Int. J. Emerg. Sci.

, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

ISSN: 2222-4254 IJES

Organization Transformation What matters most is the Leaders Actions

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj
Faculty of Management, Multimedia University Malaysia, Cyberjaya, Malaysia
thomaso@intellectresearch.com

Abstract. Leaders action, the utmost important factor of a transformation success beyond what the world has put upon leadership. Transformation process is an action packed process. Leader in actions are leader that is result oriented. They are not the type that put up nice picture and vision but unable to make Red Sea parted and lead the people to cross the Red Sea on foot. By merely looking at the leadership traits, there will be a lot of highly qualified personnel available to lead an organization in good time. However, during the turbulence, only the leaders that are action oriented are capable to fight the ups and downs in the organization. The paper used various theories from Maslow hierarchy of needs, learning organization as well as the Holy Bible to explain the result found in quantitative research. Keywords: Leadership, Leaders Actions, Organization Transformation

1. INTRODUCTION
Organization Transformation is a process that no existing organization will miss in the organization life cycle. Organizations that did not go through transformation have probably ceased to exist because organizations that do not transform to match with the external environment will not survive the wave of change driven by external environment [16]. The organization learning theories however advocate that an organization practices the learning organization concept will not go through the transformation or radical change as changes are made through the organization constant improvement in the organization [12]. However, Organization Transformation should be viewed as a holistic approach to a radical change which covers the entire context of an organization from ecological to humanistic aspect [6]. Every organization has some ability to stretch to adapt to changes, however, at times organization are stretched to their limits and will lose the elasticity to respond to changes. This is the time where transformation needs to take place to redesign the organization for new challenges [4]. Regardless of whether it is a transformation or a constant change environment in organization as advocate by learning organization concept, management theorist has often posted strong emphasis on Leadership as the criteria of success in organization, more so in the time of organization transformation [16]. The

211

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

complexity of the organization will need a mastermind and an architect to put things together, the leader is obviously the said master mind and architect. While the leader is often viewed as the person delivering the success, teamwork is important due to the increasing complexities in the external and internal organization environment; thanks to the revolution in information and communication technologies, making no one an expert in all subjects. Therefore a leaders position will not be meaningful without a team of people rallying behind him. The question now is under such circumstances, will people be driven by the leadership shown or be driven by the actions of the leader? The key difference here is that leadership is solely an impression and image shown by a leader, it is by the leader himself and not influenced by others; however a leaders action is very much an outcome of teamwork because leaders actions are affected by external forces and influences from the team mates, friends, family, and competitors actions. From a survey conducted to measure the key success factors of organization transformation, all 6 aspects under studied confirmed the validity of the research questions. In particular interest of this paper, the leadership versus leaders action is the focus. It is the goal of this paper to elaborate further on the phenomenon of Leaders action and leadership in the process of organization transformation. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We begin with a literature review of related works in the field of Organization Transformation and Leadership in Section II. In Section III, a brief review on the thesis research result with the title of Exploring the Key Success Factors of Organization Transformation with regards to the aspect of Leaders Action. Section IV, detail of the importance of leaders action during organization transformation process is explained. In Section V, the conclusion is presented and finally, Section VI, discussion on future research is presented.

2. RELATED WORKS
Change management and organization transformation are often used interchangeably in describing the whole effect of switching the organization from one image, aspect or direction to another. The magnitude of change is the key demarcation between the change and transformation. With the volatility in global economy conditions and technology advancements, the change management and transformation will continue to be relevant to the life of every organization. It is ironic that technology advancement which is suppose to help organizations stabilize their operations so that they can address the challenges at hand is actually creating more challenges to organizations as they have to become even more competitive than their rivals by continuously embracing the new technology available [3][17][18]. In fact most organizations are continuously in the unfreeze, change and refreeze cycle, finding no way to exit. The learning organization is effectively trying to address this issue as the continuous change and improvement is embedded into the organization daily life, as new knowledge is acquired, it is quickly pushed into the organization. However, the organizations ability to embrace change is limited
212

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

by its ability to stretch the organization culture, structure, value and to continue to exist as an integral function. The moment it is stretched beyond the elasticity limit, it will break apart. The organization transformation process needs to kick in before this breaking point [4]. Generally there are two main forces that will push an organization beyond its limits. The first one is internal to the organization; the breaking of organization culture, the value, vision and mission changes, the leadership changes, organization restructuring or even the organization members internal value reformation will push an organization beyond its limits and trigger the transformation process. The second forces are the forces external to the organization, or beyond the control of the organization. Some of the well-known forces are technology advancement, economy condition, political and social reformation, changes in legal requirement, and industry revolution. Not all forces bring a negative impact to the organization. Some are actually opening up new opportunities and in order to embrace these new opportunities, the organization has to go through some form of overhauling. Both external forces and internal forces essentially can only be addressed by looking into transforming the organization internally as the external forces are beyond the control of the organization. The factors influencing the success of organization transformation goes hand-in-hand with the internal forces; they are organization strategies, structures, leaderships, values, cultures and organization members spirituality [16][17]. .

