White paper on leadership and change by Sascha Michel http://www.saschamichel.com

1. Understanding the role of leadership in
successful organisational change
saschamichel@gmail.com
1

2. Table of Contents
1. Introduction. Pg.3
2. Traits of Leadership. Pg.4
3. Behavioural Leadership. Pg.5
4. Contingency Theory Leadership. Pg.5
5. Distributed Leadership. Pg.6
6. Organisational Approaches to Leadership. Pg.7
7. Conclusion. Pg.10
8. References. Pg.11
2

3. Introduction
We are living in an age of unrest and uncertainty. A rapidly changing environment, with new
technologies, short product life cycles and on-demand lifestyles; safeguarding a move from western
supremacy, to a reliance on the east. The only constant is innovate, adapt, compete or ‘die’.
Organisations need to rethink and distinguish themselves between past successes and potential
catastrophe, applying situational leadership and strategies, acting out in complex and diverse markets.
This requires a new approach to leadership and a move away from a ‘one size fits all’. An approach,
which is effective in dynamic environments, dealing with leadership complexity in challenges ranging
from climate change, to CSR, biodiversity, economic, political and social.
How might we understand which style or approach to leadership fits best with the context and
situation that organisations find themselves? Which approach best tackles uncertainty? And, how
realistic is it to assume we can in fact engender this in our own organisations? It is clear that
leadership matters, but recent evidence shows that dealing with change in these environments,
requires ‘thinking out of the box’, ushering in new forms of leadership. Leadership that is congruent
with personality, behaviours, contingencies and distributed approaches. Perhaps, a more ‘holistic’
approach, to change and the individual? Leadership in this way acknowledges the ‘analytical,
conceptual, emotional and spiritual domains’ (Quatro et al., 2007, p.1). Individual mission, purpose
and experience are the key drivers, underpinning behaviour and motivation; and giving way to
awareness, intuition and ‘flow’ (Quinn, 1988).
In this essay, I will look at the prevailing approaches to leadership in organisations, and how these
might be relevant, or concurrent when embarking on future change programmes. I will then asses and
give my recommendations to how organisations might approach and assess suitable leadership styles,
either fitting their agenda or model, or as a whole, looking at the possibility for authentic or ‘holistic
leadership’. Finally, I hope to open up enquiry and research into ‘holistic leadership’, as a possible
next generation approach, helping to untangle the very ambiguous, dynamic and complex nature of
change.
3

4. Traits of Leadership
Before we can recommend a suitable approach for a particular change agenda, we need to look at
the different ways in which we can understand leadership, asses pertinence and potential limitations or
gaps in the thinking. Traits of leadership, is the first approach which looks at leadership as a set of
characteristics, identifying the most important personalities, indicative of a successful leader (Senior
et al., 2006). Provided we are able to accurately asses and test, this approach can be useful by
simplifying the process, and defining specific criteria or personalities for a change agenda. This way
of looking at leadership creates a very simple ‘box ticking’ approach without the ambiguity. Not only
could this help employers define and recruit talent, matching these characteristics, it can also help
individuals embarking on leadership development, with a set of criteria, in which to select relevant
training or work experience.
While trait leadership holds some relevance in contemporary change leadership, it does so,
notwithstanding its limitations. The main issue lies with testing and evidence. With the ongoing
development of a taxonomy, predictive validity and reliability of personality dimensions testing
(Perugini and Ercolani, 1998), we might be closer to establishing trust around trait leadership theory
as a ‘one best way’. However, this still raises concerns around which ones we can agree on as
indicative of successful change leaders. Will these traits always be the best approach for any given
change situation? Even if we were able to identify these traits, this still presents a dilemma.
Identifying specific traits could neglect certain individuals and overlook those, who are yet to
display these personalities. At worse ‘typecasting’, where leaders are defined by specific personality
dimensions, rather than experience, length of service or peer review. Lastly, this approach to
leadership is sourced within our personality complexes, and with that, can we presume the ability to
change them?
It makes sense to define and establish a set of traits for leading change. Traits, for dealing with
conflict, teams, power and politics and those suitable for making decisions and taking risks. However,
what these visible leadership traits do not account for is intuition, and the unconscious parts of the
self. These are the unconscious traits and behaviours, affecting our success as change leaders, when
challenged under stress and in uncertainty (Juch, 1983).
4

