Leadership, Organizational Relationships and Technology and Their Effects on Stakeholders in the Change Process: A Literature Review Amy

Walker Staff Development and Supervision, Lorayne Robertson, EDUC 5204 June 23, 2013

Leadership, Organizational Relationships and Technology and Their Effects on Stakeholders in the Change Process: A Literature Review
This literature review will focus on examining several aspects of organizational change and how this process affects and is influenced by the stakeholders involved. As change is a constant and fluid process, and as Kurt Lewin and Edgar Schein have suggested, a profound psychological dynamic process (Schein, 1996, p. 1), it is clear that both organizations and stakeholders must learn how to effectively and positively handle change. Beginning with Lewins work on planned change and change models, which sought to demonstrate that change was a fairly linear process of unfreezing, changing and refreezing (Schein, 1996, p. 1), and moving towards Edgar Scheins belief that change requires motivation, a challenge to values or knowledge, reframing and reflective practices (Schein, 1996), it is clear that change theories and models continue to develop even further to show how deeply change impacts all stakeholders and their relationships. These effects will be discussed further through an examination of leadership, organizational relationships, and technology and their roles in the change process. To begin, the significant role that leadership plays in how change is enacted and reacted to within an organization will be considered. Leadership may be viewed as essential to the change process for many reasons. Ultimately though, based on the literature reviewed, the perceived goal of leadership is the successful implementation of the objectives of the organization, while encouraging employee participation, adherence, productivity and satisfaction. In many cases, planned change fails. Schwann and Spady (1998), as cited in Hinde, 2003, have suggested that reforms have been unsuccessful in the education system because:
1) The purpose is not compelling enough. (2) The reform effort was developed without the stakeholders involvement. (3) The change was not immediately implemented. The vision of the proposed reform must be integrated into all decisions and actions, and the principal and

3
other school leaders must model it throughout the year. (4) Everyone in the school was not aligned to the vision or purpose of the reform initiative. (5) organizational support for the change was not there. (p. 9)

By examining the proposed reasons for this failure of reform, it might be recommended that organizations and leaders, even those outside of the education system, attempt to reflect on and identify actions they can take to develop their leadership and improve their practice, and acquire more knowledge that will assist them with the integration of change. Analysis of the literature reviewed for this paper reveals that there are several ways in which leadership affects organizational change. The personal characteristics and values of leaders need to be examined in relation to the change process. Additionally, the actions that leaders take to promote successful change must also be discussed, as it is important to consider the role that leaders play in creating good organizational culture and guiding teams through change. It has been suggested that there are numerous actions leaders can take to positively impact the change process, including: 1) creating willingness and preparedness for change through honesty, trustworthiness, sincerity and commitment and open, sincere communication (Santhidran, Chandran & Borromeo, 2013, p. 351), 2) demonstrating commitment to the change by creating a supportive environment and exhibiting certain skills and competence such as integrity, motivation, drive, emotional intelligence, self-confidence, intelligence and knowledge of the business (McShane & VonGlinow, 2005, as cited in Santhidran et al., 2013, p. 351), 3) acknowledging that there are differing beliefs and values about change and encouraging open communication and respect to handle these potential challenges (Santhidran et al., 2013; Lafortune, 2009), and 4) persuading, modeling and demonstrating a commitment to the change, especially once it is perceived that the change is generally understood

Leadership, Organizational Relationships and Technology and Their Effects on Stakeholders in the Change Process: A Literature Review
(Santhidran et al., 2013; Hinde, 2003; Eisenbach, Watson & Pillai, 1999). Eisenbach et al. (1999) cite Bass (1985) proposed leadership essentials, stating that leaders must exhibit charisma to encourage trust and emotional connections with their employees, as well as stimulate employees intellect and interest in learning and reflecting on their practice (p. 3), all of which have the potential for easing the perceived burden of the change process. Other ideas about how leaders can positively and successfully influence the change process and adoption are: not avoiding conflict (Lafortune, 2009), maintaining professionalism, encouraging collaboration and teamwork, including stakeholders in decision making, and understanding that change is an emotional process for some, which may cause resistance (Lafortune, 2009; Hinde, 2003; Branson, 2007). Leaders may also choose to examine the health of the organizational climate by looking at the ten factors Matthew Miles has identified for this process. These include considering goals, communication, power, people, cohesion, morale, innovation, autonomy, adaption and problem-solving (Miles, 1964), many of which support and overlap with other theories and ideas on this topic. Peter Senges (1990) leadership model in his The Fifth Discipline expands on these ideas and suggests that leaders are also responsible for creating learning processes and opportunities that help their employees to be critical and productive, to listen to other perspectives and be willing to change their own to create shared vision and to create and manage creative tension especially around the gap between vision and reality. Mastery of such tension allows for a fundamental shift. It enables the leader to see the truth in changing situations (Smith, 2001). Eisenbach et al. (1999) also support this and state that, [a] good vision provides both a strategic and a motivational focus. It provides a clear statement of the purpose of the organization and is, at the

