following two statements, Mike demonstrates his
understanding of the importance of teamwork. Mike seems to view
teamwork as playing a large part of a company's success or failure.
• You know if you look at small companies they all started as a
small team of people. The larger companies started out with
one or two people in a team as Microsoft did. This company
started out with a hand full of people who had an idea. They
worked together in a team concept and brought other people
in. Early on they realized that no one person has the answer
to everything.
• I think a lot of what happened was that the people who
founded a lot of companies started them because they had the
attitude that they had tried to make it in the big companies;
221
they tried to talk to management there, but no one listened to
their ideas. The ones that originally started out with the team
concept, who had the open ear to listen to their employees;
they are the ones that are surviving.
Understanding Ed's Role
This long statement of Mike's clearly indicates his view of an
importance aspect of Ed's position in manufacturing. According to
this statement of Mike's, Ed plays at least, two critical roles, one
being the goal setter, and the other is bringing a fresh perspective to
manufacturing operations.
• [In response to the question, 'Is there a difference between you
as a manager and Ed as a leader or how do you see it?' It's
about control, mainly. His position comes down with goals,
goals that need to be obtained. He is actually a communicator
between the management here and the management at the
main office. He is our liaison, so of speak, that fights the fires
before they get started; lef s us know up front that this is what
is happening and this is where we are going to be. For
example, if I was in this room everyday of the year and those
products up there [on the shelf in the interview room], those
had become so common to me that half way through the year
I am going to look at them the same old way. But Ed coming
in with a new set of eyes might say why is that one piece green
and I'm going to say what piece? Even though I am here
everyday, even though I've seen it everyday it became
commonplace to me. A person in Ed's position is a set of
222
checks and balances so to of speak. Actually, he came in with
a new set of eyes and asked the question, 'Why? You have
done that for every year since the existence of this facility but
why? Is that the right way of doing it?' He might point out to
you that maybe you need to go back to look at that again
because maybe the first one that made that decision 20 years
ago was wrong. Are you sure that guy was right, you didn't
even know him and you really don't know who made that
decision and how do we know that it is a viable best decision
for us. You have to have that in any facility. It is not what
you want, to be engulfed in your own environment and
basically smothered. You need someone every now and then
to shake up the environment and say, 'Why is this like this?
Why is it here? Why is it there?' Just so you take a second
look at it. You may have this process that you never had any
problem with, it has worked every day since the day you came
here and Ed or someone in his position came in and said well
why does it work like that? And that makes you think, why
does it work like that right? And then you are not only
thinking about that, your thinking like, for 20 years we did
this and wouldn't it be a lot easier if we did it like this. It's that
mentality that if it is not broke, don't fix it. Okay well if
someone doesn't ask you, 'Is it broke or is it not broke?' you
are never gonna think about it. You need someone to ask this
question why is it like that, is that the way it needs to be, is
there a way of getting it better and is that the best thing for us?
If no one asks that question, then myself and everyone else at
223
this facility is always going to be under the opinion that we are
doing great all right. We don't need to do any better because
we are doing the best that has ever been expected of us. But
when you have someone that comes in and says, 'Can you do
that?' My first thought has been to say, 'I didn't think that we
were doing it wrong; I didn't know we needed to do it better.
We can do it better if you ask, you we didn't know there was a
problem.
Self Perception
Ability to See From Others Point of View
Having worked as an hourly employee, Mike seems to
understand their needs.
• I know what it is like to not be involved in the decision
making and to be asked to live with the decisions that were
made for you.
Self Awareness
Mike demonstrates his outspoken nature in working with
people.
• I am not a yes sir, no sir type of person. I will tell you up front
if it is a good idea or a crummy idea, if it will work or it won't
work. I am not one to say well maybe; I am not one to say, 'I'll
get back to you.' I will tell you my initial opinion up front.
224
[A former plant manager] asked us our opinion of his idea.
The others said it was great, but when he got to me my exact
words were, 'I think it sucks.' I'm thinking that is not what
he wants to hear, if it is his idea it is a great idea. The others
defended his idea, but the plan manager says, 'Wait a minute,
I didn't walk all the way out of here from my office, for you to
tell me what you think I want to hear.' He said I walked out
here to get an opinion and if Mike thinks that my idea sucks I
want to know why my idea sucks, because I didn't walk from
my office out here to hear all of you agree with me. 'All
right so why does my idea suck?' he said. And I pointed out
that exactly what I thought of his idea, he agreed with me and
it was never implemented. After that, any time he would
have an idea he would come to me and know that I would flat
out tell him what I think about it. 'Does it suck or does it not
suck?' Those are the exact words he would use. Then when
that outside management group came here I told them up
front, 'Guys, I am the only person who won't beat around the
bush. If you ask something of me and I feel that I can do it I'll
tell you I can. If you ask and I don't feel that I am the person
for the job, or I don't feel that I can do it, I am going to tell you
right off the bat I can't do that or I don't think that it can be
done.' And the reason for that is I think that people respect
that. People don't want to hear, 'Yeah, I can do that, I can do
that,' and six months later they say, 'Where is it at' and you're
saying, 'Well, I am working on it' or 'I don't think that can be
done.' You have already spent your time, their time, and
225
their resources. They want to know up front. If you tell them
I think it can be done, then you should be able to produce. If
you tell them I don't think it can be done then the
opportunity to either find other resources or an outside
person or someone else who's qualified to do the job. You
know I don't like to waste my time or anyone else's time
taking on projects that I know up front either can't be done, or
I don't have the job skills to do it.
• I want to be able to give my opinion; how I feel. I want to
know that if a decision is made that at least I've pointed out
the ramifications of it and the problems that need to be
solved. I don't want Ed ever to be able to come back to me and
say, 'Mike, how the heck didn't you tell anyone that you
wanted to do that, why didn't you give them your opinion,
didn't you know that this was not a good idea,' or 'Didn't you
know that this was a great idea that we didn't do.'
• I don't think that anyone should trust anyone else with their
future. I want to control my own destiny and my own future.
I don't want someone else to make major decisions for me.
Understands Own Role
In the statements below, Mike indicates that he is clear on
what his role is. He seems to feel that he is the expert on production
matters because he knows all about it and can make decisions on
what needs to be done to keep the production processes moving.
226
• I think a lot of what helps me do my job is the fact that I been
out on the floor, I started out at ground level and I know it
takes to do those jobs. I know what all these people have to
do because I went through the entire process. Something can
be asked of me and I can immediately give a proper response.
There are things that I know right off the bat that is going to
disrupt the process flow and we may need to refine the process
so that we won't disrupt the flow but still issue the same
product that you need in a time frame that you need it.
• My job is to see to it that we implement the set goals; what it is
that we need to actually obtain those goals. I have to weigh
the decisions of who are my employees that can take this
project and obtain the goals for us. Maybe the decision is to
accomplish the goals by using a vendor or contractor. Upper
management sets the goals I have to decide how to get there.
If we need to produce this item, what piece of equipment do I
need? How can I do it efficiently enough that we have the
least capital investment, the quickest pay back, and the least
upset to the work force, so that the work is integrated
smoothly and that the boss can take his production people,
use the equipment that I came up with, use the process, and
actually slide these people in. If we have an existing item that
we have made for the past six months and I've been asked to
make a new item I need to be able to make that new item
without disrupting production of my existing item.
Everything needs to flow nice and smooth and we need to
227
plan that out, you have to weigh it all, what is the quantity,
am I going to use the more utilities, am I going to need more
equipment to do it, am I going to need more bodies in the
plant to do it, can the equipment that I already have be
changed around a little bit or we can modify to do the existing
job and this new job that is coming in.
228
MANUFACTURING CASE
MENTAL MODEL OF LARRY
Larry has worked seven years at this manufacturing company
in supervisory, and presently, in management positions. He has
worked in this industry his whole life, as did his father before him.
Larry has experienced some difficult times at this plant when outside
management took over and before the company was purchased by
the current owners.
Larry is a compassionate man, apparently gentle but firm in his
management style. His stated mission in life is to preserve the jobs
at his manufacturing plant for the current workers and to have jobs
available for their children. In his interview, Larry focuses on the
themes of showing workers respect, treating people right.
Nature of Organizations
Larry did not discuss an understanding of management
planning or organizational systems and processes. However, he did
indicate some knowledge of this category with the statement below.
• We realized that customer service and quality standards are
always very high even at that time they were unrealistically
hiigh. Sometime when you look at producing a product you
have to consider your manufacturing capabilities and I think
that we are moving in that direction
229
Nature of People in Organizations
Understanding the Need for Rewards and Recognition
Larry demonstrates an understanding of the need to reward
workers and recognize their contributions to the business as in the
statement below.
• Our productivity is a lot higher and we have the people with
the skills and the abihty to do these jobs. However, if they are
not going to be treated fairly, they have the tendency to lay
down [their work]. Everybody wants to be recognized for
contributing. If you don't do that, thaf s what these guys will
do. You know we are all giving credit where it is due. I post
on the board out there everyday the percentages. I post the
year to date, I post the month to day and we are all informed
and we get our little message there when we do real well.
Understanding What Makes People Tick
Larry seems to understand what people need in order for
management to gain the cooperation and commitment of the workers
in the plant. The statements following represent the theme of
respect and trust that predominates this interview.
• It means a lot to the people, the trust. That was never there
under the former owners or under the outside management
regime and I believe that right now the morale is best it has
ever been here.
• People have confidence in upper management.
230
Understanding People in Organizations
In the following statements Larry further demonstrates his
understanding of actions that management can take to build
confidence and trust between management and labor. In this case,
management took the following actions to earn the workers' respect.
They apparently accomplished this through using good
communications, demonstrating an understanding for people's
feelings, and being honest and forthright in their dealings with them.
• [ In response to the question, 'You said that people's attitudes
are better; you said that morale has never been higher that
there is trust. What specifically did they do to make that
happen?'] They did several things. They came down and we
set up a big grill for fried hamburgers for everybody in the
plant and they shook hands with people and talked to people
and listened. I think that is the biggest part of
communicating. You know a lot of managers they just give
lip service for communicating , they don't hsten and they
really don't give you any information. Well these guys shared
the information they had. They were not afraid.
• This plant was owned by and I just had the feeling that
they really didn't know that this plant existed. To them we
were just an entity for a tax write off.
• We just told the guy that, how people felt, that there was no
trust, no trust at all. I've got to tell you the guy seemed to be
231
a reasonable guy and I thought he had potential to do well
here and to turn the facility around.
• We have to look at these people and recognize their
contribution and so we went into negotiations two years ago
and we negotiated right up to the contract deadline which was
May first. We made some concessions and listened to the
union people and I can see that we were building trust almost
daily. In fact, the first couple of days they were antagonistic.
They were ready to fight. They had been slapped in the face
before and they had been on strike two times in a row. They
were just looking for a fight and you just knew that they were
thinking, 'you want to get your hands in my pockets and I'm
not going to let you do that. You're going to try to treat me
less than a valuable contributing human being and I'm not
going to let you do that.' But as we went along in a week to
ten days we started to have good communications, good
constructive communication. They understood that we had
our hands on top of the table, we were listening, and we
wanted to make it better here.
• We have to go back to that person who has that problem and
explain those reasons, not just because I am management and
you are not, in other words, people just don't want to hear
that you know, when they look at you they want to see
themselves in management and they do not want to see a lot
of unpleasantness. They don't want to see a lot of surly
bunch of guys running around out there 'bull of the woods
232
types,' shoving around and yelling and that's not the way to
do it. Not that I never yell, I do, sometimes.
• Sometimes we do things wrong, we make mistakes and we
have union grievances. People are sometimes unhappy and
attitudes are not always the best. We have a lot of 14 year old
attitudes running around out here in 40 year old bodies.
Seriously, I am dead serious about that.
• We have more respect for the people and in return, I believe
that they are going to have more respect for us. Not only the
guys who come down every week to visit us like Bill and Ed
and occasionally the president but respect for the other people
in management too.
Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Perception of Change
Larry perceives that change for the better has occurred in the
last couple of years since his company was purchased. He notes that
attitudes have markedly changed toward management and
production and quality has risen significantly.
• I think if you went out on the floor and ask anybody about any
of those three guys that we talked about, there wouldn't be a
bad word. Not one out of the whole plant.
• [In response to the question if all of these changes have
resulted in profits] Oh yes, definitely. These changes have
been a motivating factor for the worker, although its not as if
233
we have no more problems. Last year was a tough year
because we rebuilt a tank and then installed some major
equipment. While we were doing those things, our
productivity wasn't good. I'm looking forward to '98 and I
think it is going to be a better year for this facility.
• Our productivity went sky high, our losses went way down. I
am still amazed by this, I really am. I am in a position where I
am responsible on both ends now. At that time I was only
responsible for the finishing end but now I am responsible for
both ends, I have the manufacturing part too. That has been
very interesting for me and one of the first things when I sat
down with the finishing foreman, I said, 'no matter where I
am at, or no matter where I go, or what I do, don't ever change
what you are doing. Keep going at it, because those guys need
you out there, it is very important.' I am a firm believer in
the changes that happened.
Understanding the Need for Team Work
Larry apparently recognizes the need for team work. He seems
to believe that by people working together, problems and issues can
be resolved. One of the benefits to this approach that Larry
mentions is inclusionary in nature, that is, worker participation
results in commitment and an investment in success of the
enterprise.
234
• I think we are getting a team together here, it takes a while to
get the right players and to get them in the right positions and
get them to play together.
• I think invariably, if you get a group of people together on the
problem, although they may have biases or it may confhct
with their values in some ways, the bottom line is, if they talk
it out and there is a clear cut answer, they will all arrive at that
answer and will all agree on it. I really believe that, I mean
people are natural problem solvers, if they're given the
opportunity.
Understanding Leadership and Management
Larry appears to have a strong understanding of how to
manage a work force, and discusses actions that he and other
managers have taken that demonstrate this. He clearly
distinguishes between management approaches that are non
productive and those that engage the work force in positive ways.
• We were just outcasts. We weren't really a part of the
corporation, that's a definite, and we got a plant manager who
pitted these people against each other. His philosophy was the
stand up meeting every morning, 15 minute meeting which
used to take 45, we all stood, and for those 45 minutes, we
blamed all the problems on someone else for everything that
occurred. 1 mean that was his philosophy that he pitted one
person, or one group, against another group thinking that was
235
the way that everything would work out. Well, I could see
right away, that this was not a good philosophy.
Management can have a profound impact on the work
environment both in positive and negative ways according to Larry.
In the statement below, he describes an action that the president of
his company took that was very meaningful to him.
• These guys are kind of relaxed, have a natural atmosphere
about them, and their personalities. Bill is a little outgoing
and Ed is laid back and kind of low key so those guys kind of
balance each other out. And of course, the president's just one
hell of a nice guy. With a guy in his position and has done
the things that he has done, he is a great guy. I want to tell
you that after union negotiations successfully concluded, it
probably has nothing to do with what you want to hear, but at
Christmas time I received a nice card hand written from the
president, saying he appreciated my efforts and saying that
they had made a donation to Children's Aid in my name.
Yeah, believe me, that is one of the most cherished Christmas
cards that I have ever received.
• What they did, at least twice now, is they rented four or five
buses. Everyone that wanted to volunteer, gave them the day
off and paid them, they took them to a minor league baseball
game, out for dinner for a steak and salad, and a beer. Ed and
Bill went with them or at least flew down and met them
there. We all sat in the bleachers together and cheered on the
Ally Cats, You know they were right there mingling and
236
making people feel part of the corporation. I just don't think
you can beat that approach.
• [In response to the question of how Ed's management style
has impacted his own style, Larry stated] It kind of gave me an
opportunity to take a more human approach to it. I mean
that's what I've always done, but under the other
management system we had, it was very difficult to do that
because there was no trust at all, not even for me although, I
tried to be a straight shooter. There just wasn't the trust. You
know they didn't allow me the freedom to manage in my
style. These guys are managers themselves and they know
what to do. They ask questions and they play the devil's
advocate and they you know pick things to pieces and
sometimes it irritates the hell out of me. But by the same
token, I can understand where they're coming from. Ed wants
to make you think of all the angles. When you are making a
decision you've got to have everything in order; you've got
know what you are doing. That's very important.
• I remember that term, "bull-of-the-woods" from way back and
you don't hear very much of that term anymore but I think
that underneath that kind of philosophy workers would say,
'just tell me what to do and I will do it, don't make me try to
make guesses or anything like that, just tell me what to do
and I'll do it'
237
• My father spent all his life in this industry. Forty some years,
but he became a supervisor during the great depression and
he would go down there and pick his people at the gate
because he didn't have many union leaders and no seniority.
He was chosen as a foreman I'm sure, because he was a great
big guy my dad was, a huge man. I think that they considered,
back in those days, that you had to be able to beat guys up.
Today, you do not have to do that and you want to be very
careful not to beat them up mentally either. It just doesn't
work that way, you loose a lot if you try to be overbearing.
Like I said that doesn't mean you can't intimidate once in a
while because sometimes you just, you know, you have to lay
it out there, you have to lay it out there. But by and large if
you sit down and discuss the problem you are going to find
the answer and they are going to find it for you.
• You know the president's slogan is 'do the right thing,' do the
right thing for the company, if you are in doubt go back to
number 1, do the right thing. It is very impressive and very
important and very important to me that I am able to do that,
I was not able to do that before under previous management.
• Oh God yeah, I don't have many grievances. That is one of
the things that I was doing was answering second step
grievances for the old management. After the contract there
were a few. There are still a few here and there and
sometimes we miss a call in or we work a younger guy in a
place, we miss this guy over here, it happens and when we do
238
that we make it right. But we don't play games. If we owe a
guy a day's pay we pay him. I mean that's what we should do.
I mean why draw it out and cheat them. That was happening
before too you know; they would drag these things out
forever. But it doesn't happen now. We are not paying that
much but still it is the honest thing to do.
• Most of my management techniques are to work with people
in solving their problems. The worker probably knows the
answer. He probably knows how to solve it. We will bat it
back and forth until he comes up with a solution. He feels
better about it and it you know I want to give the employees
the opportunity to have some say. I don't always want to call
all the shots. I just want to be there to support the effort of
these workers.
Self Perception
Self Awareness
Larry demonstrates in the following three statements his
awareness of what is important to him about his work and about his
company. First, having the opportunity to "prove to himself," to
accomplish something important involving his work; second, securing
jobs for current and future workers; third, having pride about his
expertise; and finally, being able to work in a climate where he can
be himself and manage in a way that is constructive, not destructive.
• It's great. So you know, I'm a very happy that I'm part of this
[company] and will be for a while longer anyway. I am going
239
to retire but I have an opportunity here to prove to myself
that I can do some things and also make these jobs secure and
continue to keep them secure, that is very important to me.
After being in a facility where they said the jobs were not
secure, it is important that I do everything I can to solidify the
positions of these people.
• It has to be the one perfect piece of ; personally I see flaws
that no one else would see.
• It was a very, very unhealthy place to work [under the
previous owners]. I thought that I had to get out of here. It
was just so bad that I was being pushed into brow beating
people. I'd be with the guy who ran the plant and a worker
would walk up to him and would pose a problem and he
would say, 'well thanks we'll look into that.' After the guy
would walk away he would say to me, 'get rid of that guy, see
what you can do to get that guy out of here.' You know I
would never do that, but that was the kind of thing I was
feeling pressure about, and I wasn't very happy about it. But
at my age I am going to stick it out and see what happens and
then this turn around with this new group coming in here
and everything just seemed to get better and better. They
made some management changes and just at the first of the
year or so they made some more changes. My position is
different now, it's changed and hopefully they're gonna use
me in the best possible way and I'm gonna be able to think
again. It makes a big difference to me.
240
Philosophy of Living
Larry frequently brings in his interview his desire to help
others. That help involves providing workers with an opportunity to
gain, in Maslow's terms, "self actualization" in their work and in their
lives; to have a good place to work that is secure for themselves and
their children.
• I come in early because I want to see the people on the late
shift, I want to see not only the supervisor but I want to see
those people. I want them to be able to bounce things off of
me or give me a chance to support them if I can in some way,
not only to be better at their jobs but just to be better period.
You know that is my philosophy and like I said it is a change
for them and I think it is going to work and I am going to
prove it to them.
• Well I don't know, you know, I've spent my life in this
business and as you can see, I never go into a department store
with my wife that I don't disappear and she knows which
department I'm in. If I am in a restaurant I am looking at
, or the , or the you know whatever, it is just my life.
I ramble on and on but it means a lot to me, particularly here,
to see that these jobs will be here and it is just like what I tell
the people on the floor you know, if your children want to
work here I want these jobs to be here for them.
241
CHAPTER SIX: MANUFACTURING CASE
COMPARISON OF MENTAL MODELS
Introduction
The senior vice president for manufacturing, Ed and the two
manufacturing managers, Mike and Larry all perceive the past and
present situation and conditions very similarly. They all stress
sensitivity to others and demonstrating respect as the key elements
to quality and productivity that they all are working hard to achieve.
They all agree with the perception that the manufacturing plant has
undergone positive transformational change.
