Managing Employee Assets

G eneration matters Surprisingly (to me), many of the people I spoke with indicated there are real generational differences between the skills, values, work ethics, and needs of workers born in different eras. While using stereotypes and generalizations can be very dangerous, some of the following may help you deal with each generation in your w ork­ force. Ignoring the trends repre­ sented by generations of workers who grew up in differing environ­ ments can be a mistake. The time periods and attributes are just approximate guides, but some gen­ eralizations can be informative.

TRADITIONALISTS

Born about 1927 to 1945 These workers were influenced by the Great Depression and directly impacted by World War II.

Essentially all of them are out of the workforce by now. They are typically your current employee's parents, grandparents, or older, but they may have left a lasting imprint on many of the older firms and some of their typical characteris­ tics are worth knowing.

They value hard w ork and thrift, are loyal employees and many have worked for a single firm over their entire career. They are team players and prefer face-to-face communications. For Traditionalists, telephones were the high tech of their formative years. They may be slow to adapt to, or are uncomfort­ able with, technology. Tweeting, SMS, IM and blogs w ill mean little or nothing to them.

Characteristics/interests: Discipline, conformity, respect

for authority Communication: Face-to-face,

written memos Fiscal Philosophy: Save, avoid

credit, pay cash

5E JPCL March 2015 /

B A B Y BOOMERS

Born about 1946 to 1964 These w orkers grew up in an America that was booming; infra­ structure in the form of new fre e ­ ways, near universal e le ctrifica ­ tion, telephone service, television and the space program. These w orkers remember the protests against the Vietnam W ar and Nixon’s resignation. At this stage in th e ir career, they probably expect you to be confident in their abilities, with a hands-off approach. Listening to their con­ cerns and comments seriously, and a bit of a bonus or personal "thank you" when things go well, are powerful motivators.

Baby Boomers are currently senior and mid-level managers in most firms. They tend to live for their jobs and w ill jump in w hen­ ever and w herever needed. Phones and email are their pre­ ferred form of communication. They have seen big changes over their careers and w ere strong idealists in their youth. They may be somewhat cynical or disillu­ sioned by now that they haven't changed the world. "Show me the money" and "Give me the title and the authority" describe the attitudes of many. They tend to be competitive and expect bosses to let them do their jobs w ith a mini­ mum of interference. They know their place in the chain of com­ mand and still aspire to move up.

Characteristics/interests: Involvement, dedication to the

job, work hard/play hard Communication: Meetings, email,

phone Fiscal Philosophy: Buy what you

want, charge it please

paintsquare■com

GENERATION X

Born about 1965 to 1980 (although some make a distinction

of 1978 to 1982 as the "MTV Generation")

"Change" is probably the single word that best describes the Gen Xer's philosophy. If we think we live in turbulent times, consider that this generation grew up with man land­ ing on the moon, the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Gen Xers lived through the 1973 oil crisis, 1979 Iran Hostage situation and energy crisis, stagflation (stag­ nation and inflation), savings and loan failures, AIDS and the Challenger explosion; not to mention the rise of personal computers, videogames and the dot-com bub­ ble. The U.S. was mostly at peace during their formative years and they have little use for politics and government leaders. Gen Xers tend to be quick studies, but are impa­ tient with rigid guidelines, produc­ tion quotas and authority in general.

They tend not to w ant to be in positions of authority. They are ambitious and hard working but mostly as individuals and entrepre­ neurs. Gen Xers value diversity, cre­ ativity and personal challenge. They are more likely to prioritize home and family life. Being constantly on the road is not attractive. Gen Xers generally want the freedom to figure out their own methods rather than being mentored and are very willing to change employers if they think it makes sense for them. They have no patience with endless meetings and are attached to their cell phones (not just for calls, but for emails and texts). They w ant to be able to leave the job at the office or worksite when they go home. They are the first generation who tends to earn less (in constant dollars) than their parents.