213

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Organization Transformation

The success in manipulating the 6 factors stated will help the organization successfully transform into a more agile and powerful entity that is able to withstand both external and internal forces. The 6 factors are divided into implicit and explicit forms. Explicit factors are factors visible and tangible to the public while the implicit factors are not visible but their effects are felt by organization members alone. The Theoretical framework of the organization transformation is presented in Figure 1. In [7] Louise Gerstner shared his personal experiences in transforming IBM. His success in turning around IBM has been one of the major successes in corporate turnaround history. What attribute to his success? While many think that the board of directors of IBM made a wise decision to bring in Gerstner as the new CEO at that time, and Gerstner leadership has contributed to the success, closer examination will shows that Gerstners actions brought the success. Gerstner made many unpopular decisions such as revamping the board of directors, changing the senior management, removing old power base and installing a new one, setting new goals for the organization like moving from a hardware business focus to software and services focus, closing down of factories and offices, and retrenchment of tens of thousands of workers. His leadership is definitely under questioned with all these decisions made. However, the decisions made by him were highly influenced by his fellow teammate which he brought into IBM. It is the decisions (an action) that contributed to the success of IBM and not merely the leadership. In fact, with all the unpopular decisions made, his leadership is definitely scrutinized from both inside and outside of the organization. In [27] Joyce et. al. conducted what is termed by Michael Porter as the most comprehensive research project on what makes a business successful, the Evergreen Project. This project cut across 17 years time frame and examines why some companies can be continuously successful while were not sustainable. In the studies of over 200 management practices, leadership is one of the 8 key influencers indentified by the authors. The 8 key influencers are further divided into 4 primary influencers and 4 secondary influencers. The 4 primary influencers identified are strategy, execution, corporate culture and organization structures while the 4 secondary influencers are leadership, talent, innovation, and merger and acquisition. From the studies, successful organizations all have high scores in the 4 primary influencers and 2 of the secondary influencers. It is quite realistic that leadership has been place under the secondary influencers. This is because while leaderships are important, the leaders actions are paramount. Leaders actions take place in all 4 primary influencers and 4 secondary influencers. This is strong evidences that leaders action is a key success factor for organization transformation. Each action by leader is a decision, will impact the organization. The issue now is that not many researchers have clearly identified the difference between leadership and the actions done by the leader. The attribution of all success to the leadership alone is misleading in the sense that leadership speaks about the personal traits and characteristic of the leaders while leaders action is the actual decision and act of the leaders. No doubt that leadership affects the leaders actions

214

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

but it is just one of the factors affecting the actions. Leaders actions are influenced by other people around him, his family, teammate, friends press, and public opinions apart from his own leadership style. Leadership may lose credibility in the short term due to unpopular decisions but the leaders action will enjoy success for the long term if the decision made is proven right. However, even then the leaders credibility (part of leadership) might not get full restoration as damage done is beyond cure. Gerstner endure 5 years of popularity downfall until he managed to rollover the old culture in IBM. Therefore decoupling the leadership from the leaders action is important for the appointment of the right leader. This is especially true in organization transformation because it deals with the survivorship of the organization. Having said that, it is irrefutable that leadership still plays an important role in a successful organization transformation. Leadership is defined as the process of inducing others to take the right actions towards a common goal set by the leader [14]. Good leadership will promote enthusiastic spirit among organization members. Transformation process is a tough process for any organization. Resistance will be there and sometime the right chemistry (part of leadership) will help in driving and uniting the forces together. Leadership plays a key role here to create trust and lead people forward. Leadership acts as source of aspiration that knit peoples hearts together and drive people forward. It is not the formal authority of the leader that counts but the power to influence that one possesses [1][2]. Managerial role exercises the formal authority given. To be effective in an organization during transformation, the exercises of power to influence will be more effective. This is due to the fact that people will see the exercise of leadership as redemption in the time of need and take the formal managerial authority as oppression.

3. REVIEW THESIS RESEARCH RESULT FOR EXPLORING THE KEY SUCCESS FACTORS OF ORGANIZATION TRANSFORMATION
The Structural Equation Model used in evaluating the theoretical framework model of organization transformation has identified Leaders Action as the most important factors among the three explicit factors influencing the organization transformation success. The Structural Equation Model is presented in Figure 2 below.