The Nature of Organizations
None of the interviewees discussed to any extent management
planning or organizational systems and processes in abstract terms.
The Nature of People in Organizations
The mental models of Ed, Mike, and Larry have strong
similarities in this category. All three stressed the importance of
recognizing workers for their contributions to the company and
agreed that a variety of types of rewards provide positive
reinforcement for desired behaviors. All three demonstrate an
understanding of interpersonal dynamics that have occurred and are
currently occurring in the company. They recognize the positive and
negative impact that interpersonal dynamics have on people.
Respect is a common theme the three managers discuss. Ed
understands the importance of demonstrating his respect for
242
workers' feelings and values. Mike and Larry define behaviors that
show respect, such as listening to workers' ideas and suggestions and
being honest in dealings with employees. Larry and Mike stress the
deep feelings that the workers in their plant have for the company,
about their jobs, and their recent positive work environment. Ed
demonstrates his understanding of these themes in his discussion of
a previous work experience and his personal satisfaction in being
able to help those workers.
All three also discuss the themes of hard work, setting goals,
and making ever more challenging goals to achieve. They also
recognize the positive and negative impact that leadership may have.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
All three managers perceive transformational change having
taken place in their plant atmosphere or climate in worker and
management attitudes toward each other, as well as in production
and quality. All three can describe how the leaders' actions and
behaviors made these changes possible. All three differentiate
between previous leadership which had existed in the plant and
current leadership. All three perceived that previous management
created a very negative climate with significant conflict and hostility
between management and labor. Current leadership has reversed
this situation dramatically. All three managers discussed the
importance of team work and open communication. They feel that
together they will solve problems and make decisions that will
enhance the company's success.
243
Self Perception
All three speak about their ability to be sensitive about
people's feelings. Ed understands that his position enables him to
make significant contributions in people's lives. Mike sees the
personal goals he has achieved. He sees himself as an expert on
production and is secure in his opinions and beliefs. Larry sees his
mission as the creation of positive working environment and of
secure jobs for current workers' children in the future. Larry is
pleased with the opportunity he has to prove himself.
244
UTILITY CASE: MENTAL MODEL OF ROB
Introduction
This utility company is located in the Western part of the
United States. It is a start up business, having spun off from a larger
parent company to focus on new markets and products. The new
company has been in existence for about two years. Its president
was president of the parent company and was the prime mover in
determining the future direction that the parent needed to take. He
and other managers decided that the best way to take advantage of
new technologies and regulatory changes about to take place in the
industry was to form a separate company, with the parent company
holding a minority interest. Many of the people who formed the new
company came from the parent company. This interview with Rob,
the president inquires about his experiences in both companies.
This case is an example of transformational change. In fact,
two transformational changes have taken place and/or are currently
taking place. The first example is the parent company and the
second is the new start up company. This case qualifies as examples
of transformational change because in the parent company the new
management taking over from the retiring CEO, challenged the then
existing norms and values. The development of and then the
founding of the new company established a new organization with
different goals, mission, and culture from the old one.
There is a striking difference in the cultures of the two
companies. The parent company had been in existence for over one
hundred years. It provided customers with quality products and
245
services in a regulated industry. Perhaps, the best way to describe
its philosophy was "stay the course." It was not perceived in the
parent company that any significant problems existed and workers
believed that they could count on life-time employment. When the
former president retired, Rob was named to replace him. Rob saw
many current problems and possibly future ones, but also saw future
opportunities. These opportunities are what Rob pursued and they
were a primary interest of his. The existing board, which had not
significantly changed was reluctant to continue to invest in a costly
and what it perceived as a risky venture not within their experience
or expertise. The majority investors of the new company see the
potential for profit and are willing to risk capital to achieve it in the
future.
The new company is entrepreneurial in spirit and in fact. New
ways of servicing customers are being planned. Plans are revised
frequently. There is a tremendous amount of work for a small
number of people. There's a feeling of energy and mission
throughout the building.
Rob's interview involved looking back at the parent company
and what Rob did as leader there. The interview then moved to the
current situation where he is leading the start up. Rob is a soft
spoken man in his early fifties, slender, and rather rugged looking in
red flannel shirt and jeans. His office is large, but plain in
appearance, without what would be considered the usual trappings
expected for his position. Rob seems thoughtful and is highly verbal.
During our conversation, Rob paused frequently to think and perhaps
ponder before responding.
246
The company, at the time of this interview employed
approximately 40 people. It is located in a prefabricated building
that appears from the extreme height of the ceilings to have once
been a medium sized warehouse. It is utilitarian in appearance with
few decorative touches. I feel it to be cold and detached.
The Nature of Organizations
Rob talks infrequently about organizational systems and
processes, but does discuss management planning. In the following
statement, Rob describes a new strategic planning process. This was
instituted in the parent company where he had been CEO.
• It led to our first comprehensive bottoms up strategic plan for
the company. It began with an assessment of each department
in the organization: the articulation of a set of issues, plans for
addressing those issues, and then an effort to create some
metrics so we'd know whether we accomplished anything or
not. Finally, a process of review was decided on that asked
each leader in the company, including myself, to present
before the management committee a report on how each of us
was doing.
Rob had to learn quickly a great deal about his new company's
operations. As mentioned below, in the Self Perception category, he
acknowledges that he had very little expertise in the specific
technologies and processes that would be needed in the new
business. The statement below indicates some understanding of the
complexities involved in the new venture.
• We are dealing with an array of outside suppliers and part of
the work here is managing a set of interrelating external
247
relationships, which is very different from an asset based
company in that they have some important suppliers but
which has a lot of its capabilities centralized around assets.
In the example below, Rob discusses a robust process that links
individual development plans to the company's strategic plan.
• So we wound up creating a combination of assessment and
planning; bottoms up engaged the company that led to an
annual plan and personal development plans that were
aligned with the annual plan. So we were after creating a self
improvement and development capability of the
organization, performing an overall assessment in which we
got an increasing level of candor and thoroughness, and an
assessment of how we were doing in the eyes of our
employees, laid against fairly well developed standards of
corporate performance.
The Nature of People in Organizations
Rob doesn't often demonstrate a strong understanding of
people in organizations. He doesn't discuss an understanding about
what members want, what their motives are, and what they want to
achieve. As discussed below, in this category, he seems more aware
of organizational dynamics that exist in his company. Perhaps, this is
because they continue to be a significant problem.
Risk Taking
Rob states his understanding of the tough job they all face in
this start-up venture. He and the others could fail in this attempt.
He describes the atmosphere below.
• This is a tense place. We are trying to do something hard and
we could fail. Everyone knows it and so there is a level of
248
anxiety here which is way beyond where we were at the parent
company.
Understanding Organizational Dynamics
Rob often describes in this interview his perception of the
forces of conflict and resistance that result from the mix of people
and the daunting nature of their efforts.
• It has led to some conflict between folks who have been with
an entrepreneurial setting before and people who have not.
They have very different expectations. You know we have
some very strong personalities and strong personality conflicts
that are impeding working together.
The next statement indicates an understanding of some of the
causes for the current interpersonal strife that Rob describes. In this
statement, Rob discussed the mental model of the former CEO of the
parent company. Some of the people who came over to the new
company are strongly influenced by having worked for years with
that CEO.
• His [the former CEO] mental model of a well run company
was a locomotive on the track. With everything greased up
and shiny and requiring a minimal amount of guidance and
adjustment, just going down the tracks nice and quiet.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Understanding Planned Organizational Change Concepts
Rob demonstrates in these discussions, a good understanding of
aspects of current models of planned organizational change. Most of
these seem to come from Senge's work including "The Fifth
Discipline" and work on Total Quality (Senge, 1990a).
249
• What we did was to take the Baldrige award standards and
select from them a few key standards for ourselves. We set
up a process first of all with a diagonal slice of the
organization. In a conference we held for a couple of days, we
decided to assess the organization overall against those
standards. We had a protocol that was pretty well developed
and a consultant who was familiar with it. It helped us create
a picture of the company, measured against a fairly well
articulated standard performance; customer orientation for
instance. That began to get people used to the idea of
improving and that changing something and making it better
was a good idea rather than a pain in the neck or worse yet,
objectionable. It engaged the management of the company in
a way because people were encouraged to be very candid on
what they thought.
Rob particularly seems to understand the need for strong
communication to get the change process going. In the statement
below in which he refers to the parent company, he clearly expresses
his belief that, in the parent company his management group must
communicate well in order to develop a creative process to begin
changing that company.
• We did not have the money [in the parent company] to run
out and hire lots of consultants. The management group was
going to have to slug through the issues themselves; create a
process and slug through it together. So the task was try to
create the ability of this group to have a kind of constructive
and on-going conversation about important business issues.
Underneath or around all this was the whole question of how
one begins to work on changing the approach to work in a
bureaucratic industry.
Rob frequently brings into the conversation references to
perceptions of the future of his industry.
250
• I thought that I knew we had a major structural change ahead
of us [in the parent company] and we could either sit back and
wait or we could see if there could be some opportunities in
there for us. We chose the latter and shortly thereafter, I hired
a guy from outside the industry with a lot of experience in
marketing. He plunged in and helped us begin to analyze the
point of view of consumer marketing. We went through a
whole series of planning and thinking processes.
Rob demonstrated great interest in working with his
management group to figure out what the new business
opportunities related to deregulation in the field should look like. He
took steps, such as financing studies and hiring some consultants,
which were often helpful in planning change.
• We set up a team to begin to try to develop a plan for the
restructured industry, that was focusing on our customers
who would be treated like any purchasers in other retail
products. We commissioned a number of studies and did a
good deal of modeling; we visited a number of companies; we
had some consulting help and by the first part of 199_ we
were in the position to try to assemble a planning team with
outside help that could actually try to create a business plan
for the new business opportunities. To make a long story
short that was done and we created a process for reviewing a
proposed new business plan [for a new separate business]
which came to the conclusion in January of 199_ and was
approved by the board of directors and we began to look for
funding for the new business.
• It became evident that we were not making progress with the
organization. We needed some process, some books, we
needed some discipline and the consulting help that we had
had really helped stimulate a dialogue that led to the creation
of this process and the execution of managing it. It was a
process of making it up as we went along.
251
Rob recognizes the need for his new company to be flexible and
adaptable as important aspects of planned organizational change.
• Flexibility is clearly a competency that we have to have. You
are right to point it out. It is more critical in its absence and
more powerful in its presence than it was in the parent
company.
• [On flexibility]. In learning to live with the level of
uncertainty that we are operating in, in being able to respond
constructively to changes in the external environment, it has
been a very important learning experience for us. We are
learning to knock off another forecast in a few days and you
know it would have taken us six months a year ago. We are
having a conversation this afternoon with one of our
investors about our latest runs, taking a look at ..., in light of
some current developments with the response to our current
direct mail.
Rob appears to understand the need for more than token
comphance with change efforts, Rob wants enthusiastic support as
indicated below.
• Enlisting the support of the senior management, one-on-one
meetings, discussions, threats, all of that stuff, but mostly
trying to get not merely grudging compliance, but
understanding and enthusiastic acceptance. For those who
could not do it I gave up. We had some folks that were
talented people, important to the company, but just didn't get
this, so they had to be put into places where their attitudes just
didn't get in the way.
In the statements below, Rob demonstrates having not only
studied planned organizational change concepts, but also, having
thought carefully about them. He states that the leader must be able
to change himself before he can lead change in the organization.
252
Ironically, as mentioned elsewhere in this interview and in
interviews with two of his managers, this is an area that Rob has a
great deal of difficulty in accomplishing, although he makes
demonstrated efforts to do so.
• I have, as I am sure you have, read a lot of the learning
organization stuff , and it is very compelling and this place
has to be a learning organization. We have to learn everyday
and if we don't we are going to get run over.
• Try to build in an attitude and a capability for making a
change. You cannot change an organization by changing the
people but by giving people an opportunity to change the way
they think about work. There was training along the way that
helped people with this process.
• I guess I would reemphasize the statement, it has been my
experience that there is no such thing as changing an
institution or an organization in which the leaders do not
commit to personal changes as well, and to confronting
themselves, allowing themselves to be confronted with the
need for amending the way they look at things, to rethinking
their behaviors and to focus on their activities.
Understanding the Need for Change
In the following statement Rob characterizes the nature of the
problems in his company that were targeted by the planned
organizational change effort. His following three statements
demonstrate his awareness of the need for change but are rather
vague about specific problems that may require change.
• There were maybe three buckets of stuff. One was trying to
improve the relationships at the top of the company, another
was to begin thinking about really big stuff and a third was
253
approaching operational change in a organization that was
pretty dogmatic.
• We did have a number of operational issues and future
strategic challenges, but a part of that may have been
happerung in the industry at large and in order to begin to
approach those we needed to set in place the right
mechanisms and approaches.
• But by the time he [former CEO] retired, exactly at age 65, it
was quite evident to me that we needed to make some
serious changes with the company.
Rob demonstrates his understanding of the need for change in
his former organization. He is able to demonstrate a good
understanding of what, at the time, were future problems his former
organization faced.
• Well we had the looming question of where the industry as a
whole was going and what might happen to a little
distribution company. We had what I regarded as a seriously
dysfunctional senior management, and we had a number of a
corporation issues, change issues that needed attention, quite
apart from where we might go strategically.
• [In response to the question: " So the organization was not
prepared to meet any challenges for the future?"]
1 didn't think so. The first task as I saw it then, was to engage
the senior management in a way that would lead to
improved communications and improved ability to grapple
with the issues, and as part of that we begin to craft a planning
process that hooked the management of the company itself in
facing these challenges that the company was looking at.
• The company was in denial about weak work practices, lack of
formal quality programs, a lack of formal planning and goal
setting, to a compensation plan that was bureaucratic and not
254
robust enough. The organization was focused on a rather
narrow set of criteria. So there was a whole range of matters
that needed, in my view, attention in order to position the
company correctly.
• But beyond that, out toward the horizon, there was this
question of where was the industry going, what would a
deregulated industry look like, and what might be available to
us in a world such as that.
Understanding Leadership and Management
Rob seems to have a grasp of certain aspects of the role of
leaders and managers in organizational change. These he
expresses as (1) bringing management together to deal
collectively with issues, (2) developing good communications
throughout the company, (3) focusing on the future, (4)
developing plans and processes to change the organization,
and (5) dealing with conflict. Some of these leadership and
management aspects he directly discusses as his responsibility,
such as the two following. However, Rob frequently refers to
"we" should do this or that, referring to the management
group including himself.
• I am very much involved and I regarded this as maybe my
primary job. So I think the work of leaders is to create change,
I think that is what their job is, and there wasn't any doubt
about the need for changes.
• You would have first heard a general description of what we
were trying to do; you would have heard from me personally
on that in the group meeting.
In the statements below, Rob recognizes the need to include all
levels of management in moving the company forward.
• I think we began to face up to the challenge of our middle
management which I don't think we dealt with very well
255
until we began the quality of work which was very bottom
up.
• [In response to the question: "What kinds of things helped
people to be able to facilitate their ability to change?"]
It was primarily the behavior of their supervisors which was
always the case.
• In a very significant way we had left out middle management
of the company. In part, that was true for a number of
reasons. The quality of those people, but significantly the
management ability of the officers of the company in some
cases was not highly developed which is typical in a
bureaucracy and as a result there was a time in which I felt we
were working pretty well as a senior management team, but
that wasn't translating into results down in the organization
and that is part of what led us into the quality work that we
pursued on a very bottoms up basis.
• We set up a series of a steps designed to pull the senior
management of the company together, explore differences,
identify strengths, work out problems, and in general, put us
as a management into a position of where we could have
constructive dialogues about issues.
Perception of Change
Rob describes his perception of change as successful both in his
parent company as the first two statements discuss, and in his nevs'
company.
• We did however make very substantial progress in
improving the ability of the top group to work together.
• I think as the top of the company began to express some
feelings we got by some old bad stuff and we began to come
together as a unit.
256
• There is excitement. We have come an enormously long way
in a year, so we have something to be proud of and something
to stand on as we consider the multiple uncertainties that we
need to deal with.
• We think that we have done first class consumer research,
leading edge in many ways. While we expect to have
competition in our niche, we also expect to compete
successfully.
In the following statement, Rob ponders how success should be
measured. In the next statement, he discusses how he wants to have
his company measured, not by traditional "Fortune" magazine
standards, but by, he believes, more encompassing ones.
• Well, I hadn't originated the idea, but I think it is correct and
that is you must have a balanced score card. You must have a
set of financial objectives obviously, but you cannot create an
organization that can learn unless you recognize and
reinforce activity that is other than bottom line oriented;
otherwise nobody has anything to worry about but the bottom
line.
• One of the things that I am having difficulty looking at in
companies is measuring success. We can measure it a lot of
different ways. It's typical NASDAQ and the S&P. This is
looking at quarterly results and that sort of thing. There are
other ways of looking at it too. We will have objectives and
measures in areas other than the bottom line, including
internally focused measures, personal learning,
developmental work, customer relations, and process
improvements.
Understanding Innovations
Rob discusses some of his ideas about getting the innovation
process moving. A central theme in this is Rob's perception that you
257
need to shake people up, get them thinking "out of the box," and get
them talking about the issues.
• We reorganized in a significant way and gave people some
very different jobs and ttiat created a lot of stimulus in the
company for fresh thinking.
• "Scenarios" probably over-states it because at this point we are
at a real conceptual level. I would imagine what the industry
would look like and how we might play a role in the company
when it was completed. What we were able to do fairly early
was to eliminate some big chunks. We would look at some
paths and say we are not going down that path, thaf s not us.
At the same time, we began to consider this from the point of
view of consumer marketing, and that is what proved so very
interesting, and, ultimately led to the creation of the company
and my departure from the parent company to head the new
company.
• Some good thinking outside the company, some new people
in the company, people who brought fresh perspectives, and
strong convictions by me that this was something we should
pursue. So let's get on with it.
Understand Need for Communication
Rob frequently brings the importance of communication into
his interview. Many of the previous statements also include a strong
element of the need for communication, primarily among his
management group.
• The first task, as I saw it, was to engage the senior
management in a way that led to improved communications
and improved ability to grapple with the issues.
Although infrequently mentioned by Rob, the following two
statements demonstrate personal ownership for communications.
258
• Okay, you would have first a general description of what we
were trying to do, you would have heard from me personally
on that in the group meeting.
• I appeared personally in some of the assessments to give them
support. I personally participated in the first round of reports
from the departments on their self assessments. I tried to set
the tone, that was shocking, we were so bad at looking at
ourselves, in trying to formiilate a plan for improving.
In the following statement, Rob recognizes the problems in
trying to change how people are accustomed to communicate and the
problems associated with an organization that is structured
functionally.
• One of our major challenges here has been communications,
between people, the level of intensity required to move
multiple tasks forward simultaneously has proven to be
quite a challenge for a group of people who were more used
to a fairly functional division of work. It has taken a lot of
effort to work on that, bust it down and to get people
aggressively communicating.
• There was a lot of friction about that particular issue at first,
but, now we have people that never talked to each other now
talking to each other and we've learned that that is very
important, that if I do this over here, that is going to make a
difference for this person over there, and we better talk about
it. Some practice it and some do not. It is on the table as
something that is extremely important for us to work on; we
are still struggling.
259
Understanding the Need for Team Work
Rob seems to focus on the need for his management group to
work together, although his concept of team work seems somewhat
vague apart from "discussing and working out issues."
• My view was that if the company was going to face the future
that this senior management team had to do it collectively
and as a small place everybody had to do it.
• We launched a series of planning meetings in which
relationship issues were placed on the table and we had some
outside consulting help.
Understanding Organizational Culture
In the following statements, Rob indicates an awareness of how
an organization's norms and values impact how things get done in a
company on a day-to-day basis. Rob also demonstrates the
understanding of the impact of the leader on creating these norms
and values.
• I inherited a management group in a company that was,
despite its small size, none the less a rather rigid, bureaucratic,
slow moving company, 100 years old, run by a guy who has
spent his entire professional life in the industry before coming
here earlier in the decade.
• Those folks came with baggage. So one of the challenges here
is to contend with the baggage in an environment that is
even less appropriate than it was in the parent company.
Understanding Resistance
In the statements below, Rob discusses the reality of resistance
existing against his change efforts. He believes that the remedy for
260
resistance is to help those supporting the change and then enlist
them in helping non-believers to understand it. Rob infrequently
mentions the fear of the unknown that often plays a part in
resistance. He appears to focus on rational decisions based on
knowledge of the positive nature of the change as being able to
overcome resistance. Yet, he does see the need to overcome
employee resistance.
• There were some people that just couldn't do it. There were
some real skeptics. I had agnostics and some of them did
pretty well and some of them were tough. Then there were
some believers who were right. I tried to find believers and
try to give them opportunities to help other employees. The
question of the credibility of the process had to penetrate the
cynicism of people whose opinion hadn't been asked in a long
time in any serious way.
• I think the biggest threat to it was not outright opposition. It
was the lack of knowledge, it was fear and lack of knowledge
of how to do things. The parent company tfrom where most
of the people came ] was an organization where people were
diligent and honest and worked hard which was admirable in
many ways. I would say it was the lack of knowledge and fear
that was the biggest impediment.