Characteristics/interests: Flexibility, skepticism, independence

Communication: Immediate and direct, email, cellphone, text

Fiscal Philosophy: Cautious and conservative

GENERATION Y

OR MILLENNIALS

Bom about 1980 to the early 2000s Gen Y is fully immersed in technolo­ gy. It may be hard to peel them away from Facebook on their iPhones. If you w ant to get their attention, a text may be more effec­ tive than talking to them directly. This generation has never known a world w ithout ubiquitous comput­ ing, satellite TV and internet. Social status is critically important. Work tends not to be their highest priori­ ty, their diverse interests, short attention span and focus on social­ ization make building them into your team tougher. Their job is not their identity or prime focus. They work to live, rather than live to work. On the other hand, they may be much more receptive to the attention and mentoring of management. Knowing that the owner, or a simi­ lar person of high status, is paying attention to and investing in them will increase their own status and can be very effective. Most Millennials know they are just start­ ing their careers and don't have an "I already know it all" mentality, but they see w ork as an entitlement, rather than the other way around, and are constantly evaluating w hether their current employment provides w hat they w ant — the proper environment, career enhancement, and satisfaction. If not, they'll be looking to move on.

Characteristics/interests: Social interaction, technological "early adopters," confidence Communication: Texts, tweets,

Facebook, FaceTime, Instagram Fiscal Philosophy: Make money to

spend it

Copyright of Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings is the property of Technology Publishing Network and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

W as Julius Caesar a successful leader? What about Ghenghis Khan? Simon Bolivar? Or Napoleon? Because we tend to think of

these as military leaders, the answers look pretty straightforward. Each achieved major military successes. But then Napoleon was ultimately defeated – does that make him a failure? After all, he won a lot of battles before Waterloo, and his sweeping political and legal reforms have been the basis of French administrative life for nearly 200 years.

Now let’s move to the politicians. How do you feel about describing Bill Clinton as a successful leader? George W. Bush? Tony Blair? Vladimir Putin? This is altogether more difficult ground. Some of you will have already decided; those of you who have not made up your minds could argue that it is too early to say. The historic verdict on Bush and Blair will probably depend on what happens to Iraq over the next 20 years. Those better informed about Russia than I am can make up their own minds about Putin.

Moving next to business territory, with a few exceptions – say Bill Gates, Herb Kelleher (Southwest Airlines) and Jack Welch – leaders generally have to be dead to be considered successful. No problems with Henry Ford and Alfred P. Sloan then. But with current CEOs, successful leadership is work in progress. Judgements are particularly hazardous in mid-flight – Bear Stearns and Northern Rock were hailed as run by highly successful leaders before the credit crunch.

For those who want to check on their own leadership success, for those who appoint leaders and for outsiders (including analysts and competitors) assessing the quality of leadership, checklists of traits are not enough. Nor are comparisons with Welch, Gates or even Ghenghis Khan. What’s needed is to know the problems of measuring success and how to overcome them.

A number of preliminary steps are necessary to make sure that measurement is going to be robust.

Preliminary step 1: Agree what we’re measuring Do you, like Warren Bennis, feel that leadership is hard to define, but you know it when you see it? The trouble is that, if you do, there’s a danger of talking at cross-purposes about what makes leadership successful.

The danger is illustrated by looking at the huge variety of ways of defining leadership. Stuart Crainer identified nine strands in leadership theories: the Great Man, trait, power and influence, behaviourist, situational, contingency, transactional, attribution and transformational. Leading authorities provide a variety of approaches. My London Business School colleagues Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones have emphasized authenticity and skill; Jim Collins suggests humility is critical. Abraham Zaleznik has the focus on personality, John Adair on the working of the team and on meeting the needs of the individual, James MacGregor Burns on the →

Boardrooms and business school classrooms are equally preoccupied with leadership, and success is often assumed to be about profit or Total Shareholder Return. It’s neither. For leaders wanting to measure their own success, for those who appoint leaders to know what they are aiming at and for outsiders assessing the quality of leadership, Andrew Likierman shows how to do it.