5
same time, a source of inspiration and commitment (p. 4). In other words, just as leaders are acting as change agents, they also need to be open to change, to develop their practice and skill and to create a culture accepting of change. It is important to connect this to how leadership affects other organizational relationships during change. Farr-Wharton and Brunetto (2007) write that the quality of the relationship between supervisors and subordinates in turn affects how employees perceive other organisational communication processes in place within the firms (Anderson & Martin, 1995), and this would in turn affect employees acceptance of the changes (p. 118). Given this statement, it is also necessary to examine how change impacts organizational relationships. To provide a few examples of different types of organizational relationships, these include any connection between people, managers, the organization itself, the brand, products, clients, goals, and values (Farr-Wharton & Brunetto, 2007, p. 381). Creating and maintaining positive organizational relationships during a change process would also require the acknowledgment of power dynamics and structures and open communication about these, as well as emphasizing a focus on people and guiding them through the change process. Thus, value systems and culture also play a key role in how organizational relationships are affected by change. As hierarchies are inherent within most organizations, this means that there are also implicit underlying power dynamics and politics that exist and may or may not be acknowledged. This is why it is imperative that all stakeholders be involved in the change process. Speck (1996) cites Fullans (1993) work when she writes that all key players must be involved in the change in order for it to occur successfully and that everyone must be clear about and understand the power and problems change creates (p. 71). Speck (1996) also proposes that Sarason (1991) might echo this sentiment, in stating that all stakeholders must be involved in change, including outsiders and

Leadership, Organizational Relationships and Technology and Their Effects on Stakeholders in the Change Process: A Literature Review
insiders, that power relationships require modifications, because input should be important at all levels and that demands and conditions of the workplace must change, to allow more time for learning and connection with other colleagues (Speck, 1996, p. 70). To connect to power relationships, Shaver (2010) writes that [e]ventually managements mis-use of the unwritten rules will cause relationships to wobble and company growth to wither. How can staff nurture their working relationships? They can start by talking about the unwritten rules (n.p). This looks to be a call for organizational change; for employees and employers to begin acknowledging that power dynamics exist and influence relationships and serves as a reminder that assumptions can be dangerous. While acknowledging power dynamics is important, an examination of the significant role that culture and values play in change is also necessary. Branson (2007) citing Cameron and Quinn (1999) suggests that, [a]n organisations culture is reflected by what it values, the dominant leadership styles, the language and symbols, the procedures and routines, and the definitions of success that make an organization unique (p. 380). This culture and its leadership that then affects the behaviours, beliefs, values of employees (Manz & Sims, 2001, as cited in Santhidran et al., 2013; Branson, 2007), and affects the types and availability of information they have access to (Branson, 2007). Branson writes that if organizations and their employees have values that align, relationships are stronger and management styles are less controlling, which can allow for change to take place more easily and effectively, especially if employees feel valued and support their organizations mandate (Branson, 2007, p. 381). This may not be possible in all change situations and organizations, but it is important that this research be known, in order to better facilitate change practices.

7
Lastly, this paper will discuss how technological changes affect stakeholders within organizations. As more and more technologies permeate our lives and workplaces, organizations and leaders will need to find ways to incorporate these changes into their practice. Greg Satell of Forbes Magazine, recently suggested that as the knowledge economy enabled and invested in skilled workers with specialized knowledge, technologies are creating faster and more complex solutions than what knowledge workers ever could. Satell asks, [h]ow can organizations empower employees whose skills are being outsourced to the cloud? (Satell, 2013). The answer to this question potentially changes the organization, but also the role of the employees and their managers. In expanding on this idea about the challenges of technological changes for organizations and their stakeholders, Davidson (2006) writes that,
How people make sense of technology is an important component in organizational change in which information technology (IT) plays a central role (Gephart, 2004; Griffith, 1999). Managers may hope for organizational transformation through IT use, but such results are difficult to achieve (Markus, 2004). Inertia or limited application are more common outcomes than significant changes in how people think about and perform work using IT (Orlikowski, 2000). (p.24)