• iDealing with resistance] I don't think if s ever done. When I
look back, it's the first significant engagement of the
organizational change.
Self Perception
Understanding One's Own Role
The three statements below appear to indicate Rob's thinking
on what his role should be. He mentions three general areas that he
261
seems to have spent time thinking about; restructuring, future
impact of deregulation, and being the calming force amidst the
turmoil of change. The first two are visionary in nature; looking to
the future of the company and how to take advantage of
opportunities as they present themselves. The third is helping
people to cope with change.
• So when I first began thinking about what I would do as CEO
[of the parent company] it seemed evident to me that we had
the dual task of trying to figure out the then hazy idea of
restructuring our company and what deregulation might do.
What our role might be and how we might take advantage of
it rather than hide from it.
• I began to craft a planning process that hooked the
management of the company itself in facing these challenges.
• There are times around here when I think that my principal
job is, as somebody once said, to keep calm. Somebody has to
be composed.
Seeing Oneself as Leader
As the three statements below suggest, Rob sees himself as the
leader of the organization. However, this pertains primarily to his
vision of the future and strategic planning that he leads or is heavily
involved with. His leadership doesn't seem to include interacting
with people.
• It's a small enough place so that a little bit of consulting
helped me, sometimes helped the company, make a big step. I
was personally involved in a lot of it. I think the senior
management team was strongly behind the effort.
262
• I was able, I think, to provide some leadership in approaching
issues in a different way.
• A place I felt I had to start with a combination of things trying
to reform the way that people saw how senior management
related to one another, and launch a planning process that
could get us into position to contend with issues in a logical
way.
Understanding One's Own Role
Rob indicates that his role includes communicating information
about the change, putting pressure on people, providing
opportunities for people to confront the issues, being forthright, and
doing some coaching. He sees himself carrying out these activities as
mentioned below.
• Let me give you a list of what I am involved in personally, for
example, traveling around the company, meeting with groups
of employees explaining what's going to happen, and what we
are trying to do. 1 don't think anyone could ever do enough of
that. I undoubtedly could have done more but personal
contact with the CEO is real critical for people. Enlisting the
support of the senior management, meetings one-on-one, and
discussions.
• Some of that took a lot of pressure from me, a lot of top down
stuff.
• Create opportunities for people to learn to be trained to learn,
to grow, to confront issues with others and with myself.
• Dealing with people in a forthright way, who I don't think are
communicating the way they ought to, and coaching them.
This is a small enough place for me to go sit in some body's
office and talk to them about the way they seem to be
perceived and why that is cutting off communications.
263
Self Awareness
In an effort to improve communication in the new company,
Rob approved an offsite meeting facilitated by a consultant. Through
some of the activities, Rob received feedback that was, in Rob's
words, upsetting and enlightening. The following three statements
demonstrate Rob's reported reaction and the awareness that this
brought him.
• It became evident to me by reading between the lines and
reading some stuff that I was talking to people in a way that
left people feeling negative, and that I had a habit of giving
mixed messages. Like, 'gee, that was a really good job you did
on that project. Have you thought about this, or now that you
got that done, what are you going to do about this issue.' I was
driving people crazy with trying to improve them in that way.
I got a message sent to me that I felt strongly about. It had
some familiar echoes going back, not only in work life but in
personal life, and so I decided that I better try to deal with it.
So I, in the staff meeting put this little sign up on the screen
that said I've got this issue and I've heard some feedback
which I think I have straight in my head now and I am going
to work on this. So that's what I mean about trying things
personally.
• I try to confront it. Creating processes that require it to be
confronted by the organization's assessment process. I'm
trying to give immediate positive feedback, in ways that
reinforce the right kind of behavior.
• So if I fall short of that everybody knows. It makes everybody
very cynical.
Rob indicates awareness of his feelings and emotions to events
in the organization. He seems to be able to put any disappointments
in his efforts in trying to make changes into the perspective of the
264
whole change process. He also seems to realize the importance of
making changes in himself, as the leader, to further planned
organizational change. For example, Rob is honest and candid about
his vulnerability to the personal behaviors mentioned above that
negatively impact his management group.
• It was a discouraging moment, that first round of the
assessment process. These were all very foreign concepts and
ideas, and the first round of returns from department to
department, I thought we would never get anywhere. It was
very discouraging. But it was a very important beginning of
engaging the organization in the change process.
• Relationship management has turned out to be a big deal. I
have lost that close knit management team that I had in the
parent company. We have some new people and some
people that came away from the parent company with me,
that together has proven challenging.
• We are moving very quickly and it is crunching my habits
about decision making and delegation. I cannot have the
levels of control here that I think would have been regarded
as commonplace in this industry simply because we have to
move so fast that centralization doesn't work.
• It felt horrible when I first began to understand what it was
that I was hearing. I thought about it; 1 talked to a couple of
people internally that are good at thinking about those sort of
things, and decided that I would confront it head on.
• I have a very strong preference for conceptual ideas, new
ideas, visionary stuff in planning long range and I hate details
Like my checkbook balance.
• I've always worked hard but I've never worked on a sustained
basis this hard with anyone, the possible exception I think.
265
was my first year of graduate school. Learning the stuff that I
needed to learn to run a different kind of company, the
mastery of that stuff is work that I wish I was doing at age 40
instead of at age 54.
I find that moving to this job has shaken me. Part of it, I
think, has been simply the shock of leaving a career path and
a style of working and a set of commitments that I was deeply
engaged with. Many relationships that were important to me
that worked over the years are gone, and I gave up a number
of community contacts and a couple of directorships that I
worked on. In retrospect in working on this other activity I
think it was more of a shock to my system than I realized.
266
UTILITY CASE: MENTAL MODEL OF RALPH
Introduction
Ralph worked for Rob in the parent company, though not as his
direct report. Ralph moved over with Rob to the start up and
continued his work in developing business plans for the new
enterprise. This has been difficult work, Ralph admits, but
interesting and exciting at the same time. Ralph shows a strong
interest in the study of organizational development. In fact, he has
just begun a Ph.D. program in this subject area. Ralph was open and
apparently frank in his discussions about Rob's strengths and
weaknesses as leader of both the parent company and now the new
spin off. During our discussions, Ralph seemed at ease, pleasant,
smiling and laughing easily.
The Nature of Organizations
Management Planning
Ralph has been, and currently is heavily involved with
management planning as demonstrated below.
• My specific role was to oversee the development of any
economic analysis, rate the business plan, pull together how
the business plan would work, and stuff like that-the business
area of the transformation moving to the new company.
• I'm working on the business plan to develop the next
generation of the retail business.
267
• We ask ourselves if deregulation happens how wotdd we
reorganize? We went through several processes in order to
develop our plans. We would meet as a group and then split
up into teams; we literally split the organization into teams.
The Nature of People in Organizations
Understanding People's Needs in Organizations
Ralph demonstrates an understanding for some aspects of what
people need in organizational settings. Specifically, Ralph mentions
the need for the CEO to get to know the workers, listen to their
problems and ideas, and generally show an interest in who they are
and what their work life is like.
• But like any other transformation from one leadership to the
other, you are looking for other characteristics and there is
always a tradeoff. I think from the organization's perspective
people might have enjoyed somebody that has an interest in a
lot more contact with people and show a lot more interest in
people who work in the building.
Understanding Organizational Dynamics
Ralph seems to demonstrate an understanding about the
impact people have on each other when they are working in an
organizational setting. In following three statements, Ralph describes
clashes of ideas and concepts about how the new company should be
structured, they way it should be managed, and who gains and who
loses.
• We developed this new business, while still within the parent
company, and, as you can imagine, it wasn't easy picking and
choosing who was going to work on what and if you worked
on it that meant you were kind of in Bruce's' camp and that
268
made for some bad feelings [Bruce is a controversial
marketing guru brought into the parent company at the
director level]. Bruce's group or Bruce had to interface with
some of these people who were more of the traditional
economist mode or traditional whatever mode and just didn't
believe in Bruce's approach or thinking on it and you got, and
still get, hard feelings. By the time we left there were people
there in the parent company who were so happy to see Rob
and Bruce and the rest of all those idiots go.
• So I think initially we felt, here we are, cool, we're in this
business together, now lef s get the work done, let's figure it
out. There was a ton of work to do and of course we hadn't
staffed any areas where we needed additional people yet, so
everybody was working many hours. It was tough to do any
real organizational work right away.
• Bruce's a good guy, but he's a marketing guy and he's as much
a marketing guy that you're ever gonna find. He is probably
more of a marketing guy than you're gonna find at Proctor
and Gamble or anywhere else and you drop him into a
company [the parent company] that's in the middle of trying
to find its own soul. You turn him loose, not to be the change
agent, not directly responsible for changing the company, but
help us feel out where we can go in the deregulated industry.
Bruce got things going that eventually led to the development
of this spin off. As you can imagine it's a bit of a shock.
There are still a lot of tough feelings. I mean, there are people
to this day from the parent company, that won't talk to Rob
and won't talk to Bruce.
Ralph explains how he took on the role of explaining and
mediating issues involving interpersonal dynamics and business
issues. The two statements below demonstrate his understanding of
interpersonal issues and conflict.
269
My role is kind of interesting because I always find myself
kind of in the middle, I mean, I was one of the few people
who, I think, bridged the gap successfully between the people
who understood where the changes would take us and the
people who are not very enthusiastic about it but also had
done enough marketing and business development stuff to
appreciate that it might have some long term value. I found
myself a lot of times trying to mitigate and spend time with
people who had doubtful feelings and try to explain to them
why the business proposition was needed and why so and so
is behaving this way or that.
I work with some of the people in Brace's camp trying to
explain to them that, 'look this is the perspective you got to be
thinking about, this how you are perceived and this is why,'
and I was kind of in between in the terms of organizational
relationships.
Ralph's View of Rob
In discussing his views of the CEO, Ralph's discussion centers
around the themes of Rob's need for greater communication at all
levels, and particularly the informal kind, demonstration of more
interest in employees by connecting to their interests, greater
participatory management, more of a hands on approach in his
leadership style, spending less time isolated with the senior
management group, and being more approachable to the employees.
In addition, Ralph believes that Rob is weak in knowledge about
certain fundamental aspects of the business, such as marketing and
information technology which are critical to the new business. But
Ralph gives him credit for initiating and moving some of the changes
in the parent company. Ralph sees Rob as honest, hard working, and
270
trustworthy and a person of high integrity and moral character and
beUeves others in the company see him similarly.
• I think it is important in leadership to demonstrate a
commitment to more informal communication in building
relationships at all levels of the organization. I don't see that
happening a lot, probably it would be to the benefit of the
organization if he did that.
• I think Rob stays pretty much to himself and has been
working hard. He's a hard working, serious, intellectual
attorney. If you look at Myers Briggs or anything that you
want to measure him on I'm sure that you would find that he
tends to focus inward and is introspective and thoughtful
about things, that it's not his pattern to wander around the
building.
• People had the feeling that Rob would take things in the right
direction and things would be somewhat more participatory.
He was younger, could probably go in that direction, has a lot
of good characteristics, and he is somebody that everybody in
the building trusts. I think there is certainly a sense of trust
and I think he has always been construed to be a person of
high integrity and high moral character and I think that that is
probably what he depended on when he came in.
• There were some tough years at the parent company, I think,
for him. There was a lot going on for him that maybe he
should have gotten more involved in, but didn't. The hands
on approach really didn't work very well either for him or any
other senior management with some of the issues that had to
do with district offices and employees' problems. And you
know there probably should have been more involvement by
Rob but it just never happened.
• Just the building, the attitude, the nature of the industry, the
nature of the organizational structure supports his
271
detachment. You have so many support systems that allow
somebody Like that to be the way he probably preferred to be:
somewhat remote, spending a lot of time thinking and talking
to the senior staff, but really not involved with the rest of the
people.
Rob is not deliberately tmapproachable, but the nature of his
style was to try to engage in conversation, not to try to make a
real connection with people.
I think the consultant spent a lot of time attached to Rob's hip
and worked with him in trying to change the organization,
trying to change Rob's role in the organization.
For Rob to go and start doing some of that change in the
parent company probably took a lot of time, energy, and
initiative on his behalf which people probably don't give him
credit for. He did it in his own way. He wasn't down on the
floor shaking everybody's hand and he wasn't trying to
overtly develop that kind of relationship and that kind of
leadership style. But I think he initiated and allowed some of
the change to happen.
I think an awful lot of [Rob's] internal energy was directed
toward developing the new business [before the spin off was
created]. 1 think if you were to ask a lot of people who work
for the company, the people who do the real work, who go out
to service customers, and answer the customer service
number, they'd say that no it wasn't running well, it hasn't
been running well for three years. Rob has been preoccupied
with this idea of a new business to satisfy his own needs and
the people in the glass palace over here are doing what they
want to do and they are cutting back on customer service reps
and we're overworked. Nobody pays any attention to us.
I think Rob was struggling to try and figure out what he was
supposed to be doing. I think you've got this business that's
272
heavily dependent on marketing and Rob doesn't know
anything about marketing and it's heavily dependent on IT
systems and he's not an IT guy.
• I think if s tough for somebody like Rob who is fairly
structured, likes milestones and clear paths.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Understanding the Need for Change
The issue for Ralph about the need for change centers around
the changing nature of the industry. In the statement below, Ralph
describes his view of the need for change in the parent company.
• Either you believe the industry is changing in such a way that
we really need to try something different or you don't and
people who looked at things in a more traditional economic
kind of way just didn't believe.
Understand Innovations
In the statement below, Ralph demonstrates an understanding
of the innovative nature of this start up business.
• One of the things you have to realize is that this is a brand
new industry. We are a brand new company and even the
vendors who will eventually provide some of the services
have never provided them to any one doing this. What we
are doing is breaking new ground in many areas.
Understanding the Need for Teamwork
Ralph states that a team is a group of:
• People who really know, understand, and trust each other in a
complete fashion.
273
While working at the parent company Ralph was heavily
involved in planning the new spin off business, Ralph mentioned the
difficulty in getting in touch with others involved in this planning.
• Let's say somebody like Peter, his time was divided between
the parent company and developing the spin off. Our offices
were in different corners of the buildings, and it was really
tough because he was working on certain aspects of the
business when he could squeeze in some time. I'm doing my
piece when I can squeeze it in. Everybody is doing their own
little component part but we were not really a team there.
Understanding Planned Organizational Change
Ralph seems to understand that change is often not a smooth
running process of events and that it takes time to make it happen
the right way. However, waiting too long to begin, according to
Ralph, only aggravates the problems that the change is designed to
alleviate.
• Unfortunately, a lot of the employees just don't have the
sense of perspective on this, what it takes to get an
organization to turn 180 degrees. We are going to have starts
and fits; we are going to be trying stuff and all of it's learning,
and if s all going to take you in the right direction. It's better to
be doing this than sitting and waiting for some grand scheme
three years from now.
• It is easy to compare us, for example, to because we are a
little different in size but not tremendously. We are in the
same state, we are both historically similar, and they on the
other hand have always historically been a lot slower to react
as an organization. In that two year period they didn't do
much of anything and now are going through a massive
restructuring with layoffs and all the rest of the pain.
274
Ralph, in the two statements below, mentions that change is
very personal in nature and affects people in different ways. Ralph
believes that it's important for people in the organization to know
what the change means to them personally.
• I think the transformation to being a new company was
something that people needed to try and figure out on kind of
a personal level real fast. Even coming in here, people came
in with their own set of dynamics and intentions.
• So my role was not OD stuff, that's Sam's, I'm interested in
tliis stuff and I'm just kind of getting up to speed on a lot of it.
I'm going to be taking a more active role. I want to look at
what are some of the real issues that people have. Lef s not do
another survey or structured questions, but dialogue to try to
get the feel for where we left off with these activities from the
offsite [meeting] that we've done and I'll be doing that. It will
be the most active I've been in this area.
Understanding the Need for Communication
Ralph demonstrates some understanding of the need for
communication in several aspects of business. Ralph states that
communication with customers and employees is necessary to
understand what customers and company employees are thinking.
• Part of the goal of informal relationships isn't just that you go
out and make friends, if s to really understand the business, to
really understand where your customers' thinking is and so
on, and really understand where your employees' thinking is
and you know, I think that there is a lot of benefits to that
kind of communication.
In the two statements below, Ralph focuses on the need for the
organizational leader to pay attention to communications. Ralph
275
believes that leadership requires good communications and there are
negative consequences to not paying attention to it.
• If you are not engaged in that process of getting feedback, then
you yourself are not learning as much about the business as
you actually could and that is important to a CEO. So I think
more involvement with day to day operational activities, in
an effort to be able to demonstrate more leadership in the
position.
• I think communication tends to be formal around here.
What communication there was in the parent company was
formal and what's left is a very bad attitude so if you
interview people you will find that people have very bad
feelings in that two or three year period previous to this.
Self Perception
Although, some statements that Ralph makes in this interview
come close to being considered Self Perception, none clearly
demonstrates this category.
276
UTILITY CASE: MENTAL MODEL SAM
Introduction
Sam is the manager of organizational development for Rob's
new company. He first started at the parent company and still splits
his time equally between the two. He is much more interested in the
excitement, energy, and enthusiasm of the start up company and the
opportunities to learn in this new experience. Sam has a difficult job,
since he feels it's his responsibility to challenge Rob on actions and
behaviors that negatively influence the company. Sam's statements
reflect his inner battle on the dangers inherent in this and on what
actions he should be taking to fulfill his role.
I was not expecting to interview Sam; however, Rob thought it
would be a good idea to do so. The interview was a surprise for Sam
also. When I arrived at the interview location in an unoccupied
office, 1 found Sam seated and sort of huddled in a corner. He
appeared to me not pleased with the situation. Sam seemed uneasy
during our conversation. He was neither concise nor fluent in
expressing his thoughts.
Nature of Organizations
Sam does not discuss either management planning or
organizational systems and processes in our interview, although my
questions might lead him in that direction.
277
Nature of People in Organizations
Risk Taking
Sam seems to understand that his position has potential risks.
This is caused by the nature of his work which involves helping
others in the company see how their actions and behavior may be
blocking organizational growth. This theme returns in other
categories particularly under Self Perception.
• I am discovering that I that I have to take my chances and
take more risks than what I had originally anticipated; I
need to go out on more limbs.
• I am familiar with having to take chances without being
100% sure that I'm doing the right thing or that I will have
the right outcome.
• I need to take some more chances here because I think we
are on the right track. I am not sure we are getting there
fast enough. I also think that we need to shake things up, I
mean, I think that we need to keep things really changing
context where people try to deal with these issues. I don't
want people to get complacent. I don't think our
organizational structure is conducive to communications.
I talk quite a bit about how people need to relate to one
another. I don't think our organizational structure is one
that will serve us well.
The statement below indicates that Rob feels his honesty with
me may cause him problems. He also seems to feel the need to
protect himself by equivocating his remarks and by retracting his
first position. It appears that Sam is well aware of his potentially
dangerous situation.
278
• I am probably getting myself into trouble.
INTERVIEWER: Do you want me to stop the tape
machine?
SAM: No, no you just do what you said you were going to
do [referring to confidentiaHty of the interview]. There is
nothing personal about all this you know. From my point
of view nobody said I am right. Nothing says that I am
right nor do I think that my viewpoint is the one that has
to be advanced.
Organizational Dynamics
The following statement demonstrates Sam's perception of
interpersonal dynamics that existed in his former company and
currently exist in the new one in which he works for Rob. Sam
appears to understand how the structure of the company may
negatively impact the way people work. In several of the statements
that follow, Sam demonstrates this understanding and warns against
the current structure.
• It was really interesting to arrive at the other company
(where Rob was president) because I was pretty used to a
dysfunctional management team. At my old company
[prior to the parent company], it was commonplace that the
culture was pretty brutal. So I come in here and work on a
senior management team. It's quite different here. I never
hear anybody bad mouthing anyone. It is amazing. You
got a senior management team that is running all around
full of tension with one another totally detached from the
rest of the organization and then there is this gap between
the senior management group and the rest of the
organization, such that the people don't even know who
they are, what they do, or do they care or think it has much
to do with them or their work.
•
279
Sam comments on the hierarchical structure of the new
company and the problems it presents for communication and
teamwork.
• What we like to think is that we have a flat organization,
but when I have 40 people in the organization and eight of
them are director level, that is not flat. I don't like those
words, 'senior management.' 1 think you are already
starting to separate people with those words. Rob created
the same structure that he had over there without doing a
careful analysis of what was the best structure for this
particular company. I didn't come over here with the
assumption that we needed a senior management team. 1
wasn't resistant to it, nor am I now, nor do I think it is
necessarily a bad thing, but 1 thought it might require some
good conversation. The whole senior management team
has been forever debating what their particular realms of
domain should be or what their titles should be and what
their pay should be, and everybody else witnessed it all, if s
not like we don't see this stuff.
