Higgs & Rowland (2011) PDF: What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully?

JAB40455 6 JAB47310.1177/0021886311404556Higgs and RowlandThe Journal of Applied Behavioral Science The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science...

JAB40455 6 JAB47310.1177/0021886311404556Higgs and RowlandThe Journal of Applied Behavioral Science The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science What Does It Take to 47(3) 309­–335 © 2011 NTL Institute Reprints and permission: http://www. Implement Change sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0021886311404556 Successfully? A Study of http://jabs.sagepub.com the Behaviors of Successful Change Leaders Malcolm Higgs1 and Deborah Rowland2 Abstract This article seeks to explore the impact of leaders’ behaviors on the successful implementation of change. A qualitative empirical study of change leader behaviors based on interviews with leaders from 33 organizations is presented. Analyses of the data indicated that leader-centric behaviors have an adverse impact on change implementation. In contrast, behaviors that may be described as being more facilitating and engaging are positively related to change success. Four critical behavior sets are identified. It was evident that leaders who experienced the highest levels of success deployed all four of the behavior sets and minimal presence of leader-centric behaviors. The study findings provide support for some of the recent research into change leadership. However, they provide a more detailed picture of the nature of behaviors associated with successful change implementation. The article concludes with a brief discussion of limitations and areas for further research. Keywords change leadership, change approaches, leadership behaviors, change implementation The Challenge of Change There is a widely held view (in large supported by empirical research) that attempts to implement organizational change are predominantly unsuccessful (e.g., Beer, 2000; Elrod & Tippett, 2002; Kotter, 1995; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). Although 1 University of Southampton, Southampton, UK 2 Transcend Consultancy, London, UK Corresponding Author: Malcolm Higgs, School of Management, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK Email: [email protected] 310 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) various authors have attempted to identify the underlying causes of change failure (e.g., Kotter, 1995), Pettigrew (1997) highlights both the paucity of empirical studies and the dominance of U.S.-based thinking, cases, and data. Furthermore, Pettigrew et al. (2001) have highlighted the importance of contextual considerations in arriving at a deeper level of understanding of how change works (or does not) in practice. Indeed, they suggest that reductionism in research into change fails to elucidate any significant or generalizable lessons. They propose that future research in the field should explore the context, content, and process of change, and the interactions of these dimensions over time, to establish new and valuable insights into the causes of failure and the concomitant prerequisites of success, and that the focus of research should move from “change to changing.” The impact of context on the manner in which learning from change research and theory is applied in practice has also been high- lighted in other recent research (Andrews, Cameron, & Harris, 2008; Elrod & Tippett, 2002; Houchin & MacLean, 2005). The phenomenon of change (as with most organizational phenomena) requires an approach to its study, which combines academic rigor with practical relevance (e.g., Anderson, Heriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001; Pettigrew, 1997). In this vein, an increasing number of researchers are proposing higher levels of engagement with those who are practicing management and leadership in organizations with the research process and employing real experiences as the source of empirical data (e.g., Huff, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Stacey & Griffin, 2005). Although a number of studies have begun to address these issues (e.g., Higgs & Rowland, 2005, 2006; Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Maitlis, 2005), few have provided data drawn from samples that cover a range of organizations. An exception to this is the study of Higgs and Rowland (2005), which employed a collaborative inquiry meth- odology (Huff, 2000) and addressed a number of the above issues. This study covered nine (predominantly U.K. and other European) organizations and explored change “stories” provided by more than 70 change leaders. A combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data, which included contextual information, (i.e., magni- tude of change, scope of change, timescale, source of change, complexity of change, and history of change) indicated that 1. Change approaches that tended to be programmatic and rooted in a view- point that saw change initiatives as linear, sequential, and, consequently, predictable tended to fail in most contexts and 2. Approaches that recognized change as a complex responsive process and embedded this recognition within the overall change process tended to be successful across most contexts. Change Leadership Although much of the change literature examines the processual issues surrounding change implementation, there is a growing interest in the role of leadership in successful Higgs and Rowland 311 change implementation (e.g., Colville & Murphy, 2006; Conner, 1999; Kotter, 1996). It is beyond the scope of this article to attempt to summarize or explore the vast lit- erature on leadership. However, there is clear, and growing evidence that the role of lead- ers in the change process does affect significantly the success of change (e.g., Conner, 1992, 1999; Higgs, 2003; Higgs & Rowland, 2001; Kotter, 1995, 1996). The beliefs and mind-sets of leaders have been shown to influence their orientation of choices and approaches to problem solving (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick & Brandon, 1988). Thus, it may be implied that leaders’ behaviors will influence their approach to change and its implementation. It has been asserted that the role and behaviors of leaders in a change context per se has been an area that is lacking in empirical research (Eisenbach, Watson, & Pillai, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2000). The transforma- tional leadership model developed by Bass (1996) has been one that has been the subject of much empirical investigation (Avolio, Walumba, & Weber, 2009). This stream of research does demonstrate clear linkages between leader behaviors and a variety of “follower” behaviors and performance measures (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995; Avolio et al., 2009; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Higgs, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). This research, which is primarily quantitative, does, however, generally fail to link directly with the change literature. Eisenbach et al. (1999) do however suggest, based on an exploration of both the change and leadership literatures, that there are areas of con- vergence that focus around the transformational leadership model. Indeed, Bass (1999) identified the significance of the transformational model in contexts requiring the achievement of major organizational change. The nature of the Bass’s transforma- tional component of “Idealized Influence” itself postulates a need to articulate a desired future state and means of realizing it. Within the leadership literature, there have been criticisms that the predominantly quan- titative approach fails to provide insights into the actual behaviors of leaders (e.g., House, 1995; Kets de Vries, 1995; Kouzes & Posner, 1998). Those studies that have responded to this challenge have tended to conclude that for effective leadership there are a relatively small number of broad areas of behavior, which are executed in somewhat differentiated ways depending on the personality of the leader (e.g., Goffee & Jones, 2000; Higgs, 2003; Kouzes & Posner, 1998). However, in a recent review