215

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

1
Er1

Leaders' Action

Organization Values

Er4

1
Er2

Organization Strategies

Explicit Factors

Implicit Factors

Organization Cultures

1
Er5

1
Er3

Organization Structures

Z1

Organization Member Spirituality

1
Er6

Organization Transformation

I1

I3

I4

1
Er7

1
Er8

1
Er9

Figure 2. Modified Structural Model of Organization Transformation

For the Absolute Fit Indices, the Chi-square test is the only statistical measure for Structural Equation Model fit. The measure of Chi-square is different from the conventional way of looking for the significant difference between what is being observed in data and what is expected. In the Structural Equation Model, the Chisquare test is used to identify the insignificant differences between the observed data and the expected. This means what is wanted from Chi-Square here is smaller the better instead of normal measures which wants the Chi-square value to be as large as possible. Therefore in the Chi-square test in Structural Equation Model, the smaller the Chi-square value, the better the model fit. For the Chi-square value, the model has improved from 177.150 (In the initial model) to 47.076. The new value is only about 25% of the initial model. The reduction in Chi-square value showed that the model fit has improved tremendously even though the p-value of Chi-square is still significant. The significant of the p-value is acceptable here as Chi-square test is very sensitive to the sample size. With sample size reasonably large in this research, it is therefore almost expected that the Chi-square value will be significant. The Chi-square value test is therefore coupled with other tests to complement its validity.
Table 1. Incremental Fit Indices of the Modified Structural Model

216

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

Absolute Fit Indices Chi-square value Degree of Freedom Chi-square p-value Root mean square residual (RMR) Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI) Adjusted GFI Incremental Fit Indices Normed Fit Index (NFI) Relative Fit Index (RFI) Incremental Fit Index (IFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Parsimonious Fit Indices Chi-square/DF Parsimonious Fit Index (PNFI) Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)

Recommended Values > 0.05 < 0.08 < 0.08

Value of the Model 47.076 18 0.000 0.031 0.079

Model Fit No Yes Yes

> 0.90 > 0.90

0.963 0.907

Yes Yes

> 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.90 > 0.90

0.971 0.941 0.982 0.963 0.981

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

< 3.00 -

2.615 0.485 101.076

Yes -

The Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) value in the Modified Structural Model has improved from 0.090 to 0.031. The RMR measure the absolute value of the covariance residuals and as the value draw closer to 0, it indicate a better fit. General rule of thumb is to get a RMR value below 0.08 to be acceptable as fit. The initial model RMR was 0.09 which indicated that the model is close to fit but not yet generally accepted as good fit. However, after model modification the RMR value has reduced to 0.031 which indicate that the model is fitting very well. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is the measure of the discrepancy per degree of freedom of the model. RMSEA takes into consideration of the error of approximation in the population and indicate an acceptable model fit if the value ranges from 0.050 to 0.080. RMSEA is less susceptible to sample size and therefore makes it less bias towards large sample test result. RMSEA value also represents the average lack of fit per degree of freedom. In a very well fitted model, the lower 90% confidence value should be less than 0.05 or very close to zero why the high 90% confidence value should not more than 0.08. In the modified model result, the lower 90% confidence value is 0.052 (close to 0) but the higher 90% confidence value is 0.107 (more than 0.08). This secondary check on the RMSEA fit show that the modified model is only at the acceptable fit and cannot be categorized as very well fitted and confirmed that the RMSEA value only shows an acceptable fit model. The Goodness-of-Fit index (GFI) was originally 0.880 for the initial model and after model modification it has increased to 0.963. GFI by rule of thumb should be above 0.900 to indicate a good fit of the model. While GFI is very susceptible to the

217

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

change in sample size, it is a good indication of the model observed covariance explained by the covariance found in the model. Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) is a variant of the GFI measure. The AGFI value was 0.774 for the Initial Model and then increased to 0.907 after modification. AGFI are adjusted to fit degree of freedom of the model. AGFI also vow for the value above 0.900 as desirable fit. For the Incremental Fit Indices, Normed Fit Index (NFI) has increase from 0.889 to 0.971 in the modified model. The NFI value shows that the model is very close to perfect fit of 1. The possible improvement make to the model is only 0.029 (close to non-exist). Generally NFI value of 0.900 and above indicate a very good fit as the possible improvement to the model is left with less than 10%. This also means that the model needs not to be re-specified by removing or adding any variable. For Relative Fit Index (RFI), the modified model has improved from the initial value of 0.834 to 0.941. This means that there is only 5.9% improvement possible in the model under investigation. Generally RFI closed to more than 0.900 indicate a good fit of the model presented. The improved RFI shows that the modification made to the model is adequate and acceptable. For Incremental Fit Index (IFI) for the modified model improved from the initial value of 0.903 in the initial model to 0.982 of the modified model. The value that is very close to 1 indicated that the possible improvement has potentially exhausted in the model and the model has almost reaches its saturated mode. Generally IFI value above 0.900 indicated a good fit of the model under investigation. For Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) of the modified model is read at 0.963 compared to the initial model of 0.853. The value above 0.900 is indicating a very good fit for the model. The TLI is very similar to NFI and penalized for the model complexity. TLI is quite independent of sample size and is a good measure of model fit. The TLI value of 0.963 indicated that the model is well fit and need not to be re-specified. For Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the value of the modified model has increased to 0.981 from the value of 0.902 in the initial model. Generally CFI value above 0.900 indicated a good fit for the model. CFI work in a pattern of comparing the existing model fit with a null model which assumes that the latent variables in the model are uncorrelated. CFI essentially take the covariance matrix predicted by the model and compares it to the observed covariance matrix in the data provided, as well as compares the null model with the observed covariance matrix of the data provided, in order to give a good gauge on the percent of lack of fit which is accounted for from the null model to the default model specified. CFI is an important measure as it is also very unlikely to be affected by sample size. In the analysis of the result provided by the modified model, the modified model is close to saturated as there is very little room of improvement possible (only about 1.9% possible). The Incremental Fit Indices in overall aspect indicated that the model is very well fitted and the only possible improvement in fit for the model can only ranges from 1.8% to 5.9%. These values tell us that 94.1% to 98.2% of the variance found