• They [the lower level employees] are doing okay with each
other, doing the work, but they are not at all connected to
the senior management team. That team is in the
stratosphere doing their own thing with one another.
• I am supporting people here with a lot of issues around
our climate. We do a climate survey and from that we
have received less than favorable responses having to do
with how we manage conflict and how we avoid blame.
• Rob's senior management team has a lot of touchy topics
you know, about performance appraisals, the decision
making process, and compensation systems. In their
recent meeting with Rob, he jumped right to it, boom,
boom, boom. People were very unhappy with the way he
280
rammed his decisions through. I thought I had some
insights that would help them in the future in trying to
deal with what I thought was causing some of these
difficulties that we were experiencing.
• We have some tough personalities here, you know. They
are tough personalities, but they are good people. They
want the right thing to happen and for the most part I
don't think that interpersonal relationships are
problematic.
• That's why I said what I did about the senior management
team. That's why I'm not sitting down with Rob on the
complaints about his senior management meeting we
discussed. I wanted to send a message that I am not
necessarily Rob's boy. I am an independent agent,
otherwise I lose my effectiveness with the other people.
What Makes People Tick
Sam appears to be interested in people's behaviors and
motives.
• To me it is very interesting to try to discover why the
people from the parent company came here as opposed to
staying in a more secure environment.
Sam's View of Rob
In the following statements, Sam describes his perception of
Rob. He discusses Rob's leadership style, his need to control things,
and his need to be the center of any approval decisions. Sam gives
Rob a great deal of credit for taking a big step in becoming more
open to some fairly significant criticism about his interpersonal
behavior and some questioning of his ability to lead the new
company due to his lack of experience and knowledge.
281
• I'm still not convinced that Rob has totally internalized it,
although, that he is much farther along than all the
people who were before him, but he is still likes to hang on
to a lot of strings, he just can't let things go.
• I mean he still likes to really hang on to an approval or to
really be in control and so there are some limitations that
that behavior causes on what we are able to do.
• Interestingly enough, Rob brought some of those personal
needs for control with him here and we have been
struggling with those here.
• He does recognize that need for approval and control, to
his credit, but I'm not sure he sees it as something that he
should get rid of. I don't think he sees it always as a
handicap, and I think he always tries to sort through
things. On the one hand, people say he still has control of
everything and on the other hand people say he is too
goofy and too detached and doesn't understand operations,
doesn't understand details enough. So there is a natural
conflict here between these two and I think he wrestles
with them as well. There is no requirements that
everybody is going to be able to meet all the needs all at
once, he has made a huge contribution.
In the statement below, Sam demonstrates admiration for Rob
in his efforts to deal with the criticism described in the above
statement.
At least he's started to get out and talk to people some and
get more in touch with what was going on. He started to
make some decisions on his own about changes he was
going to make. He made them public, talked to people,
was fairly humble with people, saying, this is what I am
learning about myself, about you; it was really remarkable,
and I really admired him for doing it. It also put him into
282
a position whereby he was able to help other people. He
had made himself vulnerable. So we started to really
move then into a different place and we built on that by
doing some additional work with purpose and values and
you know that worked together very well. It is really
important that we keep that going.
Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Understands Planned Organizational Change
Sam realizes that to be effective in his position, he needs to
have direct access to Rob and, as he said in a previous statement, he
must appear to everyone as independent and unbiased. This is
important for Sam to be able to help the organization grow and
develop.
• I work indirectly for Rob, but I don't want to be that
indirect, I don't want to be by myself going through too
many layers.
The following statement demonstrates both the importance of
unfreezing or shaking up an organization to get it to change and the
part that the president had in initiating change in the parent
company.
• What Rob did at the old company that was significant was
that he unfroze things. He scared the shit out of some
people, I mean essentially he told people that they were
not guaranteed a life time employment. If they wanted to
be around they had to make a difference. They were
responsible and had to take self responsibility. He unfroze
things in that regard, which was a 100 year freeze. Yeah, [in
the new form of the parent company] they could speak up
283
and they could express their viewpoints. There was, at
least, some hope that they would be heard and acted on.
Providing feedback to the organization is critical for it to hit its
target. Knowing how well it is doing enables the company to keep on
track towards its goals. In the statement below, Sam appears to
recognize this, although he is dissatisfied with the company's
progress and the difficulty in determining the reasons for its current
problems.
• The start up company aspects of it are less clear than what I
had hoped they would be. I had hoped I would start out
within a period not too long to tell whether we were
successful or not or needed more feedback. This is long
and drawn out. It is difficult to determine cause and effect.
In the statement below, Sam indicates a familiarity with
Senge's concept of creative tension. With this tension greater
creativity occurs, according to Senge (Senge, 1990a).
• The model that I operate on in my own head is the
creative tensions stuff right between current reality and an
alternative future vision. In my work, I try to create tension
between the two, that is present and future, so that it results in a
legitimate attempt to change. I try to make a big contrast there in
order to shake people up and really get them to think it is worth
going about this change without saying that I don't think it is
worth it and being honest about that. Then once I get to a place
where there is a legitimate and tense change, then I try to use a
little different approach which is a much more supportive
approach. I tell them, 'you did it before and you were so
successful at it that you can do that again.' You go from a big
contrast to actual similarities.
284
Understanding the Need for Communication
Sam seems to feel that communication is not what it should be,
not only at the senior level, but also throughout the company. Sam
says communication is "minimal almost everywhere." This is a
significant theme for Sam throughout his interview. He returns
frequently to it,
• I don't want Rob to get angry right, because if he gets angry
other people are going to know it and they are not going to
tell what they truly believe. Until they are able to tell him
what they truly believe we are never going to be able to
move on from there, we just won't talk to each other.
• I would like to see people talking more about what is on
their minds, not so much what they thdnk they
[management] want to hear about but what they think they
should be talking about. I would like to have people
talking more about the issues that are most important to
them. So that people would really begin to develop
stronger understandings for one another. I personally
think it is a key to the success of the company.
In the following exchange, Sam states that the fact that there is
not much communication in the company needs to be opened for
discussion.
• [In response to the question, 'So you think that people Rob
works with, at least at his level, don't feel free enough to
really express their ideas or feelings?'] Not yet, that's what
we need, and I am not talking long term, I'm talking in
the next, you know, 30 to 60 days. We need to challenge
this thing pretty seriously [ the lack of meaningful
communication]. We don't need to resolve it, we need to
open it up for discussion. I think they believe that we are
going to resolve it quickly. If we go into it with that
attitude, there are going to be winners and losers.
285
• My goal or endgame is to try to get people talking to each
other and telling you the truth all the time.
In the following two statements, Sam indicates his belief that
meaningful communication results in innovation and innovation will
lead to a competitively successful business.
• I think you are going to get a more diverse array of view
points on a given topic, a greater array of viewpoints and
therefore options. I think that you are going to get more
creative options and I think you are going to get more out
of the box tj^-pe options. I tiaink you are going to be able to
challenge the tilings that people have habitually accepted
to be the status quo.
• Because I don't think it is commonplace, I don't think that
it is common. I don't think that most of the business
organizations you walk into you really find people talking
directly, openly, truthfully, and fearlessly, with one
another and I think the companies who are able to learn
that capability are going to have people with more
meaningful relationships with one another, and I think
if s going to be a competitive advantage from a business
point of view. I think the people who work there will find
it to be a more rewarding work environment.
Understands the Need for Teamwork
Sam believes that team building is the responsibility of all
members, not just the leader as indicated in the statement below.
• I don't think it's Rob's sole responsibiHty to make sure the
management team works cohesively. I think if s
everybody's responsibility. They need to come to that table
with that attitude, that they have ownership too and they
286
want to make this an effective team. It's not going to work
that way unless they really want that to happen and make
their contribution as well.
• I thought it all needed to be talked about. Everyone was
given a good job. There was a lot of old stuff that we
brought over here with us and we brought it over here
long before it kind of blew up on us. It was clear that there
were different fractions [sic] developing in the company.
People thought they could create something new; this isn't
new.
Self Perception
Self Awareness
The following statements demonstrate Sam's self awareness
about himself in the start up company. He appears to have a strong
interest in self learning and having the opportunity to be in a start
up with the challenges that ensue from that situation.
• I always wanted to start my own company. I didn't know if
I would end up starting my own company, and this may
be my closest realistic opportunity in doing that.
• What's challenging about it is that there are so many
different cultures, and the reason why I came here is that I
personally thought it was more interesting in the kind of
culture that we could create here. It's somewhat de-
motivating to go back to the other culture [the parent
company]. I don't want the other culture [the parent
company] to feel that way or to sense that.
• But the reason that I came here was because I thought I
would have a greater opportunity to influence and might
be able to make a difference.
287
• I think there would be a ton to learn and I just couldn't
resist passing it up.
• I really enjoy it. I mean, I definitely feel challenged but
also I am definitely enjoying it.
Sam seems quite introspective and the following statements
demonstrate his questioning of his role and the pressures he feels to
contribute in fixing the problems he sees.
• I don't feel as though I can fix everything you know, I
can't take personal responsibility for everything the way it
is or should be. I can't accept that responsibility.
• I'm trying to figure out what I should be doing.
• I need to be a lot more aggressive.
288
UTILITY CASE: COMPARISON OF MENTAL MODELS
Introduction
In a number of ways, all three managers seem to agree about
what actions need to be taken for the new company to be successful.
However, between the CEO and the other two managers there are
significant differences in their perceptions of what is actually taking
place in the organization. The CEO sees himself as taking actions to
deal with communications, teamwork, and leadership, while the two
managers do not perceive the CEO as taking effective actions in these
areas. The CEO perceives that he has achieved transformational
change in the new company; the managers see that many aspects of
the former culture from the parent company still pertains.
Nature of Organizations
None of the three explicitly discuss management planning or
organizational systems and processes. Rob speaks in generalizations
about this subject Ralph relates his experience both in the old
company and new one, researching and writing strategic plans for
the new business. Sam does not discuss this subject in any way.
The Nature of People in Organizations
Rob talks extensively about interpersonal dynamics that
existed in the parent company and that former president's impact on
the organizational climate. Rob states that this whole effort involving
a start up enterprise is very difficult work and could fail unless
289
interpersonal dynamics are successful. On the other hand, Rob's
managers Ralph and Sam perceive him as being remote from his
people. They do not see him as understanding employees' motives or
needs in the organization. They see him as detached and impersonal.
They believe that this is not the way it should be and that Rob needs
to connect with his people on a personal level, to be more hands-on
and less isolating of himself with senior management. They both
admire Rob particularly for his honesty and hard work in bringing
the new company into existence. They both perceive Rob as needing
to be in control far too much.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
All three interviewees demonstrate an understanding of
planned organizational change concepts and principles. Rob seems
particularly strong in his vision of the future of his industry and the
changes that will be required. He discusses the need for his
organization to be adaptive and stresses the importance of
communication and teamwork. Ralph and Sam also discuss these
same concepts and principles and Sam mentions the advantage to
companies that are able to implement these. However, they do not
see Rob carrying out these change concepts and principles nor having
the ability to do so unless he makes significant changes in his modus
operandi.
Self Perception
Rob sees his job as leader being threefold: first, structuring the
new business; second, strategic planning, and third, being a calming
force in the organization. In addition, he sees his role as
290
communicating information, providing opportunities for people to
confront issues, and coacliing otliers. Rob admits to not having much
knowledge or experience in many areas of the new business. He
indicates he is working hard at catching up. Rob also believes that
individuals must first transform themselves before they can
transform their organization. To this end, during an offsite designed
to open communication, Rob took seriously comments about his lack
of giving positive feedback. Rob shortly announced his
understanding of this and his desire to change the behavior. He
asked the help of others to let him know when, in the future, he
exhibited it.
291
REFERENCES
Senge, P. (1990a). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the
Learning Organization . New York: Doubleday/ Currency.
292
MARKETING CASE: MENTAL MODEL OF MARY
Mary is founder, president, and CEO of a large and very
successful marketing company. In an industry where women don't
often rise to the top, Mary has.
A couple of days before my interview with Mary, I received a
personal call from her asking me if we could move the time back an
hour. Upon entering the office, I immediately noticed the bright
newness of the surrounding. The company had just moved into these
offices just two weeks earlier, and there was the hectic feeling of
setting up shop while keeping the business going. The receptionist
told me that Mary had not yet arrived from a meeting across town,
to have a seat, and help myself to a cold drink. She pointed to a
large built-in triple glass door refrigerated cabinet near the entrance.
1 asked her if I might walk around, and she indicated to go ahead.
The impression 1 got was that this was a fun place to work. It was
busy and exciting. Salespeople sat around bright new desks in semi-
cubicles talking on telephones or going over papers. Marketing
material and copies of newspaper and magazine articles were
organized on one wall within arm's reach of the copy machines.
Flashy brochures with photographs on glossy paper highlighted the
professionalism and image of status and success. Most of this
material related the success of the company in being able to satisfy
its customers. Prominent were articles about Mary, featuring
glamorous photographs of her.
I returned to the reception area and a few minutes later Mary
flew in, looked around, and immediately came over to me and
293
introduced herself. Medium height, attractive, slender, blonde
dressed for success, Mary was warm and outgoing in her greeting.
Almost as quickly, she excused herself to speak with two people I
had earlier seen taking measurements of walls and windows. I
noticed how Mary placed her hand on the arm of the young man to
whom she was speaking. I overheard her say, "You make the
decision. I have confidence in you."
Mary took me into her office, but suddenly realized someone
else was sitting at her desk. An employee was using her office as a
quiet place to work in the midst of the moving-in turmoil. Instead of
using her office, Mary showed me to a small glass enclosed meeting
room that, as yet, had no door.
My perception of Mary in our interview was that she was
thoughtful and honest in her comments, which were often revealing
and not altogether flattering to herself. She was animated, with a
great deal of energy. Although, she often was self deprecating, she
seemed supremely self confident. She seemed warm and made me
feel comfortable right away. She would periodically place her hand
on my arm to emphasize a point. Strangely, she did not sustain eye
contact, often looking elsewhere as we talked.
Mary discussed her three major areas of concerns. First, she
feels the need to manage potential customers' and the public's image
of her and her company. Second, she is concerned about controlling
her business. Third, is what she calls "people technology," that is,
considering employee issues, giving them the opportunity to do their
best and thereby get the most out of them.
294
The Nature of Organizations
Management Planning
Mary seems not to focus a great deal of her time on planning.
She states that she has not had to devote much time to this activity.
Mary's approach to planning is pragmatic. Determine what the goals
are, determine who is best at achieving the goals, then tell them to go
get it done. The following three statements demonstrate this
approach.
• I do know that in the last three years I have found strategic
planning to be far more difficult because I had a child for the
first time, so my head wasn't entirely focused. But now, only
in the last six months, I have kind of settled in and given that
a little thought and I think it's something more than a
reaction to a difference in size; we're bigger by 50% than we
were four years ago and I don't think that I allowed for how
to do that. Not that the planning is necessary. But probably,
theoretically there should be a need for more planning if
you're bigger and I don't find that to be the case. I think you
have to almost make your plans more pure and simple,
because I found that when I used to have myself and three
managers that went on a retreat, we would hammer out our
plans for next year, test them, and come back, and every piece
of it got done.
• And the last time we did it, I just took my strongest men,
whatever, who are the best marketers, the best from an
accountability aspect. I assigned them the planning task and
said, 'This is your thing, you gotta make it happen for me. I
want to know how you're doing, okay?' And it happened.
• But if you think about it, I took like twelve people away and
spent three days on all this stuff, and what I was really doing
there? I figured out the three most important things, and put
295
my best three men on it, and they skinned the cat for me and
got it done. So I felt a lot better last year than the year before
about the planning process.
Mary did not directly address organizational systems and
processes in our conversation, although she had opportunities to do
so.
The Nature of People in Organizations
Understanding the Need for Rewards and Recognition
Mary demonstrates understanding for the need to give rewards
and recognition to her employees. In the following example, she
explains that she believes it's important recognize support people in
the office.
• We started giving out trips to Europe and we would say, 'You
write in who you think the best person is in your office as far
as helping everybody.' I called it the 'Good Guy Award.' And
every office gets to select one person and we send that one
person with their spouse or their friend away for a week to
Europe or wherever they want. I publicly award them because
I think it's a more positive way to do it. You know, rewarding
and making a spectacle of how we treasure versus killing the
enemy. So I think it's a better way. The other way sits in the
1920's somewhere intimidating and browbeating employees.
Organizational Dynamics
In the following statement, Mary demonstrates understanding
of interpersonal dynamics among her salespeople. Although,
salespeople are very independent, she knows they need to support
each other, and she has figured out a way to make it happen.
296
• I mean it sounds so easy now, but I really thought long and
hard about it from the day each salesman was hired. So I
created a marriage from the beginning, so a new kid on the
block met the same new kid on the block from the other side
of the tracks. So, they were partners from the beginning. But
to get to that point, I spent two years lecturing to people,
'Remember Mary from the West Side of town? Remember
Joe from the East Side? He's a nice guy; he can help you.' I
gave little cocktail parties so they'd meet each other but it
didn't work. The only way it worked, was to put them in the
same training classes, like a camp almost. And then I never
had to worry about the communication. They sought each
other out. So I think you do have some real calls on how to
make that happen organizationally. Yes, I guess that's the
point I'm making.
Understanding People in Organizations
In her interview, Mary often mentions how other people make
significant contributions to the company and further, she recognizes
that people want that opportunity. The following statements discuss
two entirely different situations that demonstrate her understanding
of this topic.
• So you can plan that way but then there is a more subtle way
which I think is based on mutual respect. Like just making
people feel like the little guy is as important as the big guy and
his idea is very often the winner. And it really works. I get
most of my good ideas from people who aren't in the
advertising department, but are people who just kind of
think, 'Hey wouldn't that be cool.' So, that's where my eye is.
I don't know if that's the way you are supposed to do it. But
for me, that's the way it works.
• We waylaid the whole agenda because one great salesperson
challenged the company and what it stood for, and what is
297
our philosophy, and how do we communicate that to the
outside? She was the most negative, chronic complainer I
have ever heard in my life. I wanted to shove it down her
throat. She was raving about our arch rival in the business.
One ad they did a good job on and frankly they are not even
marketers. We do like tons of great things, and she's raving
about this like a traitor. I wanted to kill her. But then I
swallowed my rage and I said simply to the rest of the table,
there were maybe fifteen of us there, all salespeople and I said,
'Let me ask you, let's put it out on the table, what do you
think is the philosophy of this company?' I decided to give
her theory a chance and guess what I found out? There was
no philosophy. I had a philosophy that I thought everybody
understood. But obviously, I failed to communicate it and it
hadn't been integrated, and that played tricks in my mind. In
reality it didn't exist. So this brave lady, in being a chronic
bitching complainer, helped us. 1 realized that there was
confusion. Everybody had a different idea. If I had a clear idea
but nobody else had it, so what good was it? So, what we did
in that meeting was to shelve the whole agenda and I got flip
charts out that we could write on and we did nothing but
brainstorm for two hours flat on what we believed was our
philosophy.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Understanding Resistance
Apparently, Mary's approach to dealing with resistance to
change could be described as first creating an environment of trust
and honesty, second, persist in your efforts, but don't go overboard
in trying to force the change, and third, negotiate with those affected
and listen to their resistance.
298
• So they objected to the advertising proof and they certainly
thought they looked silly posing with dogs and people. But I
stood up and said, 'I'm gonna run this campaign for two
months. I promise you if you don't like it in two months, I
will pull it. ' And all I wanted to do was buy three to four
weeks' time till they started getting a reaction from the public.
And then people knew them, saw them in the ad. 'You look
beautiful.' 'Oh that was such a clever ad.' 'Oh, I love the fact
you're a power salesperson.' And then what happened, the
resistance disappeared. So I was right; they were wrong, but
because I acted, and I meant it, because I wasn't gonna kill
myself over this, to give a little space, it took care of itself is
what I'm saying.
Understanding Leadership and Management
In our interview, Mary stated that she didn't know what kind
of a leader she was nor, was she able to give a name to her
leadership style.
• What I'm saying is, I think if leadership is about loyalty, then I
must be a great leader because people really would follow me
anywhere. I am convinced of that.
• I think I am a very good motivator or leader through
storytelling, if that's leading. I don't know if that's leading or
motivating, or whatever.
In the next statement, Mary perceives distinctions between
business men and women about what they focus on in thinking about
business issues. Mary believes that people issues are the most
important, while she believes that men focus on a territorial
perspective.
• I have to say that all the people I know in business, and many
contacts are with men, unfortunately, and I believe in my
299
inner self that there is a real difference between the way
women run businesses and men. I really believe that, so I
have to separate that out. When I bring up business issues to
the table, when I'm in a forum with all these guys, when they
all bring issues to the table, my focus tends to be on the people
issue part of the problem. Because I am always think that at
the root is somebody's ego, territory, or something like that.
So that's where my thoughts go. I find that the guys don't
focus on that much. Most of the guys are much more focused
on territorial aspects, and I know it's stereotyping.
In the next two statements Mary demonstrates her
contradictory thinking about delegation. In the first statement, she
speaks of her hands-off approach, but then later talks about her
needs to be involved and to control.