In connection with Davidsons idea, Ellsworth (2000) believes that while it is important that educational practitioners understand the technological tools in their change toolbox, they also must understand and think about how these technologies can improve and diversify various teaching practices, as well as the nature of the role these technologies play in the entire change process (p. 30). Based on these statements, there are several theories about how organizations may integrate technology into organizational culture and learning. First, by looking at Ellsworths (2000) summary of Rogers Diffusion of Innovations (1962), it can be seen that there are several criteria that will help determine if a technological innovation will be

Leadership, Organizational Relationships and Technology and Their Effects on Stakeholders in the Change Process: A Literature Review
adopted successfully. The innovation must have: relative advantage, compatibility with needs, wants and values of intended adopters, ease of use, flexibility for trying without commitment and other users to demonstrate its purpose and set example (p. 45). These criteria may be of use to leaders and organizations seeking out new learning and workplace tools, to ensure a positive change implementation experience and a continued support system. Ertmer (2006) suggests that how technology is adopted is based on values and beliefs, rather than on knowledge, and can explain why two different people may know the same things about a technology but have different opinions and attitudes towards its purpose and function (p. 13). To connect this thought back to the discussion on alignment of values being important in change processes, Ertmer (2006) writes that if first, value is assigned to a task or goal, and technologies are the tools with which these are accomplished, then the tool may also become valued and be discovered to have other different uses allowing for continued potential acceptance of other new technologies (p. 14-15). This is what Ertmer (2006) might call progression from a first to a second-order change, which means that what began as a small, nonpermanent change to practice has become change that confronts teachers fundamental beliefs and, thus, requires new ways of both seeing and doing things and in effect, creates permanent change in behaviours and beliefs (p. 4). Puentedura (n.d) expands on this idea with his SAMR Model, which explains how technology can be integrated into education and be used as a partner and support tool for learning. SAMR stands for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition. These are each levels of progression demonstrating how technology is being incorporated into and is changing learning and move from tool substitution and task improvement towards task redesign and the eventual creation of new tasks and

9
purposes for technologies (Puentedura, n.d.). This model could potentially serve as an example for how technologies can be successfully implemented for organizational learning, as they demonstrate how users can change and develop new technological skills. Through this examination of leadership, organizational relationships and technologys impact on the change process, it is clear that there are many factors that are necessary to consider when implementing organizational reform, as change affects, and is affected by the stakeholders involved.

References:

Branson, C. M. (2008). Achieving organisational change through values alignment. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 376-395. Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 80-89. Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving changes: A survey of Educational change models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse (Chapter 1, pp. 20-30 and Chapter 3, pp. 4458). Ertmer, P. A. (2006). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs and Classroom Technology Use: A Critical Link (p. 24). cited 20/07/09) Available from http://www.edci. purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AERA06_TchrBeliefs.pdf. Farr-Wharton, R., & Brunetto, Y. (2007). Organisational relationship quality and service employee acceptance of change in SMEs: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management & Organization, 13(2), 114-125. Lafortune, L. (2009). Professional Competencies for Accompanying Change: A Frame of Reference (Vol. 4). Puq. Miles, M. B. (1964). Educational innovation: Resources, strategies, and unanswered questions. The American Behavioral Scientist (Pre-1986), 7, 10-10. Puentedura, R. R., n.d. The SAMR Model: Background and Exemplars. Retrieved from: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundExe mplars.pdf

1 0

Leadership, Organizational Relationships and Technology and Their Effects on Stakeholders in the Change Process: A Literature Review

SAMR. Principles of Learning at UOIT, wiki. Retrieved from: http://www.uoittech.ca/wikis/EDUC5001-SEP10/index.php/SAMR Satell, G. (2013). How Technology Is Changing The Way Organizations Learn. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2013/06/08/how-technology-is-changingthe-way-organizations-learn/ Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Systems Practice, 9(1), 27-47. Shaver, S. P. (2010). The Powerful and the Powerless: Unwritten Rules. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 50(1), 180. Smith, M. (2001). Peter Senge and the Learning Organization. Infed.org. Retrieved from: http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization/ Speck, M. (1996). The change process in a school learning community. School Community Journal, 6, 69-80.