of the leadership literature, Avolio et al. (2009) commented on the need for more work to explore the relevance of leadership models and theories within different contextual settings. It has been argued that the context of change is an important one within which to examine the impact and effectiveness of leadership behaviors (Agle et al., 2006; Colville & Murphy, 2006). In examining the leader’s role and behavior in the change process, few studies have moved beyond generic descriptions. An exception to these are the studies reported by Higgs and Rowland (2000, 2005). These studies specifically linked leadership behav- iors to activities involved in implementing change. They identified five broad areas of leadership competency associated with successful change implementation. These were 1. Creating the case for change: Effectively engaging others in recognizing the business need for change; 312 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) 2. Creating structural change: Ensuring that the change is based on depth of understanding of the issues and supported with a consistent set of tools and processes; 3. Engaging others in the whole change process and building commitment; 4. Implementing and sustaining changes: Developing effective plans and ensu- ing good monitoring and review practices are developed; and 5. Facilitating and developing capability: Ensuring that people are challenged to find their own answers and that they are supported in doing this. In exploring this work further, Higgs and Rowland (2005) studied leadership behaviors within some 70 change stories and their impact on change success in differ- ing contexts. Their analysis identified three broad sets of leadership behavior, which they categorized as 1. Shaping behavior: The communication and actions of leaders related directly to the change: “making others accountable,” “thinking about change,” and “using an individual focus”; 2. Framing change: Establishing starting points for change: “designing and manag- ing the journey” and “communicating guiding principles in the organization”; and 3. Creating capacity: Creating individual and organizational capabilities and communication and making connections. From their analyses, they demonstrated that leader-centric behaviors (i.e., Shaping) had a negative impact on change success in all the contexts examined. This finding tends to endorse the broader critique of the “heroic” and leader-centric models that dominate research in this field (Avolio et al., 2009; Bryman, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). On the other hand, the more group- and systemic-focused behaviors (i.e., Framing and Creating) were positively related to success in most of the contexts they examined. These findings tend to align with developments in the broader area of leadership studies. For example, Bartunek (1984) points out that the framing of issues by leaders provides a structure that guides follower sensemaking. In a similar vein, the concept of authentic leadership (Cooper, Scundura, & Schriesheim, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Sparrowe, 2005) is positioned as enabling followers to develop commitment to goals through the clarity and frame provided by the leader. This is seen to enable followers to develop their potentiality and contribute to goal achievement. Furthermore, when Higgs and Rowland (2005) examined the relation- ship between leadership behaviors and change approaches, they found that “Shaping” behaviors tended to be more widely encountered within the more programmatic approaches to implementing change, whereas “Framing” and “Creating” were pre- dominant behavior sets in approaches that were based on the recognition of change as a complex phenomenon. To an extent, these findings resonate with the studies of Higgs and Rowland 313 Stacey and Griffin (2005) that saw leadership as a complex responsive process and asserted that it is through a myriad of interpersonal interactions that individuals within an organization cope with the complexity and uncertainty of organizational life. In the same vein, Griffin (2002) posits a view of leadership and a range of associated behaviors, which resonates with the “Framing” and “Creating” behav- ioral sets identified by Higgs and Rowland (2005). Indeed they identified that lead- ers who had a notable combination of the “Framing” and “Creating” behavioral sets appeared to be particularly successful in implementing change across most of the contexts examined. From the foregoing brief review, the following research ques- tions arise. Research Question 1: Are leaders who exhibit behaviors that combine those of “Framing” and “Creating” (Higgs & Rowland, 2006) more effective in implementing change than those who do not exhibit such behaviors (e.g., Avolio et al., 2009; Cooper et al., 2005; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005)? Research Question 2: Do leader-centric (Shaping) behaviors have a less nega- tive impact on change success when combined with facilitating and engaging behaviors (e.g., Avolio et al., 2009; Bass, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Judge & Piccolo, 2006)? Study Design Avolio et al. (2009) comment that the dominant approach to leadership studies over the past two decades has been quantitative. They call for more use of qualitative studies to develop further insights into the phenomenon in a wider range of contexts. Given this, in the exploration of the above questions, it was decided to adopt a qualitative approach. In implementing such a study, the procedure adopted by Higgs and Rowland (2005) was followed. Interviews were conducted with leaders in 33 orga- nizations. Each leader was asked to recollect and describe a story relating to a change in he or she had been involved in and played a significant role within his or her organization. The limitations of the use of retrospective recollection in such inter- views are widely discussed (e.g., Miles & Huberman, 1994). To ameliorate such limitations, the researchers adopted a critical incident approach to the interviews (Flanagan, 1954). This approach entailed asking the interviewee to provide specific examples of behaviors for each incident. By probing for multiple examples, the prob- lems associated with interviewees “smoothing” the stories are ameliorated even if not eliminated (Flanagan, 1954). Each interview lasted for between 1 and 1.5 hours. The interviews were recorded and the recordings transcribed. In addition, the inter- viewer kept detailed field notes to be used in conjunction with the transcripts in the subsequent analysis of the data (Moser & Kalton, 1972). The interview transcripts were coded employing a coding frame, based on a combination of a priori content 314 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) specific and a priori non–content specific schema (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This was developed from a combination of 1. the broad categories of leadership behavior identified in the Higgs and Rowland studies (2005) and 2. a review of change leadership literature (e.g., Conner, 1999; Gill 2001; Griffin, 2002; Kotter, 1996; Stace, 1996; Stacey & Griffin, 2005) and the transforma- tional leadership literature (e.g., Bass, 1999). Based on this approach, the final coding frame encompassed the original (Higgs & Rowland, 2005) leadership behavior sets (i.e., Shaping, Framing, and Creating) together with four new categories that appeared to capture behaviors exhibited by leaders combining Framing and Creating. These new behavior sets were described as being, Attractor (FC1): Creates a magnetic energy force in the organization to pull it toward its purpose. The leaders pull people toward what the organization is trying to do, not toward themselves. Edge and Tension (FC2): The leader tests and challenges the organization; amplifies the disturbance generated by the change process by helping people see the repeating and unhelpful patterns of behavior in the culture while at the same time staying firm to keep the change process on course. Container (FC3): The leader holds and channels energy, which in unnerving times of change, provides calm, confident, and