• But my other offices I haven't been to since the day I opened
them. I never visit them. I don't ask for anything from them.
They run it. They run their own business.
• The only thing I ask is when we jointly decide on policy, that
it's disseminated and we have the same common policy
where we must have policy and I'm anti policy, wherever I
can be. So, I think I give them tremendous latitude and
tremendous independence. However, I'm an anal son of a
gun on something like 1 just described. [Interviewer, "I want
to point out you were talking about your ability to delegate
and then this sounds like maybe a step back in delegating?"]
Definitely. It's exactly opposite. It's like, let me delegate the
responsibility of running the office and recruiting for the
future but let me tell you how to do it. Delegating, please. It's
ridiculous. Okay, and yet I'm also told by my managers that I
am a phenomenal manager because I think in a broad sense I
really am. But, if they let me in on the details, this is the
thing, if they let me in on the details, I'm gonna get involved.
But I generally am not involved in any of the details.
300
Understanding Innovation
Mary apparently thinks that innovation happens by first
creating the proper work environment. If this is done, innovation
just happens. She believes that key factor in a creative environment
is a free flow of information, as described in the following three
statements.
• I don't think the hard part is having the idea and planning for
it to take place. I think of the structure and processes of the
business being like a basket that you just drop the ideas into,
it's already in place. I thinlc the hard part is getting the ideas.
• I for one have never had an original idea in my life, right.
However, I think I have really built an organization where
people listen to each other's ideas. I think the whole key in
innovation is not structuring to accommodate innovation, I
think it's structuring yourself to hear it.
• I think I am trying to re-emphasize again what I just said a
minute ago. I think that it's the day-to-day openness that is
the key to innovation. Not about organizational structure,
per se. Okay, if you don't have the organization in place not
to execute anything, maybe that's a problem. But we've
always had that. I have always been very organized in the
structure part. But it's the other part that I think is the right
one.
• I think where I deserve the credit was that I had created an
environment where Ellen, who does nothing but punch
numbers all day, felt that she would be heard, respected, or not
laughed about, and sending me a note about what she
thought was good.
301
Understanding the Need for Communication
In the next statement, Mary strikingly describes her
recognition of potential communication problems in opening a second
office.
• When I had one office, I had a great team. When I owned my
second office, one in a different part of town, the same town,
not a mile a part, I figured no big deal, no problem in
coordinating work between the two offices, right.
Communication proved to be more difficult than I
anticipated. I really had to acknowledge the fact that we were
not one company anymore.
Understanding the Need for Team Work
In Mary's thinking, small task teams get the job done.
• That's my style. I always form small teams. Work task teams.
It gets the job done; it happens versus spreading the task out.
Use Perception to Create Success
Mary is the only interviewee in all of the cases who discusses
the importance of creating image and the need for a perception of
success. She is blunt and open about her focus on this aspect of her
business.
• I know how to create an image and I firmly believe that if you
create an image, you don't have to worry about the reality
because the reality takes care of itself.
• I just say, let me convince the world that we are 'it.' And if I
convince the world we are 'it,' somehow everything else is
going to fall into place. And it always works that way,
without exception.
302
• I really feel so strong about what I do. I spend all my time
focusing on image, not that I am, unfortunately, too much
into detail, but I know what my priority is. My priority is
getting the baloney out there and then after that, I just have
blind faith that somehow it all works out. It really does you
know.
More on this topic is discussed in the Self Perception category
below.
Self Perception
Self Awareness
The following statement refers to a past event that Mary still
feels bad about. She thinks that there are better solutions to dealing
with dishonest employees, solutions that don't demean the
individual.
• I think in hindsight, in my youthfulness, I think it was cruel
to that sales woman who I fired. Well everybody makes
mistakes, but if her mistake was one of dishonesty, it was a
foolish mistake and there's a lot of mistakes, I think to use her
as a spectacle was probably far less than kind. If I had thought
long enough and if 1 hadn't been fired up emotionally over it,
which I was like a yellow bronco, I think I could have thought
of three other solutions. I think I could of thought of many
solutions, so I wouldn't take those actions now. I just
wouldn't do it. It just seems too mean.
• [In response to a question.] I'd have to really think that
through. I think through really really well when I draw little
pictures for myself, little circles with lines, little this and this.
I put everything on index cards. I reshuffle. Thaf s the way I
reorganize my business always. So, I really just have to go
through that exercise.
303
Understanding One's Own Role
Mary seems to see herself as top promoter of herself and her
company and chief instigator to shake things up and get people to
think about new ideas.
• I really know how to market well, okay. I think my one gift
and my only gift is that I know how to create an image.
• I see my job purely as starting fires; I don't want to tend fires,
and not because of laziness, but because then I could start
more fires.
Seeing Oneself as a Leader
Mary believes she is a very good leader. She thinks that her
people are loyal to her and will follow her under any circumstances
as demonstrated in the next statement. In the second statement
Mary describes that the reason for this loyalty is perhaps because
she demonstrates so much caring for her employees.
• I am a good leader ... During the recession and business was
so poor, because we were very near bankruptcy you know, I
had huge overhead and I had just gone through a big
expansion, but I'll tell you, my managers, who are not affluent
people (you know that managers do not tend to be the rich
kids. The rich kids are the hot shot sales people unfortunately)
offered to work for free and meant it and I had them half
work for free. [When they heard this.] My creditors ceased
sending me bills. I mean it was amazing the good will that I
didn't know I had.
• What I'm saying is, I think if the leadership is about loyalty
then I must be a great leader because people really would
304
follow me anywhere. I am convinced of that. [Interviewer:
"And of course, the question is why are they so willing to
follow you?"] Oh, because I think, oh, I don't know. I guess
you'd have to ask somebody other than me. I think I really
care about everybody. I mean, there are times when I don't
care. I'm exhausted. You know. But, I think I genuinely put
my heart and soul into my work and I think that they know I
care about them. I think when you care about somebody, I
guess the chances are they're gonna care back. Maybe it's as
simple as that. It's like being a good mother. The kids are
gonna love you. Uhm, yeah.
Mary demonstrates in the next two statements strong
confidence in her leadership and business acumen. In the third and
fourth statements, Mary seems to indicate that she is a natural born
leader, in many aspects, not just business. She also sees herself as a
teacher and motivator; yet, on both of these, she expresses
ambivalence.
• He [Jack Welsh, president and CEO of General Electric] stood
up there and spoke for 45 minutes, came right into the crowd,
and he is a VERY successful business man, and he gave such
an ABC philosophy or theory on his feelings about how to
build a successful business, and I'm telling you he told me
everything that I practiced. So I almost could have written his
script. And for me it was such a high because, I figured either
this guy is shitting me which is still a possibility, but he didn't
seem it. He was very genuine.
• He [Jack Welsh] made me feel tremendously confident about
growing my business. In fact, he refueled me because the only
trepidation that holds me back sometimes is the fear that I am
going to lose control. You know, I have a control thing, so
losing control for me, going too fast, I feel I'm choking and I
panic. He gave me great confidence that I can have the same
305
fitness in my business as a giant company; the same as if I
were small. He made me think I was doing everything right,
you know?
• I honestly don't know what my leadership style is. I'm very
confident. I'm a very good leader and the reason I am
confident is not because of the business. I mean it's my
business and I'm in charge, huh? But I am confident I am a
leader because in anything I get involved in I usually wind up
leading it. And to tell you the truth, I just don't want to. I
really don' t want something else on my back.
• I know I teach well, and I am a great sales motivator, and I
don't know if that falls in the leadership category but I think
that honestly is where my effect on the company really is. I
think when I meet with my sales people which is only twice a
year, at my big sales meeting, which I would eliminate because
it's so much pressure for me, I'm almost physically sick for
two weeks before the meeting. I feel this great expectation.
All the sales people come together and my job solely (you
know, I have managers, and other people doing other parts of
the meeting), is to stand up there and get people
OOOOOOOOHHHHH! friendly, you know and that's not so
easy to do for me. So it's a lot of pressure and 1 hate it, I hate
it. Yet every time I do it, everyone tells me how incredible I
was.
In the brief statement below, Mary indicates perhaps
ambivalence or a sudden insight and then follows it with a clear
statement about her primary goal.
• I don't care about the power. Well, that's not true, I think I do
care.
• I care about the power, not as it pertains to my organization,
but I care about the power that I have to be the top in my
industry. That's my goal; I'm not there yet. It's driving me
306
nuts. I work for it everyday of my life, okay? So that's caring
about power, isn't it? I wouldn't have labeled it power. I'd
say, "I want to be the number 1 leader. Yeah, it's about
achievement; I've hit it. I'm the top dog. I do it better than
everybody else. I won the contest. I'm really competitive.
But if somebody said, "What's your thing power? I was never
associated with the word. Control? It's my middle name.
Philosophy of Life
Mary's business acumen appears to be counter intuitive. For
example, in the second statement, she expresses the idea that not
focusing on money will result in making more money.
• I overpay anybody worthy of being over paid. I'd rather over
pay cause I know I'm going to get much more out of them.
You know. That money will come back three fold. I don't
know if its really true. I can't really measure it. But I really
believe it.
• I know quite a few businessmen at this juncture and they are
very focused on the money aspects of things. I never focus on
the money. I don't give a damn about the money. And
somehow I manage to make a lot of money. So that means
I'm just lucky so far, uhm? But I feel like if I focus on the
people and everything is right there, the money takes care of
itself, and I really do find it to be that way.
Creating Reality
Mary demonstrates the belief that you first create an image
and by doing this, reality will follow, in other words, perception
creates reality.
307
• My salespeople started acting like they were experts, because
they were rising to the occasion. And then we got more sales,
and we enlarged, and enlarged, and enlarged, and now we
really do have the widest based market statistical report in the
industry. And it's soUd as a rock, based on pure fact. And
they are not numbers that anybody could challenge.
However, we are not getting any more publicity now than we
were then, simply because we acted like we were the experts
then and everybody fell for it. And we act like it now, and we
really are, and everybody is still falling for it.
• You know, what I find absent, and I feel I'm very different
from the other guy, is I always focus on outside impressions
first before anything else I do. I read my plans in my mind
against how the public or consumer, or my customer or
whatever would react versus how my inside [the company) is
gonna make it happen or even how much the inside would
react. I'm very focused on the outside. I think my whole
emotion is towards image-making on the outside. I don't find
that among the men that I know running their businesses. I
don't find them very savvy in the image making area. I don't
think that's a male /female thing. I think some people just
don't focus enough on that and I think that's the power part.
I think it's the least work and the biggest thing, because it's
bull shiL
308
MARKETING CASE: MENTAL MODEL OF LINDA
Linda is the Sales Director for 260 sales people located in six
locations in the same urban area. She reports to the company's
president and to Mary, the CEO. I met Linda in her new glass-walled
office. It was pleasantly decorated with plants, pictures and small
mementos. Her company had just moved into the new facility a few
weeks prior to this interview and people were still getting their new
offices organized. Linda is middle-aged, conservatively dressed,
pleasant, and warm.
Nature of Organizations
Linda did not directly discuss an understanding of management
planning or organizational systems and processes.
Nature of People in Organizations
Understanding Need for Achievement
In her interview, Linda views achievement from both the
perspective of her independent salespeople and the firm. The
salespeople need to achieve in order to get paid and the firm needs
them to achieve for it to be successful.
• Our revenue goals for each salesperson at a desk is that they
produce a certain amount gross to the firm. That's really their
goal, and our goal is to have each desk produce at least that.
But of course, we want to do much better than that, and you
know while that sounds like maybe it's not such a tough goal,
it's a tough business and to get a salesperson, especially if
they're new, producing quickly is a task, I mean it doesn't
always work. Out of six people you might hire maybe half are
309
great ones that you end up staying with, and maybe half fall
by the wayside, but that's why you hire new people because
they bring in freshness to the business that some of the older
more experienced salespersons lose.
Understanding People in Organizations
Linda perceives the independent sales force as being "different
sort of folks." She finds them temperamental, which she believes is
due to the stressful nature of their business as demonstrated in the
two statements below.
• They can be quite temperamental about certain things. I like
all of these people here and I enjoy working with them, but
they can get out of hand because of the stresses they're under,
and the things that fall through, to have a deal one day, and
not have it the next. It's stressful.
• But it's hard; this is a tough business and it's commission
sales; you have to find the people who can afford to sit at a
desk for 6 months without bringing in a pay check who want
to work hard, but those are money goals.
Linda seems to understand the pressures and stresses that the
sales force is subject to and how creating a pleasant setting in the
office can help them be more comfortable.
• They are independent contractors; I wouldn't say they were
loners; I would say they are entrepreneurial, because most of
my people love coming into the office. The work you do is
actually alone, because if you're working with a customer,
you're with that customer, but your on your own. But
coming into the office atmosphere for most of my people is
part of what they like about it. They are with others like
themselves who are in a very stressful business; you don't
make a sale you don't get a paycheck; it has a big impact. Yet,
310
they like to come into the office and one of things that I think
we try to do here is create an environment that is a pleasing
one for them because it's stressful out there in the field and
for them to like where they spend their time when they're not
with customers, and so forth. I think it's an important part of
distinction between companies. They've named their rows.
They've become good friends here.
View of Mary
Linda sees the CEO, Mary as someone who is terrific to work
for. Linda portrays Mary as fair, honest, trustworthy, and one who
treats her employees very well. She describes Mary's management
style as positive with no intimidation. According to Linda, Mary
trusts her employees and doesn't interfere with them if everything is
going well, as indicated in the two statements below.
• [In response to the question, "What is Mary's impact on the
operations of the business? For example, some CEO's have to
have their hands in everything and the result of that is they
sometimes stifle people and sometimes cause people to feel
like they're not trusted or not competent."] Well, let me tell
you that here it is the opposite of that. It is totally the opposite
of that. Mary is a wonderful manager. She is a person who
treats her people so well, both managers and sales people, that
she creates a loyalty that doesn't exist in a lot of places. When
she was more involved in a hands-on way, when I first started
in management, I would go do a job and I'd come back and I'd
go home and I'd have a bouquet of flowers saying thank you
for doing a wonderful job. And after you go through that for a
couple of years of somebody really patting you on the back
putting their trust in you, you start saying this is such a
positive management style; it's not an intimidation
management style. She doesn't hire you unless she trusts
you, and if she trusts you, then she is assuming that you are
311
going to be doing what you're supposed to be doing and, if she
wants to question you on something, she'll come. She
doesn't have to be right all the time; she's willing to let you be
right if she thinks you are, and to tell you if she thinks you're
wrong.
• I was also a manager at another office for some time; I started
out in this office as a salesperson and then I went into
management. Then she moved me to another office. And
it's very different because it's an office that she's not in, nor
does she come to, and she told me when I started over there,
and it was my first office management job, and I hadn't been a
sales director; I had been an assistant here, but when I moved
over there as a manager, she said the best complement she
could pay me was to never hear from her. She paid me a
compliment because I didn't hear from her very often, and
occasionally I started to say I hope I'm doing okay, because I
don't hear from her and I started to miss her a little bit. You
know, she makes us feel like we own it. She doesn't treat us
as one of her employees, she makes me feel very proud to be
doing what we're doing and who we're doing it for. So it's a
great environment; it's terrific.
Nature of Planned Organizational Chang e
Perception of Change
Linda perceives transformational changes having taken place
over the years in the company. She mentions the firm's rapid
growth, its doubling of the office space, and the computerizing of the
business as examples, as described below.
• You couldn't be talking to a better company for examining
transformational change. I started in this company in 1989
and I believe since that year the size of this company has
probably doubled. That's a lot of growth in eight years. I
312
started out as s salesperson and we were across the street. Not
only has the size of the company doubled, but the size of this
office has doubled. We moved across the street and have
gone from 8000 square feet to 16,000 sq. ft. Mary is on the
leading edge of everything that is going on in this business.
People love her for it; people hate her for it. Competitors hate
her; the people who are in the company love her for it. We
have gone from using computers for inventory to putting top
of the line computers, both hardware and software, in our
offices for our salespeople. We have gone from DOS based
and windows based. We are now designing our own
programs and we are the first ones to have e-mail. We're the
first ones to have Internet access at each salesperson's desk.
The Internet has brought us into a whole new way of doing
business. But the mere fact that that market changes from one
year to the next brings you into another transformation. So
there's been lots of transformation in the eight years that I've
been here. She started 25 years ago, and just imagine the
transformation that went on during the first 18 years or so.
But it's been very, very exciting. Some of it's difficult for
these salespeople. The ones that have been here for a long
time are having a difficult time with this new computer
thing. You know it's different for them to check e-mail, to
learn Widows, to learn the word processing or 97. They were
very comfortable doing what they were doing. We just
moved this office from across the street and they sat in those
desks for 10 years; this was a transformation. For them to pack
up their things, as much as they wanted to move, it was a
difficult move for them. To seat them in a new seat, to get
used to new surroundings, it's been total transformations in
this company.
Linda also perceives that the business itself has dramatically
changed over the years, mainly due to the changing market. In
response to these changes, according to Linda, Mary has initiated
313
certain leading edge programs that have made her competitors
envious. Linda says:
• The job itself has changed. In the time that Mary's been in
this business, she's seen demand for products fluctuate
markedly. And that's in a span of 23 years and it's gone up
and down in that 23 years. We were enjoying the height of
the market in 1987 and Mary moved into a new office and at
that point the phones stopped ringing. So we went through a
period for like 4 years where you really could not sell. So now
we're back to where now you can't keep up with demand.
• So these are the conditions of the market that change, and
that has changed the way salespeople have done business.
Mary, I'm happy to say, has been the leader in much of this.
She's a leader in this business and it's one of the reasons that
other firms don't like her because she was instrumental in
getting customers to say, 'Hey, this is a pretty good idea; you're
right; it is the best way to get the best price.' But it is, we have
a philosophy that that is true and we live by that.
Understanding Innovation
As her statements demonstrate, Linda perceives her company
as being innovative. She describes innovation in terms of utilizing
new technologies such as computers and the Internet. Linda believes
that her company forces competitors to try and catch up to them.
• We've made other people say, 'Oh my God, they're on the
rise.' You know she made them play catch up and people
don't like to do that, not when you've been in the number
one position, you don't like to do that. We're not the largest;
we're the second largest but we think we're the best.
• She does very different kinds of ads. When you see other
advertising, they're very stodgy. Mary has a sense of humor
314
and she uses it. Our web site is the best and we're going, that's
another transformation; we're going full force with the web
site we have probably the best web site in our industry and
were bringing it in-house; were not even going to have a
provider anymore so that we can make changes immediately.
We can change inventory in a second and it's exposed to the
world; can't beat that.
Understanding Management and Leadership
In the statement below, Linda demonstrates an understanding
of how the leader of an organization influences organizational
behavior. Linda perceives Mary as a leader who is good to her
employees and who rewards them for their efforts. Throughout this
interview, Linda indicates that she believes Mary is the one who is
the leader, while she manages people as discussed in the Self
Perception category.
• [In response to the question, 'And if you were really wrong,
does she comes back and say it?] She'll say, 'I told you it
wasn't going to work.' But really, she doesn't try to make you
feel badly. That's not what Mary's about; she really isn't and
you know any company's behavior starts from the top and
with Mary it starts from the top and I think it filters all the
way down into clerical. She sends her clerical staff two days a
year on a day of fun, on her. She has given them her house
for a weekend. We have so much clerical now we go to a
resort now; she sends them masseurs and masseuses and she
just knows how to, without having to pay somebody a
million dollars, make them want to work for you. I think
people who work here take pride in this company because of
Mary.
Understanding the Need for Communication
315
Linda stresses the theme of the importance of listening to the
sales force. In the statement below, she describes a formal process
the company has for the purpose of listening to employees.
• We have at the company something called the Advisory
Council, and it's comprised of all the managers of the offices
and two elected representatives of each office. We meet once
a month and we discuss issues. And if we have something
that we want to change, as a matter of fact, we took that
commission change to the Advisory Council and said this is
what were going to do and we're letting you know that, to sort
of get a feel. I don't think you can ever get a total feel, because
when you're talking about two people out of this office to get a
feel, it's not totally accurate, but at least we had put it there
and that was the forum to do it. That's the way big changes
are made; when we change advertising policies that's also a
hot topic; advertising budgets, whatever, that's also
something that we'll put out to the salespeople first. I believe
that the salespeople feel that they have a say. It doesn't mean
they're going to get their way but they can voice it. They can
walk into this office and say that they do not like the way
we're doing such and such, and I'll let them tell me why.
Understanding Reward and Recognition
Throughout her interview, Linda frequently mentions more
subtle ways Mary reinforces positive behavior. In the first
statement below, Linda relates a formal process for rewarding
clerical support. The second statement demonstrates Linda's reaction
to Mary's informal recognition of desired behavior.
• [In response to the question, "It's not just money is it?"]. No it
isn't for me and I think there are many people like me too. It
isn't always just money. Sometimes it is, and you can't reach
those people with this style if it's just money unless they're
316
just such superstars, and they're making so much money that
it doesn't matter. But, you know, a pat on the back is worth a
lot.