218

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

in the data is already explained by the model specified in the Modified Structural Model. Therefore the model is considered very well presented compared with the data collected. The Parsimonious Fit Indices measured the potentiality of the model being scientifically replicable and explainable in any future research. This goodness-of fit test is to ensure the model fit has not been achieved by over fitting the data with too many coefficients. Generally Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) are used to measure parsimony fit. PNFI is measuring the degree of fit per degree of freedom used in the model. In general, the higher the PNFI value, the stronger the indication of parsimony fit. However, in general convention, PNFI > 0.5 is considered a good indication of parsimony fit. The PNFI of the modified model has drop to 0.485 from the value of 0.593 of the initial model. The drop in the PNFI was mainly due to the drop in degree of freedom of the modified model. For AIC, there is no cut off value as indication of fit but rather it is used to compare the 2 model. The model with lower value indicated a better fit to the data collected. In comparison, the modified model has AIC value of 101.076 while the initial model was having an AIC value of 219.150. This shows that the modified model fit the data collected better. In conclusion, The Modified Structural Model provides good confidence that the data collected are adequately fit in the model specified. With this conclusion as well, we can now look at the validity of each individual variable under studied.
Table 2. Standardized Regression Weights for Modified Structural Model
Estimate Organization_Transformation <--Organization_Transformation <--Revenue Profitability HR Turnover Leaders_Action Strategies Structures Spirituality Cultures Values <--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--Explicit_Factors Implicit_Factors Organization_Transformation Organization_Transformation Organization_Transformation Explicit_Factors Explicit_Factors Explicit_Factors Implicit_Factors Implicit_Factors Implicit_Factors .342 -.603 .878 .927 -.727 .926 .705 .774 -.891 -.842 .729

The high regression weight seen in Leaders Action in the model is due to the fact that any action taken by the leader in all other factors will have very high influence on the organization transformation success. Leaders Action in this case

219

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

would include the strategies, structures, values, and cultures or any other changes that is set forth by the leaders during transformation process.

4. LEADERS ACTION
In the time of transformation, the new leader must propose new vision and strategies (actions by the leader). A new leader must first transform himself/herself before influencing others to take a paradigm shift. However, the influencing power of the leader has to come with track record (the result of past actions that works). New leaders will not have the track records needed to inspire others in the organization being transformed. New leaders can have a small leverage based on the past experiences in other places when he/she first join the organization. But this will fade away soon when the new leader started his work and put in actions that are unfamiliar to the organization members. Therefore the power to influence (leadership) is at its weakest point slightly after the new leader joins the organization. The new leader has to earn his credibility through a series of actions taken that yield results. You just cant talk people through when they are in trouble!

Figure 3. Power to Influence of a New Leader in an Organization

In Figure 3, new leaders leadership credibility (Power to Influence) takes a S curve throughout the leaders life in the organization. As the leader joins an organization, there are some organization members that place high hopes on the
220

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

leader, while others continue to be doubtful. The leaders credibility from his previous organization and industry will help him to gain some welcoming flag. However, as the leader starts his job and puts transformation actions into place, he starts to cross into the comfort zone of general organization members. With this, the credibility of the leader will be at the lowest point of his life in the organization. If the leader perseveres on with appropriate actions and if the actions start to yield positive results, the organization members will start to listen to the leader. As more actions and new initiatives and directions flourish, the leader will be able to increase his/her influence and experience a smoother ride in the organization. At the point when the transformation project is almost done, the power of the leader to influence the organization members will approach the peak in his life in the organization. The power to influence of the leader or the leaders credibility will garner the most admiration after the transformation project closes. Both internal and external stakeholders of the organization will be highly influenced by the leader. When the organization enters into maturity again and a new transformation is needed, the credibility of the leader will start to diminish again. At this stage a new leader will be needed to take lead on another transformation journey. It is clear that a leader do not get to influence others in an organization where he is new. Obviously a leader that is invited to lead the transformation of any organization will have certain credibility in the market place. However, to a group of people who work to fight crisis each day of his/her working life or realize that they are heading towards crisis and disaster, any prior experience that a leader has gave very little boost in their confidence level. In fact, the diminishing factors outweigh credibility building. This phenomenon can be understood easily by studying the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs.