5. Behavioural Leadership
Behavioural leadership, moves away from a defined set of characteristics, to how leaders should
act and behave in certain situations. The attraction, comparing the trait leadership view, is the
assumption that behaviours are transitory, are open to manipulation and change, and can be developed
irrespective of innate personality. Where this would be applicable, from a change leader perspective is
the ability to adapt to certain conditions and direct or exhibit a range of behaviours, fitting the
situation. This could be especially useful when having to react to underlying group dynamics, and
adjust to different environments and persona, working with individuals, groups, stakeholders and the
public.
Assuming we are able to define these behaviours, as with trait leadership, presents a similar
concern in our ability to measure and study, the effects on specific behaviours in different situations.
We might identify a set of behaviours for a specific change project but every project involves
different scenarios, contingency and group dynamics. Behaviours in groups are unpredictable, open to
manipulation, and external forces can place even more uncertainty in dealing with change i.e. power
and politics. If we presume that people can exhibit certain behaviour ‘on call’, in preferred states, then
a degree of uncertainty in difficult or testing situations, could expose inappropriate or ‘out of control’
behaviour, in undesired states.
Are changeable behaviours or masks being played out in the ‘theatre of work’, or is this simply
our nature, deeply rooted in past social conditioning? Zaccoro (2007, p.9) critically questions
‘whether leaders are capable of displaying significant behavioural variability; if not, then, indeed,
persons can be leaders only in specific situations that are commensurate with their mix of attributes’.
Nadler and Tushman (1990 as cited in Hughes and Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
2010, p.137) warn that ‘different organisational changes require different leadership behaviour in
initiating, energising and implementing changes’. This suggests an approach to leadership, which
acknowledges the different change leader situations, and the relevant styles needed to perform well.
Contingency Theory Leadership
The contingency theory approach to change leadership looks at matching a particular behaviour or
trait of leadership to a specific organisational situation. This leadership style is different depending on
the situation. This approach allows organisations to look at their change agenda in a much more
rational and planned way, with the ability to adapt and respond to a range of situations. This creates
simplicity ‘box ticking’; by indicating specific roles or styles of leadership, organisational models,
5

6. anticipating different types of change and aligning leadership and change agenda. While this approach
appears to apply deeper thinking, away from individual focus, to the organisational level and change
context, it does, however, have its drawbacks.
This approach suggests the ability for leaders to be able to adjust their approach depending on
various situations. Stogdill (1948, p.65) argues, “Leaders in one situation may not necessarily be
leaders in other situations”. If leaders are seen to be changing their styles, this could have a damaging
effect on how they are viewed by their followers. This could be seen as acting out of integrity, raising
further issues around trust, ethics and authenticity. Assuming leaders have all the necessary attributes
to deal with any situation that inevitably comes their way, how we can accurately asses, identify and
prove, not only the roles or styles associated with the leader, but also to that of the change context.
This framework assumes broad leadership capabilities, and does not take into account motivation
and incentives for leaders to stretch themselves, and move beyond their capabilities. It does not define
particular leadership styles appropriate to specific organisational change i.e. culture change, merger
and acquisitions, but rather situational factors and organisational models. It is paradoxical to suggest a
rational, top down, contingent approach, whereas many change environments are developing rapidly,
emerging and dynamic.
Distributed Leadership
Distributed leadership, however, is dynamic, collaborative, decentralised and shared, rather than
managed by a few select ‘hero’ leaders (Senior et al., 2006; Ancona and Backman, 2010). This
approach, unlike the classic top down; suggests a leadership team much closer to it’s customers, ‘in
touch’ on a deeper level, responding quickly and appropriately. A bottom up leadership style supports
innovation, learning, in rapidly changing, flexible and dynamic environments. Distributed leadership
does suggest a new radical way of re-thinking leadership, and care must be taken when considering
this approach, especially in areas relating to organisational models, situational change, power and
transparency. The decentralised nature of this approach raises questions around implementation,
power, politics and control.
Unlike traditional leadership approaches, where adoption lies with a few, a collaborative
approach presents a rollout issue and the need to facilitate training with possibly hundreds of staff.
Group dynamics, individuals and the bottom up approach also poses issues, around control and
accountability in a more open system, and how best to tackle resistance to change, power and politics.
Whilst assuming a more co-operative style, this alternative view of leadership might not suit all staff,
6