• When somebody is really patting you on the back putting
their trust in you, you really appreciate it
Understanding the Need for Team Work
In describing her working relationship with Mary, it seems
unclear if Linda regards it in terms of teamwork. However, Linda
seems to perceive that their relationship is the basis of their ability
to function well together.
• [In response to the question, "What do you see as your
working relationship with Mary, how would you describe
that?"] I'd describe it as comfortable, as an honest one. I think
she trusts me and I trust her and I think she probably doesn't
like my cluttered office. I have too many plants, too many
chachkas. Well, it's my office Mary; get out of here. I thinks
our relationship is built on trust and she knows how loyal I
am. She trusts me and I feel that I can go to her and say, 'Mary
I know you want me to do this but I have to teU you I feel like
it's the wrong thing to do.' 'Linda, I hear you, but you know
what I think, it's the right thing to do.' She'll treat me that
way, 'I'm going to ask you to do it and see what happens; if it
doesn't work I'll back off.'
Understanding Organizational Culture
Linda seems to recognize the needs and motivations of the
sales force. Even when she's critical, she is able to place their
behavior into the context of their organizational culture as described
in the next two statements.
317
• I don't know if you noticed that refrigerator out there, they
started coming in here saying, 'can we get Perrier without the
lemon Ume?' And I said, 'Let me tell you something, you
know what, let me tell you something, you get what is in
there and if you don't like it go buy your own.' We have a
little lunch room and a refrigerator but it doesn't have an
automatic ice maker; do you know that one of their biggest
concerns is an ice maker? Let me tell you something it's not
equipped to have an ice maker; if it were I'd put one in. 'If
you want to go out and buy some ice trays, that's great, we'll
get some more ice trays and you can just have somebody ..., 'I
said. No, no, no, you do it.' They are commission salespeople,
a whole different breed. So you know that's why you have to
keep a sense of humor, because their demands are unrealistic
they really are. It is true; you give them an inch and they take
a mile; give them a mile, they'll take two. Wouldn't you
think, they don't pay a dime for these sodas, 'Can we get
something else?' they ask. One of the things was we had to
have pretty bottles in there; we don't put cans in there; we put
the ice teas in there because they're pretty; we got bottles of
coke and diet and Perrier because there prettier than some of
the others. But they aren't satisfied.
• [In response to the question, "What happens when things go
wrong; is there anything that's gone wrong that has shook
people up, shook the office up, and how did people react to
that?"]. We changed the commission structure so that if
somebody was moving to a higher level because the more
they make the more they take home, and the less we take
home. So of course they take a certain percentage and we're
taking a certain percentage, plus all the expenses that we've
got here, but, none the less, it works out okay, and that's the
way our business is done. So there was a time three years ago,
just when I'd come back to this office, that we had to
announce that the commissions were changing and that they
had to make more money gross commissions to take home
318
that same amount. They do not like to have things taken
away from them; they love for you to give them things but
don't take it away.
Self Perception
Self Awareness
Linda perceives herself as a "people person." She believes that
she is seen as warm and friendly, outwardly demonstrating her
feelings for others. She also believes that Mary promoted her into
management because of their similarity in styles.
• I think in some ways we relate to people in the same way,
Mary and I. Maybe people skills is not the right word, but
Mary and I are the kind of people that will put our arms
around somebody and hug them. There might be other
managers who are much less familiar with people; I have a
sense of humor that I use in my dealings with people, and
sometimes you have to back off from that, because they don't
have a sense of humor and they don't like people who do, so
you just sort of have to tailor sometimes the way you react to
people. Basically I think we have the same kind of 'coochy
coo' style where you don't find that in everybody and that's
not right for everybody, but it comes natural to me and 1 think
it comes natural to her. She's probably much better at it than I
am but none the less we have similarities in that. I think
when she brought me to this office, part of what she wanted
was that.
• [In response to the question, "Do you try to in some ways to
emulate her style or is that natural for you?"] I do, it's natural
for me. In many ways I have some similarities to Mary. I'm
not as bright as she is and I couldn't have done what she did,
but I have some of the people skills that Mary has.
319
Understanding Own Role
Once again, Linda portrays herself in the role of care-giver to
the over-stressed sales force.
• I see them through; hold their hand, slap them if I have to,
you know, sit them down and say, 'You know you're
behaving badly.' I think to be in this position is challenging,
just how to deal with people. It's a big part of it; they know
more than I do about the business now since I don't do that
anymore. But, I think just dealing with them on an
individual basis and going through their stresses with them,
helping them through a deal, being an advisor you know. I'm
the psychiatrist; I can see with no emotion. I'm not tied to
money as they are. I mean I'm tied to their money, but not as
much, as they are. So I can help them through things by
seeing it clearer because I don't have the emotional tie to it. I
find it very interesting because there is a different situation
every minute.
Seeing Oneself as Leader
Linda seems not to perceive herself as a leader, but rather a
sensitive manager who tries to help her workforce deal with a tough
job. She sees Mary as the one who is the leader in the company.
• The challenges are many, I think, and keeping the salespeople
happy without giving away the store is a major one. They're
very demanding; commission sales people are a whole
different breed of people to manage. If you're paying
somebody a salary of whatever per year, you have certain
things you can ask of them. We don't pay them a salary; they
pay us out of every deal that they make. So there's a fine line
between what you can demand or ask of them and what you
can't. I think one of the hardest things is getting everybody up
and producing and I think that's a challenge. 1 hire a lot of
new people in hopes of training them, not that I'm solely
320
responsible for training but I'm their direct report here. We
have training classes that we run and they do attend those
during their training period, but I think part of my challenge
is dealing with their stress. And not having it get to me.
321
MARKETING CASE: MENTAL MODEL COMPARISON
The president, Mary and the sales director, Linda, see
themselves as playing very different roles in the organization. The
president is the leader, motivator, innovator, image-maker, risk
taker, and reward-giver. The sales director is primarily the care-
giver and mental health worker for the stressed out sales force, as
well as the cheer leader as she is responsible for ensuring that the
sales force is fmancially successful. Mary sees the growth of the
company as transformational as Linda echoed.
The Nature of Organizations
Neither Mary nor Linda discuss management planning nor
organizational systems and processes theoretically. However, Mary
does express her pragmatic approach to accomplishing planning and
organizational tasks and their delegation.
The Nature of People in Organizations
Mary demonstrates her understanding of employees need for
recognition and rewards. She does this through informal "pats on the
back" as well as formal awards of trips and outings. Linda does not
see these activities as part of her role. Instead she is the care-giver
who tends to the overly stressed salespeople.
Mary believes that the sales people need to help each other.
She has developed mechanisms to encourage and support their
322
personal and work interaction. Mary understands tliat people want
to make contributions to the success of the company and she
recognizes the different ways that they can do this. On the other
hand, Linda believes that she understands the needs, motives, and
problems of the sales force and uses this understanding to help them
deal with the stresses involved with their work, so that they can be
productive.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change
Mary demonstrates her understanding of concepts and actions
that bring organizations through transformational change. She works
at creating a work environment that supports change. This
environment is supportive of new ideas, is one where trust and
honesty are rewarded, and where interpersonal communications and
information sharing are strongly encouraged. With this kind of work
environment established problems such as resistance and
opportunities created by innovative ideas are better dealt with.
Linda does not discuss concepts of change or actions related to
it. Instead, she focuses on the needs of the sales force and ways in
which she can help them succeed. Linda perceives her company as
being innovative and at the leading edge in its industry. She
encourages communication which plays an important role in the
company.
Self Perception
While Mary perceives herself as "a very good leader," Linda
does not see herself as a leader. Instead, Linda sees herself as a
323
manager as well as support-giver and "psychiatrist" to the sales
force.
Mary believes she is sensitive to the feelings of others,
although she also perceives herself as being tough and demanding.
Linda feels that her style is similar to Mary's and she sees herself
and Mary as "buggers." She describes her role in a loving parental,
although objective, way, rather than as a manager.
Mary believes that image is everything in business and that
her image is one that she has created and is vitally important to her.
She extends this to her business as well. She feels that other business
people don't pay enough attention to it. Mary says that first she
needed to create the perception of success outside the company, and
then real success followed.
324
CHAPTER SEVEN: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Introduction
As stated in the first chapter, this dissertation explores
transformational change in organizations from the perspective of the
mental models of leaders of organizations and their middle level
managers. Further, this dissertation explores how the mental models
of these people affect their perception of the transformational
changes in terms of the problems they were designed to address.
The concept of mental models is studied as a possible tool for
examining and analyzing leaders effectiveness in their efforts to lead
organizational transformation and to pinpoint areas on which leaders
need to focus their attention, in order to improve their change
efforts. The research context is that of organizations undergoing or
having undergone planned transformational change.
Recapitulation
In order to accomplish the above task, this paper describes in
Chapter Two, a number of theories of organizational change from the
perspectives of prominent change theorists. This is done to provide
an understanding of what planned transformational change is within
the context of the larger field of study of all types of change within
organizations. The study of transformational change helps us
examine what the mechanisms of change are, including what initiates
change, what actually changes, and what different kinds of change
there are. From this examination we learn that although there are
numerous theories of planned organizational change the
325
methodologies for implementing change have a great deal in
common. This eclectic approach to studying organizational change
enables us to match theories to specific change situations. Another
approach, which 1 chose not to pursue, would be to attempt to
explain organizational change from the perspective of one specific
model. The value of the approach I did choose, that is the eclectic
one, is from the perspective of the consultant who will be able to
help a client understand organizational change that best fits their
situation.
1 stated that the reason for studying change theories in the
first place was to learn why and how change phenomena take place
and thereby, better determine appropriate actions. Without a
theoretical basis, our actions may well be ineffective and even
dangerous to achieving our goals in organizational change.
All of the theorists studied describe what actually changes
during organizational change in very similar ways, even if their
words are different. According to these theorists, transformational
change occurs when an organization's basic elements of structure,
systems, culture, and patterns of behavior change. This is
differentiated from change that is not transformational and does not
affect the basic elements or "deep structure" (Tushman & Romanelli,
1985) of the organization and can be thought of as a continuation of
a theme that only produces variations. Planned transformational
change is partly a matter of perception and partly empirical,
according to Kanter et al (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1992). In other words,
if members perceive that the changes in their organization are
transformational in nature, then to them, they, in fact, are. Others
326
view change as transformational only if it can be demonstrated
empirically (Ven, 1986). Some researchers view transformational
change from a systems theory approach (Lichtenstein, 1995; Ven,
1986), or as a sporadic or punctuated series of short, rapid periods of
change and long periods of stasis or stability (Romanelli & Tushman,
1994; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985).
The mechanisms or triggers for transformational change to
occur are variously seen by different theorists as: environmental
forces, organic or life-cycle forces, and/or political forces (Kanter et
al., 1992); constructive motor or purposefully selected goals (Van de
Ven, 1988); the force of logic and reason, the use of cultural norms
and education, and/or political and legal power (Benne & Chin,
1976a); severe crisis, environmental change, and/or new leadership
(Romanelli & Tushman, 1994); a change in dynamic stability such as
when order parameters are overwhelmed by crisis (Lichtenstein,
1995); new or disconforming data that challenge existing beliefs and
attitudes (i.e. a crisis) (Lewin, 1947); and forces primarily originating
outside of the organization (Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992). Perhaps
the greatest contribution these theories provide us is the opportunity
to analyze closely and reflect on the change situation rather than
react quickly and unwisely.
This paper next describes theories of leadership in Chapter
Three. This is undertaken because the leader has the greatest power
and influence to initiate and support transformational change. In the
study of leadership there are many theories that attempt to explain
the impact that leaders have on their organizations, why certain
leaders are effective while others are not, and how and why
327
leadership takes place. Theories of leadership of organizations take a
wide variety of approaches to explain their impact. We learn that
certain styles of leadership seem more appropriate than others for
organizations undergoing transformational change.
We described several problems that need to be kept in mind as
we study leadership. First, is the problem of defining leadership
(Stogdill, 1974). We find a large number definitions from a wide
variety of disciplines and researchers. Second, is the consideration of
whether leadership is a result of role specialization or social
influence. Do leaders attain their position because of special qualities
they possess or because of processes that naturally occur in social
systems? Third, concerns the extent of leaders' influence on
organizational members. Fourth, is the problem of differentiating
between leadership and management. Finally, there is the problem
of determining what is meant by leadership effectiveness. We hold
leaders responsible for the "success" of their organizations. But the
problem exists as to how we measure organizational success. Is
"success" the Wall Street definition of return on shareholder
investment and if so, how much return is "successful" and over what
time period should it be measured? Perhaps "success" should be
measured by an organization's long term growth, or the extent to
which employees gain job satisfaction? These measures do not
necessarily mean the same thing nor are the results the same. In
any event, this study does not undertake to examine the issue of
success in any form. Perhaps, as in our discussion of transformational
change theories, the benefit is in the examination and not the arrival
at a specific answer. Here too, an eclectic approach to understanding
328
leadership provides the consultant with various ways of describing
the leader's role to clients depending upon their specific situation.
Perhaps by making explicit our thoughts, ideas, and expectations of
leadership, we gain an understanding which is both appropriate and
useful for our specific situation.
This dissertation also describes the concept of mental models in
Chapter Four. We learn that mental models consist of our
assumptions, generalizations, and beliefs that we hold about the
world around us (Senge, 1990a). Our actions and behaviors are
determined by the way we perceive our world. Mental models have
such a great impact upon us for two main reasons: ( 1 ) mental
models cause us to perceive selectively; that is, we look for details
that fit our mental models instead of viewing phenomena in an
unbiased manner, and (2) we are often unaware of our mental
models (Argyris, 1996). Because of being unaware, we fail to
examine closely why we think the way we do or about our
subsequent actions. In this way, mental models can prevent us from
learning by protecting ourselves from disconforming data. Mental
models impact and influence organizations through the individual
mental models of their members. On the other hand, examination of
mental models can make us more flexible and give us the ability to
interact more effectively to our world.
The goal of this chapter is to analyze what common elements
can be discovered from examining the cases in the three areas:
transformational change theory, leadership, and leaders' mental
models. This chapter also helps us verify the usefulness of
examining mental models of leaders as a tool for consultants.
329
Transformational Change
Identifying Transformational Change
Planned transformational change, by definition, is what Van de
Ven and Poole call "constructive" or, "teleological" change since
transformational change is both planned and purposefully enacted
by the organization (Van de Ven, 1988). All four cases described in
this dissertation can be viewed as examples of transformational
change in organizations. This can be said because, in each case,
members perceive change has occurred and that it can be
demonstrated that this change has taken place in the most basic
elements of the organization. Specifically, in each case, the way work
is accomplished has, and in all but one case, is continuing to change;
organizational members perceive that "things" are different, usually
referring to attitudes and norms.
In the Corporate Headquarters case, the way work gets
accomplished has changed. Where previous management either
could not easily make decisions or continually rehashed them,
decisions are now being made. Management focuses more on the
future than dwelling on past mistakes or present problems. People
at all levels now perceive that they are achieving important goals;
they have a vision of what the company can become, and the
company has returned to profitability in a significant way.
330
Additionally, Jane says they are more highly motivated than
before the new president entered the scene. The norms seem
changed too. Management is less formal; now everyday is "casual
Friday." People indicate that they feel more "comfortable" in going
about their jobs; taking risks with out fear, and knowing that their
accomplishments will be recognized.
We determined that transformational change has taken place
in the Utility Company case since norms, behavior, culture, and
systems appear different in the new company as compared to the
parent company. In describing start-up businesses Kanter et al.
place these new efforts in their micro-evolutionary change category
(Kanter et al., 1992). Start-ups have their own whole range of
challenges and issues to deal with including attracting skilled
employees, securing funding, and dealing with government
regulations. According to Kanter et al. this causes them to change
regardless of their strategic intent. Although many of the same
people, such as both Ralph and Sam, who are currently in the new
company came from the parent company, the way business gets
accomplished has significantly altered. Particularly their perspective
on how to attract and hold customers has radically changed. This has
been caused partly by external forces brought about by federal
deregulation of the industry. Unlike this industry in the past when
monopolies were permitted, deregulation fosters competition and the
need to attract customers. This results in a very different approach
and requires the new company to provide quality service focused on
customer demands. In addition, utilities have not been known for
having the ability to be flexible and adaptable, whereas, the new
331
company has demonstrated this ability by quickly modifying
strategic plans as marketing studies determine possible niches to
exploit. Chin's and Benne's normative-reeducative strategy helps to
explain some of the issues facing management in the Utility case
(Benne & Chin, 1976a). According to Chin and Benne, change
involves two elements: improved technology and the client systems'
climate and norms. It appears that the President, Rob focuses
primarily on empirical-rational strategies and technology, while
neglecting organizational member's attitudes, beliefs, and values. To
paraphrase French, leaders must pay attention to both technology
and people issues to change organizations (French, Bell & Zawacki,
1994).
The Marketing Company has grown rapidly in recent years; in
fact, it has doubled its size in the past four years. Rapid growth is
referred to by Kanter et al., as examples of micro-evolutionary
change (Kanter et al., 1992). Yet, the Marketing Company, to date,
has not fallen victim to some of the most dangerous aspects Kanter et
al. associate with rapid growth, specifically, a climate of infallibility.
This refers to the organization's feeling that it can do no wrong.
Perhaps avoidance of this danger is due to their President, Mary.
Mary's leadership is discussed later under "Leadership in
Organizational Change."
Linda describes her company as a great example of
transformational change because of the rapid growth and the
resulting changes that have occurred. Mary, too, perceives many
changes as transformational. In this case too, as the others, the way
people do their jobs has experienced significant change. For
332
example, the need to handle more data and information quickly has
contributed to the need to utilize computers and the Internet. Linda
mentions that many of the long time sales people have had great
difficulty in adjusting to the new technological culture. In addition,
changes in commission rules have reduced the sales people's share of
the profits. They are forced to sell more to maintain their income
level. The rapid growth has also contributed to a strain on
communications and coordination of activities. The Marketing
Company has rapidly grown to six offices and over two hundred and
fifty sales people. Mary has mentioned her current realization of the
problems inherent in this situation.
Perhaps the Marketing case is an example of, what Kanter et al.
see as an accumulation of many small changes over time that
suddenly become perceived as transformational in their entirety.
Transformational change is perceived as having taken place in
the Manufacturing Company case. Mike and Larry repeatedly
mention how different the climate has become since Ed came on
board. For example, significant improvement is reported by Mike
and Larry in regard to relations between management and labor, by
citing much less antagonism and conflict. Communications between
management and labor have greatly changed; where virtually no
communication existed before, management and labor are now
talking daily about problems and issues as members of the same
team. There are better procedures for generating and sharing
information and achieving production and quality. Larry stressed
mutual respect where previously none had existed.
333
The Manufacturing case can be considered an example of Chin's
and Benne's normative-reeducative approach to organizational
change (Benne & Chin, 1976b). Ed focused on paying attention to the
norms and climate and worked to change it. At the same time, Ed
realized that many of the members of the management group did not
have the skill or knowledge to manage the operations and Ed needed
to teach it to them in a hands-on manner.
Mechanisms of Transformational Change
This paper now turns to a discussion of what causes planned
transformational change and how the process take place. Lewin, in
his ground-breaking work on change, described the first stage of
change as requiring an "unfreezing" of the organization. "Unfreezing"
is necessary to begin the process of change. When organizational
members perceive a need for change, when they become dissatisfied
with their current situation, the unfreezing process can begin (Lewin,
1947; Schein, 1992). The "unfreezing" stage continues with
organizational members realizing that the future goal is worth going
after. "Unfreezing" is completed when members feel psychologically
safe to make the changes (Schein, 1992). Both Kanter et al., Van de
Ven and Poole, and Chin and Benne similarly describe this
"unfreezing" stage. Kanter refers to triggers of planned change as
being political, environmental, and life-cycle. Van de Ven and Poole
call these forces "motors", which include teleological and dialectic
motors of planned change. Lichtenstein's systems theory of
transformational change refers to a crisis involving an energy
overload that overwhelms inhibiting mechanisms (Lichtenstein,
334
1995). Romenelli's and Tushman's "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory
also includes preventative mechanisms that must first be overridden
for transformational change to take place.
In the Manufacturing and Corporate Headquarters cases, the
perceived need was one of organizational survival. When the leaders
of these organizations took over leadership positions, they, along
with the assistance of the then existing management, determined
what issues and problems needed to be addressed (i.e. what changes
needed to be made) in order immediately to bring the companies
back to profitability. They also developed longer term plans to make
changes for continued growth and profitability. One theory that
seems to explain this case is, as mentioned before, Van de Yen's and
Poole's teleological forces that are "constructive" or planned. But
also, this case can be explained through the inhibiting forces that
normally block change as previously described. With the situation so
bleak and the survival of the company in the balance, existing
inhibiting forces were no match for the forces of change.
