For the past several months, I have been conducting research into the leadership of change.  My interest is in finding out what differentiates effective leading of change from ineffective.  Although my research is far from complete, I have found something you might find interesting – the leadership of change has a much different focus than leadership in general.

One of the hallmarks of general leadership is “leadership style”.  At the heart of leadership style is the idea that leaders have a particular way or pattern of leading and that not all patterns are appropriate or effective in all situations.  Leaders who are very production or task oriented, for example, will tend to be more effective in situations where getting things done is paramount than will leaders who are more affinity or relationship oriented.  Based on this literature, one would expect that the effective leadership of change would also involve leadership style, but it doesn’t.

In the literature on change leadership, such as John Kotter’s book Leading Change, the focus is on steps, not style.  More specifically, the focus is on identifying the “right steps” or the “right process(es)”, which if fully and appropriately followed, will result in the successful implementation of change.  Apparently, when it comes to change, it is not the leader’s personal style that matters, but the steps they use in conducting change.

What I find interesting about the steps approach to change leadership is that it ignores the very extensive literature on general leadership which indicates that how leaders treat and interact with followers matters.  The steps approach implies that no matter what a leader’s style might be, or how ineffective it is on a daily basis, it won’t matter when it comes to change as long as they fully and appropriately implement the right steps.

Come on, are they serious?  Are they really saying that steps trump style?  Does anyone really believe that a jerk of a leader can successfully engage people in a change if she simply follows the right steps?  It would seem a marriage of the two approaches would give a more complete picture of what is required for the effective leadership of change, but so far I have not found such a marriage.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, blaming resistance may be more about managers saving face and avoiding responsibility for the negative impact of their leadership than an accurate report on the responses of those actually implementing the change.  When it comes to change, leaders are generally told that the key to success is to be found in the steps they take to implement the change (see for example, John Kotter’s Leading Change).  The implication is that no matter what relationship leaders have with followers prior to the change, if they follow the right implementation process, they are likely to succeed.  But this implication may be more wishful thinking than practical advice.

A study reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology indicates that the overall relationship leaders have with their followers is more important in determining whether followers buy in to a change than are specific steps they take in implementing the change.  Where that relationship is based in trust and credibility, followers are more likely to buy in to a particular change.  In other words, if the leader is a jerk, then even if they follow the right implementation steps, the change is unlikely to succeed.

One implication of this study is that what leaders call resistance to change may be more a reflection of their relationship to those they lead than an attribute or characteristic of those same people.

Clearly this type of research is extremely valuable IF you have a portfolio of leaders with known leadership styles and a portfolio of changes to which the leaders can be assigned such that their styles complement the change situation.  In these cases, the fit between style and change is likely to result in a more effective change.  But what if you don’t have this?

Most changes are given to the leaders that are already in place, regardless of their leadership styles.  As a result, there is a very high likelihood that there will be a “misfit” between the leader’s current style and the change they are to implement. In these cases, which I believe are the norm rather than the exception, knowing that some styles are more effective with certain types of changes than others is of little or no value.  How do we help leaders, regardless of their “style”, to be more effective regardless of the type of change they have to implement?  What can be done to help any leader be more personally effective when their “style” is not a match for what they have to accomplish assuming they even know what their “style” is?

I recently gave an assignment to the managers in my MBA class on management in which they were to identify their top three persistent challenges.  In giving the assignment, I told them to identify challenges they had been unable to alter or resolve or couldn’t see a way to alter or resolve.  These were challenges they said limited their success and satisfaction at work.

After completing the assignment, I asked them to indicate into which of eight categories their particular challenges fell.  Since some challenges could pertain to more than one category, they were to indicate all applicable categories.  The results, listed in order from most to least frequently mentioned (% of respondents) are:

1.  Poor Planning (67%). There are frequent changes in priorities and assignments, and things are not well thought out in advance.

2.  Difficult People (63%). People are unresponsive, uncooperative, or just plain hard to work with.

3.  Lack of Teamwork (61%).  People with whom I need to collaborate or coordinate my work do not communicate with me or others as needed.

4.  Poor Quality Work (44%).  The work I get from others is incomplete, inaccurate, inappropriate, or simply wrong.

5.  Work Overload (40%).  I have more to do than I can get done in the time available and telling people I am full, unavailable, or can’t do it doesn’t seem to matter.

6.  Insufficient Support or Resources (40%).  I do not have and do not get the support or resources I need to get my work done.

7.  Lateness (39%).  I get things late from other people.

8.  Other (25%).  Any challenge not covered by the above. [People said such things as “poor communication”, “lack of accountability”, “poor management”, and “seniority issues”.]

What is interesting is that the students believe they have these problems because of “them” (e.g., other people).  It is because of “their” lack of motivation, commitment, accountability, etc., that the issue persists.  The difficulty with this belief is that it makes students victims.  It denies them the possibility that many, if not all, of their particular challenges can be significantly reduced, if not eliminated, through appropriate communication.  Appropriate communication requires a willingness to consider oneself at least partially responsible for the persistent challenge.

One way to move from being a victim to being responsible is by authentically asking and answering the question “How does the way I communicate (or don’t) contribute to the persistence of this situation?”  It’s a tough question.  But without it, all we have to look forward to is the continuation of our persistent challenges.

Most organization changes fail to deliver their intended results.  When asked why, managers and executives overwhelming blame resistance for the failures.  In one study, 62% of the managers asked replied that resistance was the reason for the failure of change.

There is no question that people can and do resist changes, particularly when they see the change as a threat.  But what is missing in the accounts of managers who blame resistance is (1) any acknowledgment that they had anything to do with the resistance, and (2) the failure to recognize that resistance is a form of feedback that can be used to improve the likelihood of success.

Like most people, managers react to what they perceive as resistance (any failure to go along with what is wanted?) by fighting it.  They see resistance as dysfunctional, a threat to the viability of the change and their leadership, so they try to counter or overcome it.  It rarely, if ever, occurs to them that resistance is a form of feedback and a resources that can be beneficial, even invaluable to the success of a change.

Here are three ways (there are others) in which resistance can be useful for change:

1.         Keeps people talking about the change.  One of the greatest risks to a change, particularly in its early stages, is that it will go out of existence and people will forget about it. People who resist a change have to talk about it to do so, thereby, helping to keep the change in front of people.

2.         Resistance can reveal where communication is missing.  One of the reasons people appear to resist change is because it was never really been explained to them completely.  We all make the mistake of assuming that if we explain something to someone, that’s it, they got it (or should have) and we can go on.  When people don’t understand something, they are naturally hesitant to move forward.

3.         Resistance can reveal weaknesses in the change or its implementation.  The fact is, most people go along with change.  It’s the few that don’t that seem to be the problem.  One reason people raise issues about a change is not because they are against it, but because they are for it and have concerns about its likely success.  When such people are dismissed as “resistors”, the insights they have are lost and the likelihood of success diminished.

In order for managers to be able to use resistance, they have to be willing to consider that not all resistance is dysfunctional for change and that people who managers believe are resisting may be trying to tell them something of value.  Rather than resisting, managers could listen and use what they learn.