7. leading to added resistance to change and implementation. Staff might prefer sticking to old ways, and
not take on the extra burden and stress, that comes with leadership responsibility.
With power and decision making being devolved, organisations do run the risk of losing control
of their strategy. Staff could make decisions to suit themselves, which don’t satisfy or fall in line with
external strategy i.e. clients, government, share price and investors. Unlike traditional top down, this
approach also makes it very difficult for everyone to see from a higher perspective, direction and
changes, affecting different departments, clients and international offices.
Distributed leadership is more suitable in flexible, emergent and rapid change. However, if
change is slow and incremental, there is likelihood that staff could become bored, unchallenged and
disempowered. For this approach to work, it is likely there would be a need for transparency, and
information shared across the organisation. Some information might not be relevant to everyone and
could potentially open up issues regarding financial, confidential information, contracts and staff pay.
Traditionally top management is paid to lead. No doubt, raising the potential issue in distributed
models, regarding staff remuneration. Who decides on remuneration levels, and how?
Each of the four approaches discussed, have relevance and limitations, depending on the change
context. Suggesting a single approach, in uncertain and dynamic times, could be a risky solution. A
combination of approaches, or a more concurrent “holistic” approach, can give greater flexibility and
available options, when selecting an appropriate leadership style. Having identified the four
approaches to change leadership, I now turn to the areas, which help organisations to decide on the
most suitable approach. Organisations might need to look very closely, at organisational models,
structure, type of change, culture and growth stage.
Organisational Approaches to Leadership
Models and forms help indicate, which suitable leadership approach, is relevant in a current state
or a future state. Quinn (1988) sees organisations as contradictory, dynamic environments, where
leadership at the top becomes less predictable, suggesting a framework for identifying competing
values, helping leaders and organisations identify various roles, and leadership styles contingent on
organisational models. For example, an open system model, suggests a need for innovation,
knowledge working and a possible ‘learning organisation’. This would suit a bottom up or more
distributed approach to leadership. Open system models are dynamic environments, reliant on self-
learning and flexibility. This is a move away from “hero” leadership, where organisations can still
change and grow, and not be hindered by rational, top down leadership.
7