affirming signals that allow people to find positive meaning and sense in an anxious situation. Transforming Space (FC4): The leader creates change in the “here and now” based on the assumption that the only thing you can change is the present moment. In attempting to build from the original study categorization (Higgs & Rowland, 2005), Framing was identified as being a combination of the new categories of Attractor, Edge and Tension, and Container. The original category of Creating was identified as being a combination of Container and Transforming Space. In the analyses of the data, the combination of all four of these behavioral com- ponents was labeled as “Framcap” behavior. The coding process was also designed to continue to identify the presence of Shaping behaviors that were described as follows: Shaping: The most “leader-centric” change leadership set of behaviors in which the individual leader tends to be the focus of the action (i.e., leader-centric behaviors). Further details of these categories are summarized in Table 1. Higgs and Rowland 315 Table 1. Coding Frame Original component Code Characteristics References Framing Establishes an Connects with others at an Higgs and Rowland emotional emotional level, embodies (2005) connection to the future intent of the the change organization (FC1: Attractor) Tunes in to day-to-day reality, Gill (2001) sees themes and patterns that connect to a wider movement and from this creates a compelling story for the organization Uses this to set the context Eisenbach et al. of how things fit together, (1999) working the story into the life of the organization so that every conversation and decision “makes sense.” Visibly works beyond personal Kotter (1995) ambition to serve higher purpose, the organization and its wider community Is consciously aware of one’s Goleman, Boyatzis, own leadership and adapts and McKee this for a specific purpose (2002) Kouzes and Posner (1998) Avolio et al. (2009) Bass et al. (2003) Framing Challenges others to Tells it as it is—describes Gill (2001) deliver the change reality with respect yet (FC2: Edge and without compromise Tension) In times of turbulence, has Stacey and Griffin constancy; does not withdraw (2005) from tough stuff; keeps people’s hands in the fire Can spot and challenge Goodman and assumptions—creates Rousseau (2004) discomfort by challenging existing paradigms and disrupting habitual ways of doing things (continued) 316 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) Table 1. (continued) Original component Code Characteristics References Sets the bar high and keeps Higgs (2003) it there—stretches the goals and limits of what is possible Does not compromise on Higgs and Rowland talent—pays attention to (2005) getting and keeping “A” players Furnham and Taylor (2004) Bass (1996) Luthans and Avolio (2003) Framing and Creates a clear Sets and contracts boundaries, Higgs and Rowland creating framework for clear expectations, and (2005) people to work hard rules so that people within (FC3: know what to operate on Containing the (performance expectations) change) and how they need to operate (values and behaviors) Is self-assured, confident, Colville and and takes a stand for one’s Murphy (2006) beliefs—is nonanxious in challenging conditions Provides affirming and Griffin (2002) encouraging signals; creates ownership, trust, and confidence Makes it “safe” to say risky Jaworski (2000) things and have the “hard to have conversations” via empathy and high-quality dialogue skills Creates alignment at the top Darcy and Kleiner to ensure consistency and (1991) constancy of approach Denis et al. (1996) Creating Provides the Demonstrates a commitment Goffee and Jones emotional, that engenders trust, enabling (2000) temporal, and the system to go to new physical space places, learn about itself, and to enable people act differently to think and act differently (FC4: Transforming space) (continued) Higgs and Rowland 317 Table 1. (continued) Original component Code Characteristics References Frees people to new Gill (2001) possibilities through making oneself vulnerable and open Understands what is Stacey and Griffin happening in the moment (2005) and breaks established patterns and structures in ways that create movement in the “here and now.” Powerfully inquires into ripe Griffin (2002) systemic issues to enable deep change to happen Creates time and space Jaworski (2000) (including attending to its physical quality) for transforming encounters Eisenbach et al. (1999) Stace (1996) Wheatley (1993) Higgs and Rowland (2005) Shaping Leader-centric Controlling what gets done Avolio et al. (2009) behaviors (SH: Shaping leadership) Expressing own views and Gill (2001) beliefs about the change Using own experience Kotter (1995) of change to shape the implementation Holds others accountable for Bass (1996) delivering allocated tasks Is persuasive and expressive Bass et al. (2003) Higgs and Rowland (2005) The data were also coded for the dominant approach to change evident in each story. The frame for the coding of change approaches was based on the typology reported in Higgs and Rowland (2005). The approaches identified were Directive: Change that is driven, controlled, managed, and initiated from the top. It operates on the basis of a simple theory of change or a few rules of 318 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) thumb, together with clear recipes and tightly controlled communication. Challenge and deviation from the plans are not permitted. Overall, there is little or no involvement in the change planning. Self-assembly: In this approach, direction is tightly set at the top. However, accountability for change implementation rests with local managers. In essence, the strategic direction is set, but local adaptation at the implemen- tation stage is allowed. However, there is little involvement in the overall change discussions and an expectation that managers have the capability to work with the change. Master: In this approach, the overall direction is set at the top of the organiza- tion, but is open to discussion with, and input from others. The complex nature of change is recognized, and a wide variety of interventions are used to respond to contextual variations. Considerable emphasis is placed on build- ing line-leadership capabilities in change management. Emergent: In emergent change, the senior leadership establishes a broad sense of direction and a few “hard rules.” In general, there is a view that change can be initiated anywhere in the organization, but notably where there is high contact with client/customers. Rather than establishing specific initiatives, the leadership role focuses on helping others in the processes of sensemaking and improvization. Table 2 summarizes how these change approaches relate to the dimensions of stan- dardization and complexity. In identifying the sample for this study, a “purposive” approach was adopted (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). In pursuing this sampling strategy, the limitations relating to bias and potential generalizability were acknowledged (Hair et al., 1995; Moser & Kalton, 1972). In addition to the change stories, the inter- viewer collected the same range of contextual data that had been employed in the Higgs and Rowland (2005) study (i.e., magnitude of change, scope of change, tim- escale, source of change, complexity of change, and history of change). To obtain an indication of the degree of change success, a panel assessment was employed. This entailed combining ratings of success provided by the leaders interviewed (self-assessment), the line managers accountable for the change project, and an assessment conducted by an “expert” team who reviewed the overall change story (this panel comprised academics and consultants working in the change implemen- tation arena). To establish a higher level of reliability in the coding process, all transcripts were double-coded (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Where a degree of coder align- ment of less than 90% arose, the transcript went to a third coder for adjudication of differences. Finally, summaries of coding from each pair of coders were reviewed by two separate researchers to check for any apparent consistent biases in their use of codes. The data analysis was conducted employing the following steps: Higgs and Rowland 319 Table 2. Change Approach Coding Frame (Based on Higgs and Rowland, 2005) Degree of regulation of implementation Distributed (Change Standardized can be implemented in (Implementation is the same different ways in different Core assumptions throughout the organization) parts of the organization) Linear, sequential, and Directive Self-assembly programmatic Complexity recognized and Master Emergent embedded 1. An analysis of data to explore the differences in change approaches and lead- ership behaviors exhibited in stories that were organized into four categories of success via: a. “Top tier”—(Top 20% of success ratings) b. “Up there”—(Next 40% of success ratings) c. “Just about OK”—(Lower 20% of success ratings) d. Unsuccessful—(Lowest 20% of success ratings) 2. An analysis of the top five and bottom five change stories to ascertain the key differentiating behaviors. 