Figure 4. Maslow Hierarchy of Needs

221

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

According to the theory of Maslow Hierarchy of Needs, most of the time an individuals motivation will hover around the lower 4 layer in the hierarchy which is called the layers of deficiency needs [15]. It is important to understand at which layers organization members hierarchy of needs during the transformation process in order to understand why a leaders leadership trait make very little influences to them. The below justification explains it all.
4.1. Most people work to make a living

This group of people is those who hovered in the bottom 3 layers of Maslow Hierarchy of Needs (Physiological Needs, Safety Needs and Love/Belonging Needs). They are mostly holding positions of managerial level and below and will be the majority forces in an organization. Having a stable job means everything to this group of people. The income from their job is needed for them to meet their physical needs, make them feel safe, and generating positive emotional feeling around their life. When an organization going through transformation process, uncertainties is what this group of people faced with and this uncertainties directly challenges their position in the Hierarchy of Needs. Without the transformation, they are in their comfort zone and moving up the layer in the Hierarchy of Needs. Uncertainties created by the transformation or the knowledge of the upcoming transformation in the organization where they belongs to shaken every piece of tiles they place on their comfort zones. Instead of moving upward the Hierarchy of Needs, they are moving downwards. In this situation any intrusion that further increase the uncertainties of their position in an organization (organization transformation process often leads to restructuring and retrenchment) will be view as an enemy to them. Often time the new leader in the organization is the enemy in their view and one certainly cannot expect them to trust in their enemy. Therefore unless and until they see some actions that help them stabilized and move up their Hierarchy of Needs, they will not buy in to any influence of the leadership traits.
4.2. The group of people who is at the top layer of the Deficiency Needs of Maslow Hierarchy of Needs (Esteem Layer) was challenge greatly during organization transformation process

This group of people is the people at the senior management level (the existing leaders) in an organization. They probably has less concern over the lower three layer in the Deficiency Needs and what is challenging to them are those things that hit directly into their self esteem. The fact that organization has to go through the transformation and an external leader is invited to take charge of the transformation is a hard hit into their self esteem. It is a symbolical non-confidence vote against their ability to run the organization. Most of the time they will view this as an act of denial over their past achievement in the organization. They find that they lost the respect from their subordinates and friends. The emotional challenge in this aspect is even more severe than the physiological challenges faced by people at the lower
222

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

layer of the Hierarchy of Needs. In the action filled transformation process, there are high chances that they will try to resist any effort done by the new leaders. They are the obvious enemy to the new leader. Therefore it is unlikely that they will support any effort by the new leader and open to the influence of the new leader. It is term as leadership clash and no influence can be asserted in them under this situation. When both parties (the old and new leaders) trying to prove themselves, it is unlikely any of them will be successful.
4.3. Most people at the top layer of Maslow Hierarchy of Needs will choose to exit the organization.

People at the top layer of the Hierarchy of Needs are also from the Senior Management (the existing leaders) level in an organization. This group of people is above the common needs of the previous group of people and will have very little needs to fight to prove themselves. They can take problem very objectively and will accept the fact that they needed help and the transformation need is due to their inability to address certain problems in their organization. However, this group of people will also be more prone to leave the organization when the new leader comes in with his team. They often took a passive blessing by letting the new leader to take control of the organization. With them leaving the organization, it actually reduces the support for the new leader and indirectly decreases the ability of the new leader to assert his influence over the organization members. Majority of organization members are in the 3 categories listed above. Those people who are not in the 3 categories above are the supporter of the new leader. However, they will be the minority in the organization. This is because most people cannot free themselves from the Hierarchy of Needs. They will have to fulfill their need according to the Hierarchy of Needs before they can move on. It looks like an impossible task to please and garnered support from the existing organization members according to the explanation above. However, there is always exception. Risk taking spirit played an important role for one to break away from the Hierarchy of Needs as defined by Maslow. New leader has to leverage on this group of people and present the challenge to them and entice their risk taking spirit so that they will stand up to support the effort. This does not mean they are influenced by the leadership but rather they are challenged and will respond to the challenges presented. Presenting the challenge is an action by the leader. In figure 3, leaders action will give continuous effect to his power to influence. The cascading effect of each successful action will pile up and push the leaders leadership image to the positive side and will increase the power of influence of the leader. In the case new leader cannot get enough supporters for the action plans execution, often time the new leader will bring in his own allied from outside. This group of people will help the leader to execute and work on the action plans. They are the actual forces to lift the leadership image of the new leader from the bottom of the S curve and create the influencing power for the leader to leverage on.