© 2009 The Author | Journal compilation © 2009 London Business SchoolBusiness Strategy Review Spring 200944

Th in

ki ng

Successful leadership – how would you know?

transformational qualities of charismatic leaders, and John Kotter on establishing direction, aligning people, motivating and inspiring.

So getting an agreed definition is an essential starting point in measuring success, because it avoids problems later. But note that this is the beginning, not the end of the story. Just being a leader is not the same as being successful, any more than getting into the driving seat makes one a good driver.

Preliminary step 2: Focus on outcomes, not inputs Because much of the literature on leadership focuses on the attributes or qualities a person needs

to become a successful leader, it’s usually assumed that exhibiting those qualities or attributes will be translated into success.

But success can’t be about having skills (strategic, operating etc.) or personal qualities (drive, inspirational, openness etc.). A leader can tick off all the lists and still not succeed, since skills and personal qualities may be necessary but not sufficient conditions of success. Success is about results, not characteristics. It’s no use defining yourself as a successful leader because you have charisma if the shareholders see you leading charismatically in the wrong direction. The high turnover of CEOs is testimony to how much success is seen as being about results, not style or characteristics. Bob Ayling, CEO of British Airways, and Clive Thompson, CEO of Rentokil, were two high-profile British CEOs previously held up as model managers but who were ousted because they failed to deliver. That’s true even of founders, as with Anita and Gordon Roddick at Body Shop.

Preliminary step 3: Make sure the data is as robust as possible It’s one of the big practical issues of performance measurement: just how robust is the data being used? Say you wanted to compare yourself as a leader to others. The others – especially competitors – might not be ready to reveal as much as you’d like, particularly plans that they made that didn’t come off. So it could be very difficult to get as much data for others as you have for yourself. Realism is necessary here and a judgement will have to be made on the information available.

Leaders are not always the best judges of their own success. Many are better at rationalizing their mistakes than admitting to failure, which is why leaders’ judgements about themselves are usually taken with a pinch of salt.

For outsiders, there’s another, more sensitive aspect to the integrity of the data. As Stalin cynically noted, “It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.” Leaders generally have a big influence on the way data is collected and presented, not just because the PR function reports to them, but because there’s an understandable hesitancy to question what a leader is saying, especially an apparently successful one. Only at a time of crisis

does the issue of whether what’s being reported is right come under serious scrutiny, as with Jeff Skilling at Enron or the dominant Tanzi family at Parmalat. Any claims of success that can’t be independently verified need to be treated with caution, not taken at face value.

Having sorted out the preliminary steps above, it’s much easier to tackle the challenges of measuring.

Step 1: Set up the framework. Agree objectives Once there’s a definition of leadership, more precise objectives need to be sorted out. Is the job to transform the organization or to make one that is already doing pretty well operate leaner, meaner and faster? In the jargon, is it transformational or transactional? Is it about team building or bringing on future leaders? Is it about acquisitions, consolidation or just ensuring survival?

In larger organizations, setting objectives should be part of the formal annual appraisal process. In smaller ones, the process may be less formal, but it’s still important to make them clear and, if possible, put them in writing. For those who are looking to appoint leaders to run an organization, defining objectives is crucial in making informed choices about the kind of person they want.

But the outcomes of a transactional leader, such as greater efficiency of operations, better morale or a better talent management programme, are more difficult to track, particularly for those outside the organization, than those of transformational leaders pursuing an acquisition or diversification strategy. For example, it’s easy to identify the leadership

© 2009 The Author | Journal compilation © 2009 London Business SchoolBusiness Strategy Review Spring 200946

→

A successful leader is successful in comparative, not absolute, terms and the starting point has to be against objectives.

Th in

ki ng

impact of Lakashmi Mittal or Rupert Murdoch. It’s not too difficult to identify the leadership success of Anders Moberg in taking over from Cees van der Hoeven to clean up the Dutch supermarket giant Ahold or Dieter Zetchke coming in at Daimler after Jurgen Schremmp to get the company back on track after the failure of the Chrysler merger.