3. An analysis of the top five change stories that had been scored at the high- est level on all four of the coded “Framcap” behavior sets and had also demonstrated limited presence of leader-centric behaviors (i.e., Shaping) to ascertain the behaviors of leaders who were able to bring together all these behaviors (i.e., “how leaders put them all together”). Findings The key questions that this research sets out to answer are Research Question 1: Are leaders who exhibit behaviors that combine those of “Framing” and “Creating” (Higgs & Rowland,2005) more effective in imple- menting change than those who do not exhibit such behaviors (e.g, Avolio et al., 2009; Cooper et al., 2005; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005)? Research Question 2: Do leader-centric (Shaping) behaviors have a less nega- tive impact on change success when combined with facilitating and engaging behaviors (e.g., Avolio et al., 2009; Bass, 1999; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Judge & Piccolo, 2006)? These were explored using an overall sample that comprised 65 stories relating to change initiatives provided by leaders from 33 organizations. In the course of the 320 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) analysis, four change stories were excluded due to a lack of sufficiently clear behav- ioral data in the transcripts (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Moser & Kalton, 1972). The sample comprised leaders drawn from private sector, public sector, and “third sector” organizations (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, voluntary organizations, charity organizations, etc.). The distribution of the stories was as follows: private sector, 43; public sector, 9; and “third sector,” 9. Respondents in all the organizations were at a senior level, being responsible for a significant part of the organization’s business or activities and playing a major role in the implementation of the change that formed the basis of their change stories. To conduct overall analyses of the data, each coded story was examined and the proportional distribution of each category of leadership behavior was calculated. In addition, the dominant change approach present in each story (as identified by Higgs & Rowland, 2005) was noted. Table 3 provides an overall summary of the data. The percentages reported in the table were computed from a content analysis based on the coding frame and represent the behaviors in each category as a proportion of the total behaviors identified. The column headed “Framcap” represents the extent to which all the new four behaviors were present in the stories. The final column shows the domi- nant leadership factor present in the change. From Table 3, it is evident that in terms of approach to change, there was a larger proportion of Directive and Self-Assembly approaches identified in the less successful change initiatives. On the other hand, the more successful change initiatives tended to evidence higher proportions of Master and Emergent change approaches. This does tend to provide further support for the earlier findings of Higgs and Rowland (2005) as well as for the more general view that programmatic change is largely unsuccessful (e.g., Eisenbach et al., 1999; Stace, 1996; Wheatley, 1993). Turning to the leadership behaviors, it is again evident from Table 3 that the less suc- cessful changes showed a far higher proportion of dominant Shaping behaviors and a relatively low proportion of “Framcap” behaviors. On the other hand, the more successful changes showed a dominance of “Framcap” behaviors. Indeed, the most successful group of changes in general showed a limited presence of Shaping behaviors. Thus, the data appear to provide positive answers to the two research questions. However, it is interest- ing to note that although the “Framcap” behaviors were dominant in the many of the successful changes, there were some examples where these were accompanied by a nota- ble degree of Shaping behaviors. This is an area that is worthy of further exploration. Interestingly, there are examples within the less successful changes in which more complex views of change were encountered (i.e., Master or Emergent) that had either combined the approach with dominant Shaping behavior or, if not, had Shaping behav- iors representing a relatively high proportion of overall behaviors. The overall pattern of the leadership behaviors between the four categories of successful change examined is shown in Figure 1. To explore the patterns of difference in more detail, the top five stories (in terms of change success) were compared with the bottom five. In addition to exploring the overall leadership behavior categories, the differences in the deployment of the four Higgs and Rowland 321 Table 3. Overall Summary of Data Percentage responses in overall categories Attractor, Container, Final FC1; Edge, FC3 and “Framcap” panel FC2; and Transforming, (Combination Dominant Story success Change Container, FC4 of FC1, FC2, leadership code rating approach Shaping FC3 Framing Container FC3, and FC4) behavior NC12 1 Directive 33.33 22.22 33.33 11.11 Shaping NC11 2 Self- 38.46 11.54 34.62 15.38 Shaping assembly NM10 2.33 Directive 41.67 25.00 20.83 12.50 Shaping DR2 2.33 Self- 23.53 11.76 35.29 29.41 Creating assembly NC14 2.33 Emergent 50.00 0.00 20.00 30.00 Shaping NC15 2.33 Emergent 40.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 “Framcap” MT3 2.67 Directive 63.33 6.67 20.00 10.00 Shaping NM9 2.67 Master 13.33 24.44 42.22 20.00 Creating RB1 2.67 Master 21.21 3.03 48.48 27.27 Creating RB4.2 3 Master 58.33 16.67 0.00 25.00 Shaping RB3.2 3 Directive 44.44 5.56 22.22 27.78 Shaping NC17 3 Self- 23.26 18.60 23.26 34.88 “Framcap” assembly NM13 3 Master 10.00 18.33 30.00 41.67 “Framcap” RB5 3 Master 3.77 16.98 30.19 49.06 “Framcap” MT5 3 Emergent 12.50 0.00 37.50 50.00 “Framcap” MT12 3 Master 13.70 12.33 15.07 58.90 “Framcap” NC6 3.33 Master 23.68 13.16 39.47 23.68 Creating NC10 3.33 Directive 0.00 5.88 64.71 29.41 Creating NC7 3.33 Master 7.68 23.08 30.77 38.46 “Framcap” RB10 3.33 Master 20.00 15.00 20.00 45.00 “Framcap” MT11 3.33 Master 10.26 21.79 20.51 47.44 “Framcap” NC3 3.33 Emergent 17.65 0.00 5.88 76.47 Creating NM12 3.5 Master 6.67 20.00 46.67 26.67 Creating RB9 3.67 Master 36.17 10.64 25.53 27.66 Shaping RB3.1 3.67 Master 7.32 17.07 21.95 53.66 “Framcap” RB8 3.67 Master 11.63 18.60 13.95 55.81 “Framcap” RB6 3.67 Emergent 2.44 4.88 7.32 85.37 “Framcap” NC9 4 Directive 34.15 12.20 43.90 9.76 Shaping NC1 4 Master 28.57 19.05 33.33 19.05 Creating DR3 4 Master 21.88 37.50 12.50 28.13 “Framcap” NM6 4 Master 19.70 18.18 31.82 30.30 Creating NM8 4 Master 15.22 8.70 41.30 34.78 “Framcap” (continued) 322 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) Table 3. (continued) Percentage responses in overall categories Attractor, Container, Final FC1; Edge, FC3 and “Framcap” panel FC2; and Transforming, (Combination Dominant Story success Change Container, FC4 of FC1, FC2, leadership code rating approach Shaping FC3 Framing Container FC3, and FC4) behavior MT1 4 Master 19.51 17.07 26.83 36.50 “Framcap” NC2 4 Master 31.25 12.50 18.75 37.50 Creating NM11 4 Directive 1.85 24.07 35.19 38.89 “Framcap” DR1 4 Master 31.11 8.89 17.78 42.22 “Framcap” NC16 4 Master 31.43 8.57 17.14 42.86 “Framcap” NM7 4 Master 3.33 23.33 30.00 43.33 “Framcap” RB11 4 Master 19.23 11.54 23.08 46.15 “Framcap” NC5 4 Self- 25.00 16.67 8.33 50.00 “Framcap” Assembly NC8 4 Emergent 7.14 14.29 16.67 61.90 “Framcap” NM14 4.2 Master 2.78 22.22 27.78 47.22 “Framcap” MT4 4.25 Emergent 30.77 7.69 23.08 38.46 ‘Framcap’ RB2.1 4.25 Master 6.85 9.59 13.70 69.86 “Framcap” RB2.2 4.25 Master 4.35 13.04 4.35 78.26 “Framcap” MT9 4.33 Master 17.81 17.81 23.29 41.10 “Framcap” NC13 4.33 Master 28.92 7.23 20.48 43.37 “Framcap” NM2 4.33 Master 4.17 11.11 36.11 48.61 “Framcap” MT14 4.5 Emergent 0.00 34.62 23.08 42.31 “Framcap” NM1 4.67 Emergent 13.79 19.54 28.74 37.93 “Framcap” NC4 4.67 Master 3.57 14.29 21.43 60.71 “Framcap” MT13 4.67 Master 14.41 11.02 8.47 66.10 “Framcap” RB7.2 4.67 Emergent 2.50 7.50 12.50 77.50 “Framcap” MT8 4.67 Master 11.11 0.00 0.00 88.89 “Framcap” NM5 5 Master 27.50 10.00 15.00 47.50 “Framcap” MT2 5 Master 18.42 5.26 23.68 52.63 “Framcap” RB7.1 5 Emergent 2.70 27.03 8.11 62.16 “Framcap” MT7 5 Master 36.36 0.00 0.00 63.64 “Framcap” Note. Success rating: 1 = low; 5 = high. subcategories of the “Framcap” leadership behavior were examined. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 2. This analysis highlights further the broad trend identified above. Furthermore, it does indicate that the more successful changes are associated with a broadly balanced deployment of all four of the “Framcap” subcategories. At a more detailed level, Higgs and Rowland 323 Figure 1. Success profiles Figure 2. Top five versus bottom five 324 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) Table 4. Quotations From Top and Bottom Stories Top stories Bottom stories T1. “I told the story of how we had got B1. “... without me nothing will happen.” where we had got to, and I started with (Shaping) the guy who had done the leadership work.... and I said ‘so here’s how the story started’.... and I invited others to share their stories... then the entire room was stood up and that created an incredible energy” (FC1—Attractor) T2. “I said ‘nobody is leaving this room until B2. “It is important for me to set the pace we have bottomed out an implementation... the way I work provides a model for plan.’ And it wasn’t a discussion point. others to follow... However, I do look.. one of the group said ‘I’ve got band for them to follow my lead” (Shaping) practice to go to.’ I said ‘ Well I’m sorry, that’s tough, the world has just changed” (FC2—Edge and Tension) T3. “... we insist on you being non- B3. “I have a lot of experience of leading sectarian and non-political... we made change in a number of organizations. I these points clear early on... and I spent think that it is important for me to share quite some time saying to people ‘It’s OK this with the team so that they can learn if there’s a bit of friction around, it’s OK from it” (Shaping) if there’s a bit of controversy’... it’s all healthy as long as we know where we are going” (FC3—Container) T4. “I said ‘I’m really quite curious as to B4. “I had a meeting and made it clear to why you feel you have to speak on behalf the whole team that they had failed badly. of everybody else. What makes you feel I told Tom that he had been particularly you have to do that?’... She almost ineffective in implementing the new broke down and said that she had never process.... I think that straight talking been listened to as an individual” (FC4— is important when we are trying to Transforming Space) implement a major change” (FC2—Edge and Tension—Negative) B5. “It was important that I created a powerful and attractive story for the team.... There was a lot riding on this... I did not want a failed project on my CV” (FC1—Attractor—Negative) analyses indicated clear patterns of behavior. Table 4 provides an example of these patterns using sample quotations from the transcripts. Interestingly, the analysis of the “bottom” five indicated that, in the presence of strong Shaping behaviors, somewhat negative manifestations of the Framcap behaviors were encountered (notably Edge and Tension and Attractor). Higgs and Rowland 325 This analysis prompted a more detailed review of the transcripts of the most suc- cessful change stories within which there was evidence that leaders were deploying all four of these subcategories. From this analysis, we found that the following ele- ments were present and that these tended to differentiate these successful leaders from others in the sample: 1. They were very self-aware and appeared to be conscious of how to use their presence in the change process. This self-awareness appeared to be visibly demonstrated in their behaviors. The transcripts indicated that these leaders reflected on their practice, noticed their impulses, and considered what they could have done differently. I thought about where we were in the change... I wondered if the way I set up the initial meeting to launch the change had created some of the difficulties we face... Perhaps if I had presented the challenges and issues we faced and invited others to suggest ideas to deal with them rather than presenting a plan for change we might have go more buy-in at an early stage... (Senior leader— Energy company) 2. They were able to work in the moment, staying attentive to what was hap- pening and to work with what arose. They demonstrated an ability to lay aside their own interests and impulses and focus their attention on what was happening. In doing this, they noticed repeating patterns of behavior and were able to draw others attention to these as and when they noticed them being played out. I noticed that our time targets for responding to complaints from our customers were longer if the complaint related to quality issues than if it related to service levels.... What was clear was that within the department good performance was assumed to require a high level of focus on service delivery levels rather than the quality of what we do... I raised this with the team and we had a productive discussion around the nature of good performance and stakeholder expectations... This conversation surfaced a range of assumptions we were making and led to a challenge to these. As a result we achieved a shared and different view of what makes for good performance... this led to a changed view of our priorities and the issues we needed to address. (Senior manager— Local government organization) 3. They remained in tune with the bigger picture within which the change was positioned and ensured that their team considered their actions and plans in the light of this. In doing this, they ensured that the change processes remained clearly connected to the wider context by drawing the attention 326 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) of others to this context and facilitating individual, team, and organiza- tional learning. I wanted to rethink how we managed and moved the organization from a silo based approach to a more collaborative one.... I hired new managers who focussed on running the business as a whole.... In doing this I halved the size of the leadership team... They focused on working together rather than their departmental portfolios... The change in the way in which the leadership team worked was a fantastically significant point in moving the change agenda for- ward. (Senior leader—Global manufacturing organization) In reviewing the transcripts, it was interesting to note that three of the four compo- nents of “Framcap” had a very positive emotional feel to them. For example: 1. Attractor (FC1: Connects with people at an emotional level): “... What would make you proud to work at XX? I asked every single person in the company, what would make you proud?... I synthesised it into, okay you’ve told me that you’d be proud to work for XX when you’re working with people you respect, doing meaningful things on things that make a difference to the external world and that became... So one, A being proud to work for XX was a uniting vision.” 