The Marketing case is an example of a company whose leader,
Mary, is driven to make her company the best in her industry. She
attempts to accomplish this by staying ahead of her competition
through creating innovative ways of promoting herself and her
company. Mary also needs to deal with internal issues pertaining to
rapid growth such as coordination of policies and communication
among offices. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, this
case is an example of teleological forces initiating change. According
to Kanter et al., Mary's company is experiencing macroevolutionary
changes which are brought about by environmental forces that
335
impact her industry. These forces are primarily, in the Marketing
case, market conditions and her ability to meet customer demand
and overwhelm her competition.
Besides being an example of teleological change, the Utility
case, can be viewed as a start-up venture attempting to exploit an
opportunity. Kanter et al. might view the Utility case as an example
of macroevolutionary change, i.e. industry deregulation. Specifically,
the Utility case can be seen as an example of natural selection where
an enterprise attempts to succeed by taking actions that are
proactive and innovative in dealing with environmental pressures
and constraints (Kanter et al., 1992).
Maintaining Transformational Change
The issue of maintaining planned transformational change
receives httle attention from organizational change theories. After
transformational change has been initiated or the company becomes
"unfrozen," the work is far from over for organizations. Upon
examination, it becomes clear why some of the theories described in
this paper do not deal with the maintenance and continuation of
transformational change. For example, in Van de Yen's and Poole's
life-cycle theory, change is immanent, that is, it emerges in a
prescribed or predetermined manner (Van de Ven, 1988). Likewise,
evolutionary change is a result of a long process of natural selection
where small changes cumulate. Companies experiencing these
situations don't lend themselves to management and leadership
attention to ongoing change. Instead, the changes will happen
regardless of management efforts. Van de Ven's and Poole's
336
remaining theories, dialectic and teleological, do not provide ideas on
maintaining change either.
Kanter et al., in their change theories stress the emergent
dimension of change, change that is outside of organization's plans
for change. Kanter et al. refer to three clusters of forces that create
change: relationships between organizations and the environment,
organic growth as in life-cycles, and politics and power struggles.
Kanter et al. state that these forces operate outside of organizational
goals (Kanter et al., 1992).
Chin and Benne stress more a strategy of planned
transformational change than a theory. As a result their work
applies to a greater extent to the issues of maintaining change in
organizations. For example. Chin's and Benne's empirical-rational
strategies can be used to develop approaches to maintaining change
in organizations. By using logic and rational appeals to employees'
own best interests, commitment to planned transformational change
may be obtained. This is clearly Rob's approach in the Utility case.
For example, Rob uses logic and reasoning to gain acceptance for his
strategic plans. He seems to expect people to accept his ideas since
he believes they are logical and rational.
Of particular significance is the idea that individuals in
organizations are strongly influenced by cultural norms. Cultural
norms are internalized and thereby have a powerful influence upon
individual behavior (Benne & Chin, 1976a). Ed's approach in the
Manufacturing case can be used as an example of Chin's and Benne's
strategies for maintaining planned transformational change.
337
The Corporate Headquarters case is another example of these
normative-reeducative strategies. As will be discussed below under
"Leadership," John created an environment where the norms
support employees' creativity and taking action without fear of
punishment, where the cultural norms emphasize rewarding
achievement not punishing failure.
None of the other theories deals with the problems and issues
associated with maintaining planned transformational change.
However, Beckhard's and Pritchard's work presents a well developed
model/theory on how to implement this type of change effort
(Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992). However, Beckhard and Pritchard
view change primarily originating outside of the organizations. In
implementing change, their primary emphasis is on stressing the
importance of the leader's role in maintaining change strategy.
Leadership in Transformational Change
This section analyzes leadership style of the leaders in the four
cases described in this paper from the perspective of appropriate
leadership theories and identifies common elements of leaders'
actions and behaviors in planned transformational change. As we
examine leadership style, we find that a number of theories can be
used to describe actions leaders take. This is so because many of
these theories are not unique and often there is significant overlap of
concepts. However, some are mutually exclusive. In addition, we
are analyzing leaders from the perspective of interviews and other
data that examine them in a specific situation and at a specific
moment. In other words, this study is viewing leaders at a point in
338
time and is not in any way longitudinal in scope. These interviews,
therefore, provide an understanding of their actions in that situation
and cannot be generalized to other situations that they may have or
might someday encounter that are different from the one's studied.
Therefore, this study examines how leaders really act in their
leadership role and matches leadership theory to what leaders' say
and do. Leadership styles are analyzed in this paper from my
perception of which theories appear to provide the most appropriate
description of their espoused theories of leadership and their
leadership actions as perceived by their managers. It is not relevant
to this study to speculate on the leaders' motivations.
Situational or Contingency Tiieories
Situational or Contingency theories are one category of
leadership theories. According to this theory, leaders need to
determine consciously what their leadership style should be given
the needs of a specific work environment. Therefore, leaders' actions
would be viewed in the context of the specific situation he/she faces
and would be judged by his/her actions as being appropriate or
inappropriate for that situation (Fiedler, 1964). In this category, the
Path-Goal theory would look for actions that leaders takes that
satisfy subordinates and/or helps them achieve their tasks (House,
1971). From Jane's description of John, which include being
supportive of subordinate needs, directive in making clear
expectations, participative in eliciting subordinate ideas, and
achievement oriented in setting challenging goals, his actions appear
to be included in Path-Goal theory (Mitchell, 1974). In Ed's case, he
339
is personally delivering to his managers, in the manufacturing plant,
a quick course in management practices. Ed's actions are appropriate
for his specific situation. It is probably unlikely that a senior
executive would, under other conditions, provide this type of hands-
on tutoring. Mary handles each situation that arises by using her gut
reaction as to what her actions will be. From her own accounts,
sometimes these actions are later regretted. Rob doesn't seem to
consider the specific situation that he is currently encountering in
determining what his actions should be.
Yukl's Multiple Linkage model falls into this same category
of Situation or Contingency theories (Yukl, 1971; Yukl, 1994). It
focuses on the interaction of management behavior and the situation,
to determine the leader's effectiveness. Therefore, we must
understand the leader's situation in order to see the appropriateness
of his/her actions. In the Corporate Headquarters case and the
Manufacturing case John's and Ed's actions may be seen as
appropriate or effective for the "turn around" situation that each is.
Linda believes that Mary provides the right kind of leadership for
her company which Linda believes requires motivation, inspiration,
and innovative. On the other hand, both Ralph and Sam strongly
criticize Rob's leadership actions, or more accurately, his lack of
taking needed actions.
Leader Behavior Theories
Another category of leadership theories examines leaders'
observable behaviors and not any underlying skills or traits. Unlike
situational and contingency theories. Leader Behavior theories
340
posit that there are certain universal behaviors that are appropriate
regardless of the situation. These behaviors fall into categories of:
decision making, influencing, exchanging information, and building
relationships (Yukl, 1994). John's leadership style fits here as well.
John demonstrates being decisive in taking actions, influences
through logic and rational thinking, participatory leadership, and
positive reinforcement of desired behaviors. John encourages a free
flow of information and builds and maintains relationships through
honesty and consideration for others. Ed too, fits this leadership
style exhibiting the described leadership behaviors. Mary is decisive
in when to take actions and what actions to take; however, instead of
using logic and rational thinking, she depends upon manipulating
others to gain commitment. Also, she devotes considerable time to
developing and maintaining relationships both within and outside of
her company. Rob makes decisions in isolation from his management
group and does not share the thought processes that he uses to
arrive at his decisions. He does not focus on developing relationships
either with his management group or other personnel.
Perhaps John, or any of the other leaders in this paper, would
be able to lead organizations in other situations. It is unclear if these
leaders would be able to change their leadership style to meet
different organizational situations or if their leadership actions
demonstrated in their current situation would be appropriate. John's
business for years has been turning around failing companies.
Perhaps he chooses this situation because he sees himself most
effective in dealing with turn arounds, or perhaps, he and the other
341
leaders choose their situations consciously or unconsciously because
it provides them with other personal or financial rewards.
Power and Influence
Power and Influence is another category of leadership
theories. It deals with the exercise of power over subordinates, not
about empowering subordinates to be leaders themselves. The
power-influence approach focuses on direct influence of leaders or
managers in one-on-one situations and not indirectly as in affecting
organizational culture (Yukl, 1994). According to these theories, the
most effective leaders use power in rather subtle ways so that
subordinates are not threatened, humiliated, or ways which
emphasize the difference in status and position of the subordinate.
Leaders who attempt to manipulate or dominate subordinates or are
arrogant in their use of power often meet with resentment and
resistance (Yukl, 1994). Influencing actions are most successful
when the leader's requests are perceived as being legitimate,
reasonable, obviously connected to the mission or vision of the
organization, and that is within the skill and knowledge base of the
subordinate.
"Influencing tactics" are aimed at not just gaining subordinates'
compliance, but in gaining their whole hearted commitment (Yukl,
Lepsinger & Lucia, 1992; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). To accomplish this,
leaders utilize one or more of the following tactics: rational
persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, ingratiating, personal
342
appeals, exchange of favors, coalition tactics, legitimating tactics,
and/or pressure (Yukl & Tracey, 1992).
John's influencing actions can be seen as a combination of those
listed above; however, he often uses a consulting tactic where he
seeks participation of others in determining what actions the
subordinate should take. John also uses inspirational appeals
especially when dealing with the field sales people, who don't
directly work for him, in gaining their commitment of his vision for
them and the company. However, he doesn't use other tactics such
as personal appeals, exchange of favors, to gain others' compliance.
Ed's tactics are focused more on rational approaches to difficult
problems to gain employees' compliance or commitment. Neither
John nor Ed resort to pressure or positional power (legitimating
tactics) to gain compliance or commitment. Mary inspires her people
to accept her ideas and appeals (personal appeal) to them for their
compliance. Rob uses intellectual arguments (rational persuasion) to
influence his management group into implementing his ideas. He
also uses what are perceived as intimidating tactics (positional
power) to gain compliance.
Charismatic Leadership
Although charismatic leadership is a more recent category
of leadership theory, a great deal has been written about it. The
major issues in charismatic leadership include: the difficulty in
defining just what it is, how it operates, what actions leaders can
take that result in the charismatic phenomenon, and what conditions
need to exist for it to appear. Much of the research on charismatic
343
leadership explains the effect it has on subordinates or followers in
organizations (House, 1977; House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991; Howell
& Frost, 1989; Smith, 1982). These effects are described variously as
feeling affection for the leader, feeling emotionally connected to the
mission, and feelings of making contributions to the mission (House
et al., 1991). Some research describes leadership behaviors that
are associated with charisma such as leader articulated vision,
models of desirable behaviors, and communications of high
expectations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Morrman & Fetter, 1990). Other
theories of charismatic leadership, such as Attribution Theory of
Charisma, describe similar behaviors of charismatic leaders
(Conger, 1989). The role model that the leader portrays seems to
have significance, since identification with the leader is an important
aspect of the phenomenon (Conger, 1989). Other theories don't
pertain to leaders' actions and behaviors, but instead focus on the
need for self-esteem of followers and their emotional reactions in
groups to charismatic leaders.
Two of the leaders studied for this paper have charismatic
attributes, according to managers in their organizations. According
to Shamir, the communication of stories and the use of symbols are
behaviors that charismatic leaders exhibit (Shamir, 1991b; Shamir,
House & Arthur, 1993). Mary uses these behaviors extensively. We
have seen her use of image and symbols to create myths about her
organization's attributes that, not until later, became reality. These
myths become legends, shared both internally in her organization
and externally among competitors.
344
Managers, employees and field sales people perceive John as
charismatic, but they have difficulty in explaining why they perceive
him in this way. From discussions with managers and a review of
company materials, I have learned of John's use of symbols to help
people focus on programs, events, and concepts. John is a very
effective communicator and public speaker. Using these skills, he is
able to communicate effectively his vision to the rest of the
organization. He models behaviors that others try to emulate. These
include consideration and sensitivity of others' feelings, his
confidence in ultimate success, and his communication of the
company's mission, all of which are associated with charismatic
leaders.
There are negative aspects associated with charismatic leaders
as the events in Jonestown and the Hale-Bopp comet /San Diego mass
suicide demonstrate. Such charismatic leaders have followers who
strongly identify with them. In addition, they tend to leave their
organization powerless to function without their presence (Bass &
Avolio, 1990a; Shamir, 1991b). Although both companies, the
Headquarters and the Marketing cases, are dependent upon their
leaders, John's actions attempt to build more leadership, at all levels,
throughout his organization. Mary, on the other hand, hasn't built
such leadership in her company, although she has set in motion some
mechanisms to address this issue such as forming the advisory
council and empowering individuals to achieve success.
Transformational Leadership
345
Transformational leaders are able to take actions which help
organizational members to seek high achievement and self-
actualization (Bass & Avolio, 1990a; Burns, 1978). In other words,
these leaders lift their employees to higher ideals, moral values, and
self-improvement. On the other hand, transactional leaders gain
compliance through appeals to individuals' self-interest (rewards,
promotions, and compensation) (Burns, 1978). Transformational
leaders gain followership by creating an awareness of the employees'
tasks in connection to the organization's mission, and by encouraging
placing the good of the organization above individual's needs by
activating high-order needs such as affiliation and self-actualization
(Bass, 1985). According to Bass and Avolio, charisma does play a
part in transformational leadership, but so does creating awareness
of issues and problems, providing support and consideration for
followers, and motivating inspirationally (Bass & Avolio, 1990a).
However, charisma is used differently by transformational leaders
than by purely charismatic leaders. Transformational leaders who
seek to empower and elevate their followers, not to weaken them
and make them dependent, are charismatic in a productive way.
John, who denies his charisma, actually fits the role of
transformational leader. From reports by other managers in his
company, they see him as inspirational, helping them to perceive the
company's mission. The mission is not just to make money for the
company, but to provide an opportunity for all to have their own
businesses and work as hard and earn as much money as they feel
desirable for themselves. As noted elsewhere in this chapter on
346
leadership, John works to create an environment that allows people
to seek high achievement.
Ed has led the transformation of the manufacturing arm of his
company. Yet managers who work for him do not describe him in
terms of charisma or transformational leadership. Other managers
report that they see Ed as having a strong sense of values, working
hard, actively listening to what the workers are saying, and making
people think hard about their ideas. It seems that people really
trust Ed and believe that he is an honest, decent, and caring person.
Evidently, these qualities plus his strong expertise in manufacturing
gain people's confidence, loyalty, and commitment. This is a subtle
form of charisma in terms of his modeling behaviors.
Mary, as mentioned earlier, is the one leader of the four who
uses her charisma most consciously and extensively. Yet, she seems
more of a transformational leader than a purely charismatic one. It
seems that her employees are quite dependent upon her for her
creativity, innovations, and inspiration. However, she provides an
empowering climate for her workers where they can be high
achievers. In addition, she seems genuinely kind, considerate, and
looks out for their welfare. Linda perceives Mary as a very hard
working model for her to follow.
It is difficult to categorize Rob's leadership style. Rob is very
hard working according to self reports and statements from his
managers. However, he seems neither a transformational nor
charismatic leader. He is not a participatory leader either, since he
tends to work alone devising plans and strategies. It is unknown if
he would be able to change his leadership style to meet the
347
leadership needs of other organizations, but it seems unlikely since
his style appears to be inappropriate for his current situation. His
actions, as reported by two of his managers, are not satisfying their
needs nor helping them to achieve their tasks. Rob apparently uses
his positional power to gain their compliance. He does provide a
strong vision of what the new company can become, but that vision
is difficult for employees to identify with in their day-to-day work.
Perhaps Rob is not really leading his company, and others are
attempting informally to take over parts of what his role should be
so the company can move forward to transform itself successfully.
Another category of leadership theories, traits and skills, is
based on studies of leaders' motivation for their actions. These
studies examine leaders' traits and skills and include the work of
McClelland, Miner, Boyatzis, and others. Since, in this section of the
analysis we are not examining leaders' motivations, these theories
are not discussed.
Mental Models
As described in the literature review on mental models, this
concept refers to deeply held beliefs, assumptions, generalizations,
values, rules, and other similar personal concepts (Argyris, Putnam &
Smith, 1985a). Mental models are internal representations or
cognitive maps of the world around us. It is our internal movie of
how the world works. Mental models help us understand our world
and function in it, in a way that reinforces the mental models and
thus satisfies us positively or negatively. Our actions are a direct
result of our mental models. Before we react to external stimuli, our
348
mental models filter and modify our thinking. Only at this point do
we take action. What leaders' mental models are, and therefore,
what they think about the nature of organizations, the nature of
people in organizations, the nature of organizational change, and
their own self-perceptions, are important for accomplishing
transformational change. However, people are not generally aware
of their mental models and have developed defense mechanisms that
protect their deeply held beliefs from close scrutiny. It seems from
the research conducted on these four cases, that understanding one's
own mental model is helpful to leaders especially in choosing
appropriate actions to implement transformational change.
Common and Dissimilar Elements of Four Leaders' Mental Models
Mental models, being essentially cognitive maps, cannot
represent the world leaders live in either accurately or completely.
Therefore, we can say, that leaders' mental models are lacking to
some degree. Yet, often leaders act as if there were no difference
between their maps and their actual circumstances (Weinberg,
1959). If leaders do not recognize this difference, they will likely be
caught in taking actions that are inappropriate and unproductive for
their situation. The following section identifies common elements in
the mental models of the four leaders in this study.
The Nature of Organizations:
Only John has a fully developed theory about what
organizations are and how they operate. He sees the organization in
holistic terms and views organizations as living organisms where all
349
parts must function in coordination for the organism to flourish.
Mary views her organization as personal property. It is hers to
control and use as a way of fulfilling her personal aspirations. Ed
sees organizations as ways of achieving quality and productivity. He
seeks to improve the way the organization functions to gain the
desired results and to help individual workers to achieve stability
and fulfillment. Therefore, he works to upgrade local management
skills in managing people to solve problems and directly deal with
issues. Rob has a general view of organizations based on his perusal
of Peter Senge's "Fifth Discipline." He says that his company needs to
become a learning organization. Of the four categories in this paper
used to examine leaders' mental models, this one was by far the least
discussed by the subjects in this research.
The Nature of People in Organizations;
John, Ed, and Mary have strong concerns for people; they
understand what people want and need in organizations. They
believe in employees' desire and ability to succeed. They recognize
people's desire to achieve and their need for respect. They believe
that people truly want to make significant contributions to their
organizations and they want to be utilized. These leaders believe
that people need to be rewarded and recognized for their work and
they understand why this is important. They believe that people are
fallible, that they will make mistakes. From their perspectives,
mistakes are valuable learning experiences for both the individuals
and the organization. For these reasons they focus on rewarding
achievement and not punishing failure.
350
Rob seems not to be concerned or aware of individual people's
needs in organizations although his mental model contains some
general abstract concepts about this subject.
The Nature of Planned Organizational Change:
John, Ed, and Mary believe that change requires strong
leadership, and that people desire that leadership to be visible,
positive, and consistent. These leaders believe that they have the
responsibility of creating an environment where people can succeed
even while in the process of change. These leaders also understand
that people want to be involved in the decisions around change, the
planning, and implementation that goes into the change effort. They
understand the key ingredients that support transformational
change to take place: a powerful vision, teamwork, and ongoing
communication. They understand the importance of organizational
culture and its positive, as well as negative impact on the change
effort. They understand and accept their leadership role in
organizational transformation. Mary, in particular, understands the
role of image and perception in transformation. These leaders
understand that change will not happen without the participation
and commitment of everyone in the organization. They have the
leadership skills, knowledge, and experience to gain that
commitment.
On the other hand, Rob doesn't seem to have the concept of
what leaders actually need to do or what their role is in transforming
an organization and in enlisting others in the effort.
Self-perception:
351
John, Ed, and Mary have considerable self-knowledge. They
can openly discuss their strengths and weaknesses. They know what
their thoughts and feelings are about organizational life. John and Ed
have the ability to see their organizations' life from their employees'
viewpoint. Mary also has this ability, but her time frame for seeing
it is not immediate. She seems more impulsive at each point in time,
but is then able to reflect upon and analyze her behavior. John, Ed,
and Mary see themselves as leaders and they are comfortable with
the position. Each of these leaders has a philosophy that integrates
their organizational life with the rest of their life. John and Ed see
their work as life fulfilling with the opportunity to help others to
attain a satisfying life. Mary's philosophy includes the belief that the
creation of image will result in it becoming reality both personally
and professionally.
Rob does not see himself as a leader as the term is usually
defined. His mental model of leadership involves his collecting
information from others, sitting alone pondering the issues, coming
to a conclusion and issuing directives. He is not comfortable in the
position of leadership. He has some awareness of problems he has
relating with people, but isn't consciously aware of the extent of the
problem.
Summary
Mental models have clearly had an impact on the
transformational change efforts of the companies described in these
four cases. Mental models have both positive and negative results.
Argyris makes a distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-
352
use (Argyris et al., 1985a). This research has focused largely on the
espoused theories of leaders, that is, their expression of their
thoughts and experience. Insight into their theory-in-use has been
gained from leaders' actions as reported primarily by interviews
with the leaders' middle level managers which have informed the
descriptions of the leaders' mental models in terms of their
applications.