223

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

After looking from the aspect of how individual will react in transformation through the theory of Maslow Hierarchy of Need, it is important to see how organization members as a whole shall be addressed during transformation. Senge in [22] talked about the learning organization and its processes. The five disciplines of learning organization by Senge can be borrowed to further strengthen why leaders actions are extremely important to the organization transformation. Senge named the below 5 disciplines which differentiated the traditional organization from the learning organization. Each of the discipline identified by Senge will be used to explain the important of actions by the leaders during organization transformation:
4.4. Systems Thinking

Systems Thinking is the foundation of the whole concept of learning organization. In actual fact every organization operates as a system, either an efficient one or one that is inefficient. Organization transformation was needed because the system in an organization is falling apart, due to its inefficiency. Organization member look toward the organization leader to take certain actions to put the systems back to work. When the system is broken, members of the organization will not be able to see themselves as part of the organization. There is no clarity of their positions and functions in the system. New leaders of the organization need to reestablish the systems. At time the leaders will put things back to where it were before, but during organization transformation process, more likely the leader will shake the systems and put a new identity to the systems. The Systems Thinking before, during and after the transformation is most likely very different as well. Before organization member can visualize the whole transformation goal as a new system, it is hard for them to play a role in the new system formation. Therefore, Systems Thinking is not exists in the mindset of organization members during transformation. Each function cant stand alone and operate with its own direction that is dissimilar with other functions in the organization. However, when organization became inefficient systems, this is exactly what we witness. To redirect the organization members back to Systems Thinking as this is essential for the organization to function (to make sure organization members realize the importance of their roles in the new systems and to function as it is required), the leader of the organization will have to take a series of actions to slowly help the organization members to visualize the new systems and work towards the new systems formation. These actions are covered in the other 4 disciplines below.
4.5. Shared Vision

The very first thing that leader need to do is to create a vision that each organization member can see themselves in the big picture. This is part of the effort to drive the organization member back to the Systems Thinking. Creating a shared vision is more than just placing a vision statement. A common mistake by leaders is simplifying the creation of the shared vision as a vision statement. A shared vision
224

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

is a future that should be embraced by the whole organization but a vision statement often time is a top down direction created by management. A shared vision is a vision that has good involvement from general organization members and one that is well communicated at all level of organization. It should be beyond a fixed vision statement and develops/evolves over time to signify the directions of the organization. The shared vision is essentially the tools to garner the commitment of the organization members to strive to achieve certain goal and objectives. In organization transformation, this goal and objectives is the commitment of the organization members to drive changes in the organization, and to build new systems in the organization that will lead to long term sustainability. Vision spread not because of a written vision statement but because of a continuous reinforcing process [15]. While harvesting the thoughts and ideas of the organization members in creating shared vision is good, the follow on actions that snowball the shared vision is even more important. Leaders need to take actions to show to the organization members that they are serious about the shared vision. It is the actions that will drive continuous commitment of the organization members towards the shared vision and make it a reality. Leader need to be able to show a roadmap that drive towards the shared vision. This roadmap should be detailed with the required involvement of the organization members.
4.6. Mental Models

Building mental models are about getting organization member to visualize the new organization under development and taking a stand on how it should be. Leaders role is to influence the mental models of organization members and ensured that the picture and image about the organization after transformation is align with the shared vision. It is the role of the leaders to train, change, expose and guide the mental models formation for the organization members. Leaders need to train the organization members to see the reality in the world, the potential of the organization, the competitiveness of the market they are in, and the challenges from all aspects, both internal and external to the organization. This training objective is to make organization members realized the situation at hand and encourage them to participate and be part of the addressee of the situation. The mental model can be built using the scenario planning techniques and should be check against the shared vision and ensure a good alignment between the two. Building mental model is not about continuous reflection on vision statement. It is an exercise to engrave in the mind and heart of the organization members with an image of what they could be if they can execute what is required of them. The leaders have to be very certain that they understand the important of mental model setting and take all necessary steps to govern this mental model for their organization members.

225

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

4.7. Team Learning

Organization exists as collective entities that mirror a system. There should be no hero in an organization because organization success does not lie on the shoulder of any individual. From the board of directors to the very low level operational staffs, each play their parts as required by the systems that are at work in the organization. We is the only identity for the organization members. Team is the only word describes any individual involvement in the organization operation activities. Therefore it is important to ensure organization has a good plan to drive alignment of the individual towards organization goals. Team learning is essentially the discipline highlighted by Senge to foster this alignment but at the same time develop and encourage individual capability to help team success. In simple word, drive individual for team result. Leaders need to create the atmosphere and environment that encourage dialogue between organization members and link them together to form an understanding between team members. However, it should not be mistaken as encouraging group think. The purpose of this team learning is to get the best out of the team instead of relying on individual intelligent to run the show. The effect of synergy is what the leaders need to get out of the team. The fallacy of the organization is often caused by individualistic behavior that creates wall and making enemies within the organization. Team learning is the tools to break the individuality and glue the individual strength together for greater competencies.
4.8. Personal Mastery