2. Container (FC3: Creates ownership and incentives around the work): “Making sure that these were ideas and action plans that were theirs, that they owned, that they felt accountable for, that there were incentives to deliver on: um, that was mainly what I did.” 3. Transforming Space (FC4: Creating space; Creating time): “Town Hall Ses- sions I would do... at all different times of the day and night to make sure that people from shifts could go... Probably the best thing I ever did was three guys showed up for a night shift thing... And I stayed four hours with those three guys... Well when they told their friends, you wouldn’t believe it... I think people in the plan decided that I really cared about what they were doing.” On the other hand, it was evident that Edge and Tension has a more negative emo- tional potential. For example, FC2 (Tells it as it is—describes reality with respect yet without compromise): “So I said, do you want to treat people as children, or do you want them to know what the next two year or three years is going to look like? Because they’re going to find out at some point. And if they discover that you knew for a year before that there was going to be then what are they going to think about you then?” I said “so I’m going to tell them...” Higgs and Rowland 327 It is also interesting to note that the four aspects of “Framcap” behavior appear to contain both elements of stabilization (order) and destabilization. For example: 1. Attractor (FC1): Sets and frames the context of how things fit together I know this is uncomfortable, I know this is difficult, but just remember you’re not only a civil servant, you’re a tax payer too and if I asked you how you would want me to spend your tax dollar, well, people will give you the same answers. They want you to spend it on health, education, defence, and law and order of some description. 2. Container (FC3): Makes it safe to say risky things But... the key is actually, um, allowing conversations to happen, or creating an environment where the people don’t feel like they’re going to have their heads bitten off, either at the shop floor, or the management; it’s both. Both these elements tend to create a sense of order. On the other hand, some elements created a sense of instability in the system. For example: 3. Edge and Tension (FC2): Holds people on course... it’s like providing people with some sort of sense of true north, you know, don’t stray too far off course here. The other thing that I’m injecting here, and I do this with respect and I do it thoughtfully, but, there needs to be account- ability. 4. Transforming Space (FC4): Putting self out there and allowing oneself to be vulnerable I probably made it very clear that I was up for doing something incredibly scary and out of the ordinary, um, and I know that a couple of the leadership team would be very positive and supportive of doing that. So, I think with, with me giving the signal that I was up for it, that enabled... momentum to build. The significance of context has been identified as an important omission in much of the change literature (Pettigrew, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 2001). In this study, a range of contextual issues were considered (including the nature and scale of the change). Although analyses of the data failed to show any contextual differences that affected the patterns of leadership behavior associated with the success of the change it cannot be certain that the results were not influenced by differences in the type and content of the change. For example, the effects of goal congruence and resulting leadership 328 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) behaviors could not be examined. Furthermore, the direction of causality could not be determined in this study. For example, from the data we were not able to examine the extent to which leader behaviors were contingent on the progress and apparent success of the change initiative. These areas clearly warrant further research in the future. Discussion The overall findings from this study provide support for the findings from the previous study conducted by Higgs and Rowland (2005). Furthermore, they tend to reinforce the negative impact on change success of leader-centric behaviors (Avolio et al., 2009; Bryman, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2006). However, it does appear that when such behaviors are present to an extent, but balanced by a combination of the four “Framcap” behaviors, then success in change implementation is feasible. In addition, the findings provide support for the view that effective leadership behaviors need to be more engag- ing and facilitating (Avolio et al., 2009; Cooper et al, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Within a change context, there is evidence that leader behaviors need to be directed toward systemic issues (Bartunek, 1984; Bryman, 1992, Sparrowe, 2005). In particular, the behaviors identified as differentiating the leaders employing all four subcategories of “Framcap” from others provides further insight into the nature of successful change leadership. Taken together, the findings do tend to suggest positive answers to the two research questions presented above. The overall picture, which emerges from the findings in this study, appears to be one in which 1. Approaches to change that operate within a framework that posits change as a complex phenomenon (i.e., Master and Emergent) are more success- ful than approaches that adopt a more linear and sequential viewpoint (i.e., Directive and Self-assembly). This finding is largely supportive of the asser- tions of other researchers who have critiqued the “programmatic” view of change (e.g.,Pettigrew, 2000; Ruigrok, Pettigrew, Peck, & Whittington, 1999; Stace, 1996). 2. It has been argued that in a more complex change paradigm, the role of leaders becomes significant, particularly in terms of making judgments in relation to change approaches to be adopted (e.g., Denis, Langley& Cazale, 1996; Eisenbach et al., 1999; Goodman & Rousseau, 2004; Stace, 1996; Whittington, Pettigrew, Peck, Fenton, & Conyon, 1999). The findings do provide some evidence of a relationship between change leadership and the approach being adopted. However, causal relationships between leader behav- iors and change approaches are not established in this study. 3. The more effective leader behaviors identified in this study tend to be more “enabling” rather than shaping the behavior of the followers. Others have commented that in the more complex context within which orga- nizations are now operating, effective leadership is that which enables others Higgs and Rowland 329 to implement strategic and related changes (e.g., Colville & Murphy, 2006; Gill, 2001; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). The need to move away from a leader-centric approach to change as contextual complexity increases is also argued by many researchers in the field (e.g., Kramer, 2005; Senge, 1997; Wheatley, 1993). The findings from the current study provide further support for these views. However, it is interesting to note that although the more successful changes in this study were those in which the dominant behaviors were largely enabling (i.e., “Framcap”), a number of the stories did contain a notable component of Shaping behavior. This may indicate that a degree of leadership direction could be necessary for the successful implementation of change. However, the need for this to be achieved without dependence on the leader seems to be indicated. It would perhaps be worth developing a deeper understanding of the nature of these Shaping behaviors and distinguishing between those that serve the purpose of the organization and those that serve the needs of the leader. It is the latter that potentially relate to the narcissistic tendencies of some leaders (Higgs, 2009). 