8. Structure and legal status can also have an effect on relevant leadership approaches. Organisations
can asses if their prevailing leadership structure is centralised or decentralised, and reflect on current
or future states i.e. functional or network structure. In a network structure you would be looking for a
more collaborative, sharing environment, whilst in a functional setup you would need a more
directive, rational and autocratic approach. In the last 10 years, organisations and new startups are
adopting new legal status and business models, as they diversify to deal with ethical, environmental
and social causes. Legal status can help choose a suitable leadership i.e. social enterprise or co-
operative, suggesting a leadership style of shared values, participative, and with shared incentives to
align values and vision.
While these rational approaches to selecting leadership style helps with the status quo or a future
planned state, it does not take into account the leadership demands, in the face of emerging change.
This highlights the need for a more concurrent approach. The different types of change an
organisation might encounter help to clarify this debate further. Some examples of these include
merger and acquisitions, corporate transformations, cost reduction, restructuring and culture change.
Organisations going though merger and acquisitions; need to consider subcultures being created,
bringing people together, working and participating, requiring transformational leadership to create
and unify mission and vision (Schein, 1992). In rapid or sudden change, organisations might need to
consider more transformational or authoritarian styles, and in uncertain more confusing times, a
participative or consultative style (Senior et al., 2006; Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991). Organisations
might adopt a style depending on the rate of change, from stable slow incremental (participative
evolution), right through to turbulent environments needing corporate transformation
(directive/dictatorial) (Dunphy and Stace, 1993). Beer and Nohria (2000) suggest a hard approach
(Theory E) when looking at cost reduction, restructuring processes (BPR), and in areas like culture
change, a more charismatic, visionary, or soft approach (Theory O). Although a soft approach might
be suitable in culture change, nonetheless, this does not acknowledge first, how difficult it is to
establish the defining culture, and secondly, the different dynamics and forces that either restricts or
promotes change.
If we were able to identify the prevailing culture, whether dominant or weak, then this would
help to clarify which approach to leadership is more appropriate. Handy (1978) as cited in Burnes
(2009) suggests defining culture by power (single direction), role (more bureaucratic), task (expertise)
or person (individual), establishing power points and approaches that help facilitate change. If there is
a prevailing culture, which is very dominant and a high resistance to change, then you might need to
take a more radical or directive approach. At the same time, being effective in dominant cultures,
8

9. suggests a need for being aware of the norms and values that people share. In weaker or non-dominant
cultures, a more participative style, encouraging sharing and communication, could be more pertinent.
Where culture is going through periods of change or uncertainty i.e. merger and acquisitions; a
more transformational approach is needed. Transformational leaders convert followers into leaders
but don't necessary comply with their followers; they help shift beliefs, needs, values and realign the
vision (Burns, 1978 cited in Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987). Kotter and Cohen (2002) on the other hand,
warn against placing the wrong people at the top, especially during mergers, leaving politically
constructed groups, rather than confronting the residue of history. This suggests the possibility that
organisational growth stages, history and prevailing leadership, could also have an impact on how
organisations decide on appropriate approaches to leadership.
Organisations may take on different forms and go through many changes within their life cycle.
This requires different styles and approaches to leadership. Griener (1988) identifies different
management styles at 5 phases of growth, leading from a startup (entrepreneurial), through various
stages of crisis demanding specific leadership (directive/delegative/watchdog), as it grows and
matures into a much larger company (participative). In the absence of a future strategy, organisations
can look at past success and failures, to establish if prevailing approaches to leadership are
appropriate, and if the status quo demands a leadership overhaul.
Whilst some of the strategies discussed hold solidity, identifying a range of options, and taking a
rational view in dynamic environments, this creates complexity, confusion, and cause for criticism.
Quinn (1988) argues that management theory tends to reflect hierarchical logic, filled with rules of
action, in a dynamic world where individuals discover that rules are limiting. Quatro et al (2007, p
439) warns against ‘leadership development activities that create narrowly focused leaders’. Dotlich et
al. (2008) rallies for “whole leaders”; which use their “heads” to anticipate strategic direction, “heart”
to see the world perspective from a range of stakeholders, and ”gut” to make tough decisions with
clear values, navigating in diversity and complexity. This holistic approach to leadership aligns
spiritual domains (mind, body and spirit/intuition), with the analytical (strategy), conceptual
(creativity), and emotional (values) (Quatro et al., 2007; Krosigk, 2007). It is an intuitive way to
reframe problems, creating high performance or “flow”, where dualities and dichotomies disappear, as
polarities become one (Quinn 1988).
9