Personal mastery is about individual setting a clear vision and at the same time realized the reality at hand. The gap between the vision and the reality is the gap that individual needs to overcome which is also called creative tension by continuously building on his/her capacities. The key to unlock the personal mastery is the improving of self confidence, and emotional intelligence. During transformation, leaders need to squeeze the very best out of the organization members. Leaders need to help the organization members to unlock the power in their sub-consciousness. Showing the gesture of concern and care is one of the actions the leaders can do. Leaders need to let the organization members aware that they are with them. This will help the members to give back their best to the organization when they feel that they are not alone in this war. Leaders play important roles in helping employees to achieve personal mastery. It goes beyond establishing working relationship with employees. It is about leaders abilities to help employees to see their own importance and potential in the systems called organization and what can they do and what is lack in them. Leaders ultimate goal is to boost the employees to focus and contribute to the transformation plan. The five disciplines identified by Senge gave another aspect of why leaders actions are important in the transformation process. Each decision by the leaders touches one or more of the five disciplines. If any action by the leaders does not

226

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

align with the positive working of the 5 disciplines, the transformation will not be successful. It is beyond giving lips service to the organization members. The actions by the leaders are the actual punch to the five disciplines. If the action hit it right, the transformation process is smoothen. Organization members look at the fact of how each action of the leaders touches the five disciplines and help them to be more participative than just receiving the outcome of the transformation. Another important fact that we can use to prove the importance of the actions during transformation is what was recorded in the Holy Bible on how Moses lead the people of Israel out of Egypt and how Jesus run His earthly ministry. In the book of Exodus [9], it is recorded that Moses is a man neither eloquent with words, nor competent in speeches and he questioned God when God calls him to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt. Moses even described himself as speaking with faltering lips. He knew his weaknesses after spending many years in tending the flocks and lives as an ordinary man. However when he doubted his own abilities, God enabled him to performed 3 miraculous signs as the actions to get people to believe in him. As he was not good with speeches, God has called Aaron to be his spokesperson. Obviously there is going to be transformation on Israelites fate and God has enabled Moses to work on the actions required to lead this transformation project (lead the people out of Egypt) and appointed another person to be his assistant, Aaron who has better charisma. Along the exodus process, many times the Israelites were shaken in their faith when troubles arose, but each time Moses did miraculous signs and wonders to led them out of trouble and they will resubmit to God and Moses due to the signs and wonders (actions by Moses and God) they saw (staff turn into snake, water from river of Nile turn into blood, Red Sea parted, the sky rain manna, etc.). This is strong evidence on the claims of the importance of actions during tribulation. People need to see to believe what is in place for them. Words of encouragement and others are important but what really drives people is the actions are tangible so that their confidence and faith are boosted. In the account of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospel of Luke and Mathew [9], people marveled at the wisdom of Jesus, but it was stressed that many people believed because of the signs and wonders performed by Jesus. In short three years in his ministry on earth, Jesus has also taught in various synagogues as it was recorded in the Holy Bible. However this wisdom shown by Jesus was not enough to convince his close circle (His disciples) to trust and believes in Him. In one of the obvious incident, it was recorded in the Gospel of Luke and Mathew that while Jesus was resting in the inner room of the boat when they were on their way to the other side of a lake, there was a sudden thunder storm and His disciples were trembled even though Jesus was with them. They have clearly acknowledged the wisdom of Jesus in many ways and have witnessed many wonders done by Jesus. But in the time of trouble, all the past teaching was not enough to drive their confidence in Jesus. Jesus has to calm the storm to get them believed again. This is the supporting evidence of why action needs to be reinforced with another positive action to get the continuous result and gather the influencing power among the stakeholders as it is presented in Figure 3 previously. So as with the world today, a leader with good leadership traits and eloquent with words, will get people marvel

227

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

at his wisdom and intelligent, admiring his fluency in speech, but if it is without actions, the admiration will fade away with time.

5. CONCLUSION
Leadership is a quality and characteristic of a leader that is largely intangible in terms of measurement. The characteristics and behavior of a leader will affect the actions of the leader in some way but the effect of it is not as large as we thought it was. Leaders action is influenced by many other factors and not just the behavior and character of a leader. Leaders action is the one determining the success of an organization in transformation and not the leadership. The research discussed in Section 3 is one of the evidence of the claim of leaders action is more important than the leadership in transformation process. The argument is well supported by renowned theories in human behavioral study and organization study such as Maslow hierarchy of need and five disciplines of learning organization and also the Holy Bible, a book that have existed for many centuries. Maslow hierarchy of need is used to explain the human behavior and reaction when their comfort level is challenged and how a leader must react to bring them back to the level in hierarchy that they preferred to be in. Five disciplines of learning organization explain the need of an organization to be in the right state and how leaders actions impacting those states. The quote from Holy Bible is used to reinforce the fact that human being is creature of actions. All these theories when it is use to explain the phenomena observed clearly supported the claim of the importance of leaders actions. Transformation process is different from the stage where organization is in stable operation. Therefore the organizations in transformation need to select the right leader to lead this process. This paper proposed that when selecting leader to lead the transformation, organization should focus on the criteria of decisiveness of a leader and choose the leaders with strong character to put things into actions. In war, one cannot fight without taking action. It is better to hope for an action that will change the whole game plan than trying to talk through the war to change the whole landscape. No soldier would like to see their captain to be sitting there to plan forever or trying to convince them through nice words. The best way to convince the soldiers to be with the captain is for the captain to lead them in actions. Therefore organization should carefully select their leader to lead any transformation process. People cannot sit still when they are challenged and push out from their comfort zone. Choosing an action oriented leader will be the answer for organization going through transformation.

6. SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In this paper we have pointed out the need to focus on actions rather than general leadership traits of a person to lead in organization transformation. The theory we
228

International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(3), 211-230, September 2011

proposed is supported by behavioral theory and organization theory. However, there is still a strong need to identify in actual organization standpoint on how many organizations has been successful in their transformation when their organization members were inspired by actions of the leaders and not the other intangible characteristic of the leaders such as charisma and charm. The ability to separate this two will potentially change the landscape of leaders selection on leading a transformation. We no longer need to select a strong figurehead to lead the change. We need a leader who will lead by actions to bring about the transformation success. In the future, we plan to differentiate through literature on the actions by leader in transformation. This research if proven true will further strengthen the support for the claim of action is more important than intangible leadership characteristic.

REFERENCES
1. Bennis, W. (1984), "Transformative Power and Leadership", in Sergrovanni, T. J. and Corbally, J. E., (Eds.), Leadership and Organizational Culture, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 64-71 2. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Perennial Library, New York 3. Church, A.H., Siegel, W., Javitch, M., Waclawski, J. and Burke, W.W. (1996), Managing organizational change: what you dont know might hurt you, Career Development International, Vol 1 No. 2, pp. 25-30 4. Chaharbaghi, K., Adcroft, A., Willis, R. (2005) "Organisations, transformability and the dynamics of strategy", Management Decision, Vol. 43 Iss: 1, pp.6 12 5. Drew, S., Coulson-Thomas, C. (1997), "Transformation through teamwork: the path to the new organization?", Team Performance Management, Vol. 3 Iss: 3, pp.162 178 6. Fletcher, B.R. (1990), Organization Transformation. Theorists and Practitioners, Praeger, New. York 7. Gerstner, L. Jr. (2002), Who Says Elephants Cant Dance, HarperCollins Publishers Ltd 8. Griego, O. V., Geroy, G. D. and Wright, P. C. (2000), Predictors of learning organizations: a human resource development practitioner's perspective, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 1 pp. 5-12 9. Jabri, M. (2004), Team feedback based on dialogue: Implication for change management, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 2 pp.141-151 10. Lewis, D.S. (1994), Organizational Change: Relationship between Reactions, Behavior and Organizational Performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 7 No. 5 pp.4155 11. Limerick, D., Passfield, R. and Cunnington, B. (1994), Transformational Change: Towards an Action Learning Organization, The Learning Organization, Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 29-40 12. Landrum, N. and Gardner, C. (2005), Using integral theory to effect strategic change, Journal of organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 3 pp.247-258 13. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., Latham, G. P. (1981), "Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969 1980", Psychological Bulletin, American Psychological Association 90 (1) pp. 125152 14. Maslow, A. H. (1943), A theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 pp. 370396

229

Thomas Ooi Wei Min, A. Solucis Santhapparaj

15. Ooi, T. W. M. (2007), The 3 + 3 Facets of Organization Transformation, British Academy of Management 16. Ooi, T. W. M. (2010), Exploring the key success factors of Organiztaion Transformation, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University Malaysia. 17. Peters, T. (1987), Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a managerial Revolution, New York, Alfred. A. Knopf. 18. Proctor, T. and Doukakis, I. (2003), Change management: the role of internal communication and employee development, Corporate Communication: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4 pp.268277 19. Saka, A. (2003), Internal change agents view of the management of change problem, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 16 No.5 pp.480-496 20. Saunders, M. and Thornhill, A. (2003), Organizational justice, trust and the management of change: An exploration, Personal Review, Vol. 32 No. 3 pp.360-375 21. Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, The art and Practise of a learning organization, Century Business 22. Strachan, P. A., Managing transformational change: the learning organization and team working, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2 pp. 32-40 23. Trader-Leigh, K. (2001), Case Study: identifying resistance in managing change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2 pp. 138-155 24. Taylor-Bianco, A., and Schermerhorn, J. Jr (2006), Self-regulation, strategic leadership and paradox in organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 4 pp. 457-470 25. Waldersee, R. (1997), Becoming a learning organization: the transformation of the workforce, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16 No. 4 pp. 262-273 26. William, J., Nitin, N., Roberson, B. (2003), What Really Works: The 4+2 Formula for Sustained Business Success, Collins Business

230