4. It could be argued that the findings provide support for the relevance of the transformational leadership model (Bass, 1996, 1999) as a link between the broader leadership theories and the role of leaders in the change process. The view of Bass (1999) that true transformational leaders work beyond immediate self-interest to achieve transformation is, to an extent borne out by the findings in this study that suggest that leader-centric behav- iors mitigate against change success. Furthermore, there do appear to be some parallels between the components of the Bass transformational model and the elements of “Framcap.” For example, Bass’s view of idealized influence resonates with the emotional pull associated with the attractor behaviors as does his description of inspirational motivation. The transformational com- ponent of intellectual stimulation shares elements of the “Framcap” model covering edge and tension and transforming space. Finally, the transforma- tional component of individual consideration is represented in the “Framcap” element of container. However, this study does provide additional elements of leadership behaviors in change that go beyond those identified in the transformational model. In the broader leadership literature, the move to a more enabling approach is seen to be related to the emotional content of leader–follower exchange (e.g., Gill, 2001; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; Higgs, 2003). Indeed, Goleman et al. (2002) highlight the significant role of “mood contagion” in increasingly complex leadership contexts. Higgs (2007) links these observations to the emerging field of Positive Psychology (see Fredrickson, 2001; Seligman, 2002). Fredrickson (2001) highlights the importance of achieving a balance of positive and negative emotions to create the conditions for creativity and adaptation in complex change conditions. She asserts 330 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) from her research that the minimum conditions for movement are a balance of three positive emotions for each negative one. It is interesting to note that the above find- ings do tend to follow such a ratio. Although this concept of emotional balance presents an interesting possible explanation of the positive impact on change success of leaders who deploy all four of the “Framcap” factors, there is clearly need for more research to establish the valid- ity of such an assertion. However, within the broader literature on positive organiza- tional scholarship, the importance of emphasis on positive factors in the context of change is identified (e.g., Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Cameron, 2008; Glynn & Dowd, 2008). Linked to the findings relating to the mixture of stabilizing and destabilizing behav- iors, there is a growing body of literature that explores the relationship between com- plexity, change, and leadership (e.g., Beer, 2000; Denis et al., 1996; Jaworski, 2000; Wheatley, 1993). In looking at complex systems, a number of authors (e.g., Grobman, 2005; Waldrop, 1992) have highlighted the need to consider the dynamic tension between order and chaos within the systems. Both Grobman (2005) and Waldrop (1992) point out that there is an optimal point in a system when stabilizing and destabilizing forces are in a form of dynamic balance. They assert that it is at this point that the conditions are created for the system to be at its most creative and at which it promotes optimal learning and adaptation. Little work has been conducted to explore this within an organizational context. However, the analogy has significant explanatory potential when applied to a change context and may be seen as a potential explanation of the findings from this study. Although this is a highly speculative assertion, it is one that would appear to warrant further research in the future. Conclusions This study has provided further evidence to support the view that approaching change with an understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon plays a significant role in ensuring successful implementation. Furthermore, it has provided evidence of a relationship between leader behaviors and the approach adopted to change implemen- tation. The negative impact on change success of leader-centric behaviors (Shaping) has been reinforced whereas the more enabling behaviors (e.g., ‘Framcap’) appear to facilitate successful change implementation. However, the data presented in Table 3 above indicate that, in the presence of strong Shaping behaviors, negative aspects of “Framcap” behaviors appear to emerge. Building from both these findings, a possible framework for considering change leadership may be proposed. This is summarized in Figure 3. The “Dark Side” quadrant is in essence highlighting the possible structure of inau- thentic or pseudo-leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 2009; Bass, 1996; Bass et al., 2003; Furnham & Taylor, 2004; Hogan & Hogan, 2001). It is in this arena that the leader may be exploiting positive behaviors for their own ends, behaving inauthentically and, in essence, manipulating follower behaviors. Higgs and Rowland 331 Figure 3. A possible change leadership framework Implications The findings from this study indicate that the way in which we conceptualize leader- ship may need to be rethought when considering the phenomenon within the context of organizational change. It does appear that there is evidence to suggest that leaders need to focus efforts on doing change with people rather than doing change to them. Furthermore, the former approach and the associated behaviors appear to provide a basis for more effective and successful change implementation. In practice, these findings could have implications for organizations in terms of criteria and practices involved in the selection and development of leaders who are needed to implement change successfully. Limitations and Further Research This study is subject to a range of limitations. First, the use of a “purposive” sample (Hair et al., 1995) introduces the possibility of respondent bias. However, this limita- tion may be somewhat ameliorated by the convergence of the findings with the extant literature (Yin, 1989). Second, (and related to the above limitation), there is a skew in the success ratings with underrepresentation of unsuccessful changes. Third, because of the nature of the success assessment, it was difficult to ensure the success measure for each change story is sufficiently robust and reliable. Finally, the issue of causality is far from clear and would warrant further exploration. However, the results of the study do indicate that further research, along similar lines, with a more randomized sample would prove to be valuable. It may also be useful to develop a framework, based on these findings, to conduct a quantitative study across a broad range of orga- nizations and employing an independent criterion variable for the assessment of change success. In addition, further research into the linkages between change leader- ship and both positive psychology and positive organizational scholarship could prove to be very illuminating, as could the further exploration of the impact on change implementation of the more leader-focused components of shaping behaviors and asso- ciated inauthentic leader behaviors. 332 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article. References Agle, B. R., Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Srinivasan, D. (2006). Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationship among organizational performance, envi- ronmental uncertainty and top management perceptions of CEO charisma. Academy of Management Journal, 88, 755-768. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership. Women in Management Review, 10, 3-8. Anderson, N., Heriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner–researcher divide in industrial work and organizational (IWO) psychology: Where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 391-412. Andrews, J., Cameron, H., & Harris, M. (2008). All change? Managers’ experience of organizational change in theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 300-314. Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, S. (2008). Can positive employees help positive orga- nizational change? The impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1, 48-70. Avolio, B. J., Walumba, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sense- making. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 523-549. Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355-372. Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm for leadership: An inquiry into transformational leader- ship. Alexandra, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Complexity theory and strategic change: An empirically informed critique. British Journal of Management, 47, 523-549. Beer, M. (2000). Research that will break the code of change: The role of useful normal science and usable action science, a commentary on Van de Ven and Argyris. In M. Beer &. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 429-447). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cameron, K. S. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change. Journal of Applied Behav- ioral Science, 1, 7-24. Colville, I. D., & Murphy, A. J. (2006). Leadership as the enabler of strategising and organising. Long Range Planning, 39, 663-677. Higgs and Rowland 333 Conner, D. (1999). Leading at the edge of chaos. New York, NY: John Wiley. Conner, D. (1992). Managing at the speed of change. New York, NY: John Wiley. Cooper, C. D., Scundura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. Leadership Quarterly,16, 419-439. Darcy, T., & Kleiner. B. H. (1991). Leadership for change in a turbulent environment. Leader- ship and Organization Development Journal, 12, 12-16. Denis, J-L., Langley, A., & Cazale, L. (1996). Leadership and strategic change under conditions of ambiguity. Organization Studies, 17, 673-699. Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leaders in the context of orga- nizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 80-89. Elrod, P. D., II, & Tippett, D.D. (2002). The death valley of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 273-292. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. (1996). Strategic leadership—Top executives and their influ- ence on organizations. St. Paul, MN: West. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psy- chologist, 56, 218-226. Furnham, A., & Taylor, J. (2004). The dark side of behavior at work: Understanding and avoid- ing employees leaving, thieving and deceiving. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Gill, R. (2001). Change management or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3, 307-318. Glynn, M. A., & Dowd, T. J. (2008). Charisma (un)bound: Emotive leadership in Martha Stewart living magazine. 1990-2004. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1, 71-93. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2000). Why should anyone be led by you? Harvard Business Review, September-October, 63-70. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Goodman, P. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Organizational change that produces results: The linkage approach. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 7-19. Griffin, D. (2002). The emergence of leadership: Linking self-organization and ethics. London, England: Routledge. Grobman, G. M. (2005). Complexity theory: A new way to look at organizational change. Pub- lic Administration Quarterly, 29, 350-382. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. T., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hambrick, D. C., & Brandon, G. L. (1988). Executive values. In D. C. Hambrick (Ed.), Execu- tive effectiveness. Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 3-34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Higgs, M. (2007, April). Managing successful change: The secret of positive emotions. Paper presented at the First Applied Positive Psychology Conference, University of Warwick. Higgs, M. J. (2003). Developments in leadership thinking. Leadership and Organization Devel- opment Journal, 24, 273-284. 334 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 47(3) Higgs, M. J. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism. Journal of Change Management, 9, 165-178. Higgs, M. J., & Rowland, D. (2000). Building change leadership capability: The quest for change competence. Journal of Change Management, 1, 116-130. Higgs, M. J., & Rowland, D. (2001). Developing change leaders: Assessing the impact of a development programme. Journal of Change Management, 2, 47-64. Higgs, M. J., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5, 121-151. Higgs, M. J., & Rowland, D. (2006). Leadership, change and learning. Organisations and Peo- ple, 13, 23-29. Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51. Houchin, K., & MacLean, D. (2005). Complexity theory and strategic change: An empirically informed critique. British Journal of Management, 16, 149-166. House, J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 411-450). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Huff, A. S. (2000). Changes in organizational knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 25, 288-293. Jaworski, J. (2000). Synchronicity. New York, NY: Berrett-Koehler. Judge,T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 755-768. Kets de Vries, M. (1995). Life and death in the executive fast lane. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 11-16. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, J. R., & Posner, B. F. (1998). Encouraging the heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kramer, R. J. (2005). Developing global leaders: Enhancing competencies and accelerating the expatriate experience. New York, NY: The Conference Board. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (Pt. 2, chap. 16). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Maitlis, S. (2005). The social process of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21-49. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Analyzing qualitative data: A source book for new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moser, C. A. & Kalton, G. (1972). Survey methods in social investigation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). The double hurdles for management research. In T. Clarke (Ed.), Advancement in organizational behavior: Essays in honour of D. S. Pugh (pp. 277-296). London, England: Dartmouth Press. Higgs and Rowland 335 Pettigrew, A. M. (2000). Linking change processes to outcomes: A commentary on Ghoshal, Bartlett and Weick. In M. Beer & D. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 243-267). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697-713. Ruigrok, W, Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., & Whittington, R. (1999). Corporate restructuring and new forms of organizing: Evidence from Europe. Management International Review, 39, 41-64. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: Free Press. Senge, P. M. (1997). Communities of leaders and learners. Harvard Business Review, 75, 30-31. Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 419-439. Stace, D. A. (1996). Dominant ideologies, strategic change and sustained performance. Human Relations, 49, 553-570. Stacey, R., & Griffin, D. (2005). Leading in a complex world. In D. Griffin & R. Stacey (Eds.), Complexity and the experience of leading organizations (pp. 3-13). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409-421. Wheatley, M. (1993). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., & Conyon, M. (1999). Change and comple- mentarities in the new competitive landscape: A European panel study, 1992-1996. Orga- nization Science, 10, 583-596. Yin, P. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bios Malcolm Higgs is professor of organization behavior and human resource management in the University of Southampton School of Management. He joined the School in November 2008, having previously been the director of the School of Leadership and Change and research direc- tor at Henley Management College. Malcolm moved into an academic role in 1998, having been a partner with the international consulting firm Towers Perrin. Deborah Rowland is the Group HR Director for the Gucci group. She moved into this role in October 2010. Prior to this, Deborah was the CEO and founder of the change consulting firm Transcend Consultancy. She has much experience with consulting and working with large global corporates in the fields of change and leadership development.