Consultants Uses for Theories of Action
Mental models, as mentioned above, consist of our deeply held
beliefs, but they also consist of processes we use to decide upon
actions in order to gain what we want. These ways of deciding upon
our actions are called theories of action and are discussed in this
dissertation's literature reviews of organizational change theory and
mental models (Argyris et al., 1985a). Theories of action are divided
into espoused theories which are what we claim to believe and
theories-in-use which are what we really believe and also can be
inferred from our actions. In other words, we can infer an
individual's theories-in-use and the mental models on which these
theories are based.
By comparing individuals' actions with what they say they
believe, we can gain insight into their mental model. For example, in
the Corporate Headquarters case, John believes that people need to
take risks in order to be high achievers. His actions are to reward
achievement and not punish mistakes. However, in the Utility case.
* 353
Rob says that communication is very important in his start up
company, but, he communicates very httle. In the first case, John's
theory-in-use and espoused theory are the same and his actions
demonstrate this. In the second case, there is a large discrepancy
between Rob's two theories and his actions demonstrate this lack of
congruence.
The discrepancy between what we say we believe and what we
truly believe has great importance for leaders of organizations in
planned transformational change. Becoming aware of the
discrepancies between what we say we believe and what we do can
help leaders examine their mental models and challenge their
assumptions and beliefs about their organization, the people who
work there, the changes that are ongoing, and about themselves.
Implications for Consultants
Leaders, as all people, react, not to an objective world, but to a
world of their own creation, built by perceptions, assumptions,
generalizations, and theories about what this world is like. This
constructed world of their own making is their mental model and
they need to examine and reflect on the results if it is inappropriate
or incongruent with their actions. By understanding the existence of
their mental model and challenging the basis upon which it is
constructed, and how their actions relate to it, they both free
themselves and enable themselves to make better choices and take
more appropriate actions.
Therefore, I believe that consultants have two roles when
working with organizational leaders who are their clients. The first
• 354
deals with education of the leaders on fundamental concepts of
transformational change so that they can identify problem and
success areas in their organizations and know the range of possible
actions to take. However, implications from the research in this
study indicate an important part of consulting work is also to help
leaders of organizations become aware of their mental models, both
in theory and in use. Therefore, the second role of consultants is to
assist leaders in recognizing the discrepancies between what they
say and what they do so that leaders can be congruent, that is, in a
sense, be an integrated whole by examining their mental models in
terms of their functionality. Leaders need to become aware of what
they are experiencing at the moment they are experiencing it and
becoming able to communicate this awareness to others (Rogers,
1969). Helping leaders become aware of their lack of congruence
assists them in challenging their own mental models.
There is a distinction between mental models and "mental
makeup." Mental makeup refers to the psychological and emotional
underpinnings that are the basis of each of our personahties. Mental
makeup is examined when we try to determine why we think and
act as we do. In order for consultants to assist organizational
leaders, they need to determine the boundary between mental
makeup and mental models. This is of great importance for me,
since I do not see consultants' roles as pertaining to the area of
mental makeup. Consultants can best assist clients whose needs fall
into this realm by encouraging they seek professional psychological
help. There are clinical psychologists who specialize in consulting to
organizational leaders in precisely this role.
• 355
One implication for further research is to examine this
boundary interface between therapy and management consulting as
demonstrated in the congruence or lack of congruence between
espoused theory and theory-in-use. Consultants need to be able to
determine the difference between a lack of perception on the part of
leaders and emotional dysfunction. For example, Rob appears to
have a high lack of congruence between his espoused theory and
theory-in-use. In addition, his espoused theory is lacking in some
critical areas of interpersonal relations. He himself admits that some
of the criticism expressed about his behavior resonates in his
personal life history. The consultant can assist a leader like Rob by
helping him perceive his actions vis-a-vis his words. Further, the
consultant can also help the leader see the significance and impact of
his mental model on the people in the organization and the whole
change effort.
From this view, the work of the consultant resembles, in some
respects, the mental health care-giver using Reality Therapy
(Glasser, 1965). Reality Therapy concepts are strikingly different
from traditional Freudian psychiatry. Glasser posits that regardless
of our history or condition, we are all responsible for our actions.
When we act in ways that are inappropriate, we are acting
irresponsibly. Actually, we are satisfying our needs by taking
inappropriate actions. The role of the therapist in Reality Therapy is
to confront the patient with his/her actions and to challenge the
patient on their appropriateness. "Our job is to ... confront them with
their total behavior, and get them to judge the quality of what they
• 356
are doing. ... unless they judge their own behavior, they will not
change" (Glasser, 1965 p. 56).
Assisting the leader with confronting the reality of their
actions is the first step in Reality Therapy treatment and is also an
appropriate first stage for the consultant's work. Next according to
Reality Therapy, once the patient recognizes reality, he/she must
learn to get his/her needs met within the context of this reality. For
example, could a leader like Rob, who has a high need for control,
learn to satisfy that need in ways that would also satisfy
organizational members needs for independence of action? This
question leads to the third step in Reality Therapy where the
therapist teaches the patient to fulfill his/her needs in ways that are
appropriate to the situation. The consultant performs essentially the
same service by teaching the leader to learn appropriate ways of
acting that would also satisfy his/her needs. If Rob actually
encouraged his people to think for themselves and delegated
responsibility to his senior management and other employees, he
would be acting congruently with his espoused theory and acting
appropriately for the organization's needs. By acting "as if he didn't
want a high degree of control, Rob would be learning responsible
behavior and this, in turn, would begin to align his espoused theory
and his theory-in-use (Glasser, 1965).
However, it is important to point out that the consultant cannot
take on the role of therapist, which in Reality Therapy, means
developing a close, loving relationship with the patient. The
consultant needs to beware of crossing the boundary in providing a
more therapeutic role. Even if qualified, the consultant must
• 357
remember that his impUcit moral contract restricts him to addressing
only those issues directly related to organization issues.
A Final Thought
It surprises me personally that, in the study of business
organizations in general, there is a lack of perception of problems
associated with organizational transformation from the perspective
of leaders building a work environment that empowers people to use
their experience, skills, intelligence, creativity, and innovativeness
for organizational growth and development. In Chapter One, 1
describe my perception of the present situation that exists in
American business organizations. I am not alone; others have similar
perceptions of organizational dysfunction (McGregor, 1960; Peters &
Waterman, 1982; Schaef & Fassel, 1988; Senge, 1990a; Weisbord,
1987). In a recent discussion on a public radio program of a
currently popular book on productivity with the author Professor
Richard Lester of MIT, the only two models of business organizations
(of many available to choose from) that were mentioned were
described: Taylor-like organizations where management rules
dictatorially and jobs are narrow and robotic-like, and paternalistic-
like organizations that wrap employees in a security blanket. These
two models were described as ineffective according to the Professor
Lester, since neither model can deal effectively with the rapid
change that business now, and for the foreseeable future, faces. Yet,
no discussion of any alternative was made. There was no mention of
the role leaders need to play in creating an alternative model of
business organizations, or the need to examine closely leaders'
358
mental models to assure that they take appropriate actions in
leading their organizations. In addition, the discussion lacked
reference to the significant contributions workers can make to their
companies if leaders create an environment where everyone is
encouraged to fully utilizing their intelligence and creativity for the
betterment of the organization, 1 believe that the concepts in this
paper offer a viable alternative.
359
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable Knowledge: Design
Causality in the Service of Consequential Theory. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science. 32 (4). 390-406.
Argyris, C, Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985a). Action Science .
(1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond
Expectations . New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990a). Developing Transformational
Leadership: 1992 and Beyond. Tournal of European Industrial
Training. 14 . 21-27.
Beckhard, R., & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the Essence . (1st
ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1976a). General Strategies for Effecting
Changes in Human Systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, R. Chin, & K.
E. Corey (Eds.), The Planning of Change . (3rd ed., ). New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1976b). The Planning of Change . New
York Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The Charismatic Leader: Behind the
Mystique of Exceptional Leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
♦ 360
Fiedler, F. E (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership
Effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology . . New York: Academic Press.
French, W., Bell, C, & Zawacki, R. (1994). Organization
Development and Transformation: Managing Effective Change . (4th
ed.). Boston: Richard D. Irwin.
Glasser, W. (1965). Reality Therapy A New Approach to
Psychiatry . New York: Harper & Row.
House, R. J. (1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 16 (321-3.39).
House, R. J. (1977). A 1977 Theory of Charismatic Leadership.
In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge , (pp.
189-207). Carbondale,IL: Southern Ilhnois University Press.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality
and Charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A Psychological Theory of
Leadership Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36 . 364-
396.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. (1989). A Laboratory Study of
Charismatic Leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 43 . 243-269.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge of
Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders
Guide It. New York: The Free Press.
♦ 361
Lewin, K. (1947). Group Decision and Social Change. In T. N.
Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology . . Troy,
MO: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Lichtenstein, B. M. (1995). Evolution or Transformation: A
Critique and Alternative to Punctuated Equilibrium. . Boston College,
Chestnut Hill.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise . New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy Models of Job Satisfaction,
Occupational Preference, and Effort: A Theoretical, Methodological,
and Empirical Appraisal. Psvchological Bulletin. 81 (HU. 1053-1077.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence .
New York: Harper & Row.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Morrman, R. H., & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on
Follower's Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors. Leadership Ouarterly. 1 . 107-142.
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to Learn . Columbus: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Company.
Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational
Transformation as Punctuated Equilibrium: An Empirical Test.
Academy of Management Journal. 37 (5). 1141-1166.
362
Schaef, A. W., & Fassel, D. (1988). The Addictive Organizarinn .
New York: Harper & Row.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and leadership . San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990a). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of
the Learning Organization . New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Shamir, B. (1991b). Meaning, Self, and Motivation in
Organizations. Organization Studies. 12 . 405-424.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational
Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-concept Based Theory.
Organization Science. 4 . 1-17.
Smith, B. J. (1982). An Initial Test of a Theory of Charismatic
Leadership Based on the Response of Subordinates. , University of
Toronto, Canada, Toronto.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of
the Literature . New York: The Free Press.
Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational Evolution:
A Metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research
in Organizational Behavior. 7 . 171-222.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1988). Innovations and Organizations.
Communication Research. 15 (5). 632-651.
• 363
Van de Ven, A, H. (1986). Central Problems in the Management
of Innovation. Management Science. 32 . 590-607.
Weinberg, H. L (1959). Levels of Knowing and Existence . New
York NY: Harper and Row.
Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive Workplaces . San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 6 . 414-440.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations . (3rd ed.).
Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. (1992). Preliminary Report
on Development and Validation of the Influence Behavior
Questionnaire. In K. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact
of Leadership , (pp. 417-427). Greensboro: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Yukl, G., & Tracey, B. (1992). Consequences of Influence Tactics
Used with Subordinates, Peers, and the Boss. lournal of Applied
Psychology. 77 . 525-535.
369
APPENDIX III: CODES BY CATEGORIES
The Nature of Organizations:
Management planning
Understanding organizational systems and processes
The Nature of People in Organizations:
Need for achievement
Sensitivity to feelings and emotions of others
Understanding need for rewards and recognition
Understanding organizational dynamics
Understanding resistance
Understanding what makes people tick
Understanding and people in organizations
The Nature of Organizational Chang e:
Need change
Perception of change
Risk taking
Understanding concept of leadership
Understanding innovation
Understanding leadership and management
Understanding need for communications
Understanding need for rewards and recognition
Understanding need for teamwork
Understanding organizational change
Understanding organizational culture
Understanding role - others
Use perception to create success
WiUingness to change
370
Self Perception:
Ability to see from others viewpoint
Creating reality
Philosophy of living
Seeing oneself as a leader
Self awareness
Understanding role - own
364
APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION LETTER
My Address
City, State
Telephone Number
Date
Interview Subject
Dear ,
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me and participate in my
research.
Introduction and Purpose of Mv Visit
The purpose of this letter is to introduce myself and die dissertation
research that I am currently conducting. I am an experienced manager who
is working towards a Ph.D. degree in the field of organizational change. My
research involves studying managers' and leaders' responses to planned
transformational change in organizations. My primary data collection
process is by interviewing leaders and middle level managers in companies
that have undergone planned transformational change.
Transformational change is defined as changes to a company's core
values, norms, and culture. This change can be accomplished by
implementing procedures such as a team-based structure or participative
management, or changing its information technology, manufacturing
processes, or customer service goals. Other factors such as rapid growth and
radical change in market approach can also be considered transformational
in nature.
365
Protection of Confidentially
Protection of confidentiality and anonymity of both the company and
those interviewed is of great importance and is achieved by coding
responses and removing or disguising any identifying information. In no
case, will identifiable information be released.
Conducting the Interviews
All interviews will be tape recorded. Transcripts of these recordings
will be made available upon request for your review and correction as
desired. Findings of this study will be gladly shared. The abstract of my
dissertation will be sent to you.
1 hope that by participating in my research, you will gain value from
it, in return. Most subjects interviewed have found the interviewing process
to be an opportunity to reflect on the change process in which they are a
part. The opportunity to discuss issues and concerns confidentially and with
someone outside of the company has helped subjects in clarifying their own
thoughts.
I look forward meeting with you.
Respectfully yours,
Stephen C. Rathmill
• 366
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION AND QUESTIONS
I am conducting research for my dissertation on what makes
organizational change succeed, in order to help me focus on what
makes companies improve. I want to explore, with you, some of the
majors changes that your company has recently experienced: What
the changes were; how they were implemented; what results were
achieved, and what was your role as leader.)
1 have mostly open-ended questions which you can answer any way
you see fit. These interviews take anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes.
Longer is fine with me.
I guarantee the confidentiality of my sources, both people and
companies.
Feel free to ask me any questions now or at any time. I'd like this
interview to be as conversational as possible.
1. Cause of Change Effort
You've taken this company through significant growth.
-What led up to this growth?
-What made you recognize that you could achieve these results?
-What was the situation that led up to you embarking on this
growth?
-How did you determine what to do? Who was involved?
2. Implementation Plan
-Did you have a formal implementation plan?
-Did you use it?
-Who was involved in planning?
-What technical issues did you consider?
-What human issues did you consider?
367
3. Results (results of change, not quality of decisions or strategy)
-What changed?
-What changed in the way work gets done?
-Did values change? goals, vision, mission, what's important?
-Did norms change? How work gets done, rewards/punishment,
risk taking/how failure is handled, how people relate/group
dynamics?
-Did behaviors change? Participative/dictatorial, power/control?
-Where these the changes that you had planned?
-What did not change?
-What changed but rolled back? Why do you think this
happened?
4. Resistance
-Was there any evidence of resistance to your changes?
-What was done to reduce it?
-What does it mean when there is resistance?
-Is it good, bad, other?
-Is apathy better than resistance?
5. Roles-Leaders
-What was your role in the change effort?
-Would this role change in other change efforts?
- What should your role be?
-What was the role of mid level managers during this change?
-What should be their role?
-Have your views changed from this experience?
-Do other leaders that you know well see their roles similarly?
6. Leader as Role Model (behavior, energy, thought processes)
-Do you think that others perceive you as a role model to be
emulated?
-Do you want them to emulate you?
368
7. Roles-Mid level Managers
-What was your role in the change effort?
-What should your role be?
-Have your views changed from this experience?
-Do other managers you know well see their roles similarly?
-What should be the role of leaders in PTC?
-Do you think they perceive their roles as you do?
8. Perception of organizations
-When someone asks "what is (name of company)," how
do you respond?
-Is that the order of importance to you?
-"A company is like a living organism." How do you respond to
this statement?
371
APPENDIX IV: MENTAL MODEL TEST
Please read each bulleted paragraph; then select four that you
decide to assign codes. Choose one of the four codes from the list
below and place your choice in the left hand margin next to the
paragraph. Please feel free to assign codes to more paragraphs as
you wish.
1. The Nature of Organizations
2. The Nature of People in Organizations
3. The Nature of Organizational Change
4. Self Perception
• This is a tense place. We are trying to do something hard and
we could fail. Everyone knows it and so there is a level of
anxiety here which is way beyond where we were at the other
company [his former company].
• I always try to get their participation or get them to think of
the change and then get them to implement it. Depending
upon the business needs and time frames, I determine
whether or not I'm going to force the decision and make it for
them, and then help them put together a plan. Or I may keep
playing with it for a while to get their input, and get them to
think about how to implement it.
• There were maybe three buckets of stuff. One was trying to
improve the relationships at the top of the company, another
was to begin thinking about really big stuff and a third was
approaching operational change in a organization for that was
pretty dogmatic.
372
In a very significant way we had left out middle management
of the company. In part, that was true for a number of
reasons. The quahty of those people but significantly the
management ability of the officers of the company in some
cases was not highly developed which is typical in a
bureaucracy and as a result there was a time in which I felt we
were working pretty well as a senior management team but
that wasn't translating into results down in the organization
and that is part of what led us into the quality work that we
pursued on a very bottoms up basis.
I think a big part of it was cultural, not in the sense of Jill
being African American, but in the sense of having grown up
in a culture that was much more directive at X, versus one
that is more a negotiating culture, which it is in our case, and
Jill became quite frustrated and could become quite rigid when
confronted with someone who disagreed with her.
The environment that's been created is one that is not
punitive, and reinforces success rather than punishes failure.
Focusing is very difficult in this environment because there is
still the sort of natural tendency to try and find out what's
wrong versus finding out what's right and they focus on
dealing with symptoms rather than dealing with issues.
It felt horrible when I first began to understand what it was
that I was hearing. I thought about it, I talked to a couple of
people internally that are good at thinking about those sort of
things, and decided that I would, confront it head on
I reaHzed a fundamental change was needed, but what I didn't
do as well as I needed to, in retrospect, was to force the editing
process. That is the underpinning of fundamental change so
that what indeed happened was the addition of new
initiatives versus the replacement of the old for the new.
373
Customer service prior to me getting here did riot have
service level statistics. They are a call center environment yet
didn't know how many calls they were handling, what their
service level was in handling calls, and what the vital
statistics were for operating that area. They had a system but
the system was so old and was so wrong, that for years it ran
while they knew it was garbage and the numbers they were
getting were garbage.
I had someone who recently underwent cancer treatments.
She's a trooper. She was undergoing radiation and still
working half a day for the six weeks that she was having
treatments. And she was very concerned about the impact of
her disease on her future in the company. She talked with
me about what her career goals were and what she wanted to
do and how she felt this was really going to throw a wrench in
everything. The kind of things that I shared with her were, of
course, you know that's not you primary concern right now,
what you need to be concerned with is getting well and, as far
as your career, we can absolutely work on a plan to keep you
on track for where you want to be, what you want to be
involved in, even if you are out of commission, so to speak,
for the next six weeks, that's, six weeks out of how many years
have you been here and how many years you will be here.
That's not significant.
I compliment them for coming to me about things like that.
Tm glad you feel so comfortable to come and talk to me about
it;
I would reemphasize the statement, it has been my experience
that there is no such thing as changing an institution or an
organization in which the leaders do not commit to personal
changes as well, and to confronting themselves, allowing
themselves to be confronted with the need for amending the
374
way they look at things, to rethinking their behaviors and to
focus on their activities.
Well we had the looming question of where the industry as a
whole was going and what might happen to a little
distribution company. We had what I regarded as a seriously
dysfunctional senior management, and we had a number of a
corporation issues, change issue that needed attention, quite
apart from where we might go strategically.
And I don't care who the individual is or how capable they
are, in a organization such as this, one has to be able to
delegate effectively, that is to be able to rely on individuals to
make good solid creative decisions on an ongoing basis in
order for the organization to function. This is one of the
issues that we are dealing with right now Steve, that it
becomes increasingly dependent on the leader. You very
quickly reach the limit of what that one individual, again
regardless of how competent they may be, can do, and that is
as true in a function head as it is in a CEO.
The way business was being handled had sort of entrenched
itself in terms of issues that were just not being dealt with on
a timely basis and decisions not being made. All this is sort of
a malaise that effects an organization that has lost its
confidence in itself.
Well, there is a fair amount of firefighting, but there is also a
lot of finger pointing which is probably the most destructive
aspect of this. It's sort of like one's heart attacking ones liver,
saying the liver isn't doing it's job that's why everything is
fucked up, and I've come to the conclusion after all these
years in management that when times are less than good
there's an almost natural inclination for that to happen and it
requires an enormous of management and leadership just to
keep the organism from almost self destructing.
375
I've always worked hard but I've never worked on a sustained
basis this hard with anyone, the possible exception I think,
was my first year of law school.
In doing that, it felt good, it felt like the right thing to do, and
that I was doing the right thing for me developmentally and
in doing that and being vulnerable, the way it makes you,
uhm set an example that people really saw. It sets up
expectations. I need to be careful at measuring up to that.
I have my faults, but one of them is not that I have difficulty
dealing with reality.
D 113=1 DESbTl? S
LESLEY COLLEGE
For Reference
Not to be taken from this room
2
LUDCKE LIBRABY
Lesley Coiiege
30 MeV.en Street
Cambridge. MA 02138-2790
TVNews
OpenLibrary