10. Conclusion
The nature of change is ambiguous, continuos and uncertain. It would be risky to view leadership
from a “one best way”. It makes sense to identify a combination of approaches, but which ones? Most
change leadership literature points to a plethora of organisational models, critiques, lists, and
approaches, but very little on practical steps, leaders or managers can take to develop. It was
questioned earlier if it is realistic to assume that people can change rigid behaviours, traits or even
leadership approaches. Maybe this calls for an approach to individual development, which accounts
for the uncertain, dynamic and evolving environments, in which leaders find themselves. A move
away from traditional, ’one size fits all’ logic, to ‘holistic’ or authentic leadership frameworks.
Authentic leaders know which personality traits to reveal, to whom and when; retaining their
distinctiveness as individuals, not following someone else’s defined leadership traits, and relying
heavily on intuition, formed out of life experience, deeply in tune with their inner self (George et al.,
2007; Goffee and Jones, 2005). This presents a challenge, and need for further research and
understanding of the dynamic states of ‘being’, and the necessary developmental routes one can take,
to foster individual excellence, creativity, authenticity and intuition.
In summary, I identified four approaches to leadership, and the many ways in which organisations
can identify suitable options for change. Trait and behaviour leadership looked at the individual level
of leadership, defining personality dimensions and non-fixed behaviour traits. Contingency and
distributed approaches, on the other hand, looked at leadership at the organisational level, specifically
situational leadership, and bottom-up, decentralised leadership styles. Organisational models,
structure, type of change, culture and growth stages, gave rise to a range of possibilities for leadership
approaches. Finally, I argued that in dynamic and complex environments, attention must be placed on
the individual’s capacity, to broadly and intuitively meet the agenda, rather than restrict ‘flow’, by
narrowly focussed, rational logic.
ENDS
10

11. References
ANCONA, D. & BACKMAN, E. (2010) Distributed Leadership. Leadership Excellence, 27(1), 11-
12.
BEER, M. & NOHRIA, N. (2000) Breaking the Code of Change (Hardcover).
BURNES, B. (2009) Managing change : a strategic approach to organisational dynamics, Harlow,
Financial Times Prentice Hall.
DOTLICH, D., CAIRO, P. & RHINESMITH, S. (2008) Complexity, Diversity, and Uncertainty--
The Shaky New Ground for CEOs. People & Strategy, 31(2), 44-51.
DUNPHY, D. & STACE, D. (1993) The strategic management of corporate change.
Human Relations 46(8) (August 1): 905.
GEORGE, B., SIMS, P., MCLEAN, A. N. & MAYER, D. (2007) Discovering Your Authentic
Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 129-138.
GOFFEE, R. & JONES, G. (2005) MANAGING AUTHENTICITY. Harvard Business Review,
83(12), 86-94.
GREINER, L. E. (1998) EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION AS ORGANIZATIONS GROW.
Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55-68.
HUGHES, M. D. & CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2010)
Managing change : a critical perspective, London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development.
JUCH, B. (1983) Personal development : theory and practice in management training, Chichester,
Wiley.
KOTTER, J. P. & COHEN, D. S. (2002) The heart of change : real-life stories of how people change
their organizations, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
KROSIGK, B. V. (2007) A holistic exploration of leadership development. South African Journal of
Business Management, 38(2), 25-31.
KUHNERT, K. W. & LEWIS, P. (1987) Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A
Constructive/Developmental Analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-657.
PERUGINI, M. & ERCOLANI, A. P. (1998) Validity of the Five Factor Personality Inventory
(FFPI): An investigation in Italy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 234-
248.
PETTIGREW, A. M. & WHIPP, R. (1991) Managing change for competitive success, Oxford,
Blackwell.
QUATRO, S. A., WALDMAN, D. A. & GALVIN, B. M. (2007) Developing holistic leaders: Four
domains for leadership development and practice. Human Resource Management Review,
17(4), 427-441.
QUINN, R. E. (1988) Beyond rational management : mastering the paradoxes and competing
demands of high performance, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
SCHEIN, E. H. (1992) Organizational culture and leadership, San Francisco, Calif., Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
SENIOR, B., FLEMING, J. & MYILIBRARY. (2006) Organizational change, Harlow, Pearson
Education.
ZACCARO, S. J. (2007) Trait-Based Perspectives of Leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6-16.
11