More problematic is the assessment of the leadership of the “hidden champions” – world-class German Mittelstand (medium-sized) companies identified by Hermann Simon. (See related article on page 38.) Their leaders are rarely well known, not only because the companies are unquoted, but also because they are often led by transactional leaders, whose steady efforts to maintain the companies are less public than those of CEOs whose changes are more easily measurable. So objectives for transactional leaders need to be framed in terms of identifiable sub-tasks to trace the leadership element in meeting objectives.

Find the right comparisons A successful leader is successful in comparative, not absolute terms, and the starting point has to be against objectives. These will have to be set out beforehand (making them up afterwards is definitely not acceptable), may need to be changed over time to respond to changing circumstances and do not all need to be fulfilled. But the degree to which a leader meets his

or her stated objectives will be a key factor in judging success. John Browne’s ambition to take BP into the league of world oil majors was realized through a series of huge takeovers. It was one of the reasons why he was judged to be such a successful leader in the early years of the 21st century. On the other hand, failure to achieve his objectives is just one of the grounds on which Hitler can be judged to be an unsuccessful leader.

But meeting objectives is not enough, any more than is defining leadership. The level at which objectives are set is a function of many factors, one of which is often a desire to meet them by aiming low, so comparisons also have to be against a relevant peer group. The share price may be tanking, but if it’s tanking less than the others (some of whom are going bust), this may well be a signal of successful leadership. Similarly if the

share price is going up significantly less fast than competitors, it may be that poor leadership is seen as a factor by the markets.

Assess handling of opportunities As well as comparisons with objectives and a relevant peer group, a third comparison is with what might have been, including whether possible opportunities have been taken or foregone. One of the things that differentiates a good manager from a good leader is that the former is more focused on existing plans and objectives, the latter on additional opportunities as well as current plans. These opportunities are not easy to measure. The counterfactual (what might have been) and opportunities missed may take a long time to become clear. Arnold Weinstock was lauded as a great industrial leader to the end of his tenure as CEO of (the British) General Electric Company. But with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that in his last years he failed to take crucial opportunities.

Grasping opportunities cannot be on the basis of a plan, so an internal comparison isn’t relevant. What’s needed is a basis of comparison with others in the sector or the industry, using judgement to see how others have taken the opportunities offered or not taken up. One example is Jorma Ollila, who led Nokia from being a local Finnish company to one that took on the long-established competition,

including such industry giants as Ericcson and Motorola. Another is Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of the retailing phenomenon that is IKEA.

Step 2: Use judgement to interpret. Comparisons with stated objectives, a relevant peer group and opportunities are rarely straightforward. The world’s major banks or utilities, for example, have very different regulatory environments. They, engineering and pharmaceutical giants operate in many different kinds of markets and provide a different mix of products. So deciding who is a successful leader in banking, or any other industry, will always be a matter of judgement. This is one reason why those arguments about who is the best CEO (or general, prime minister or president) of the 20th century are so unsatisfactory.

Business Strategy Review Spring 2009© 2009 The Author | Journal compilation © 2009 London Business School 47

→

Successful leadership is about a successful outcome against stated objectives combined with comparisons against a relevant peer group and the way in which opportunities are handled.

Th in

ki ng

Another key element in interpretation is the effect of lags. When someone who is seen as a successful leader steps down, it is usually to the accompaniment of toasts to their achievements and statements of undying conviction that they can never be replaced. Within weeks, however, doubts often set in and questions are raised. Was that acquisition really so successful? Did we really need to go into that market? In part, this is about adjustment to the new regime; but the more fundamental questions usually relate to the lagged effects of actions taken during, or even before, the leader’s years in office.

The effects of lags are evident in recent credit crunch victims, whose problems can be seen to be rooted in decisions about exposure to financial instruments taken many years before, as with AIG’s decision to hire a group of derivatives specialists from Drexel Burnham Lambert. Conclusions are all very well in retrospect, but judgement is necessary on the effect of such lags before the consequences become clear. Is an expensive hedge on oil prices to the end of 2009 at $50 a stroke of genius or a costly error?

Few leaders escape the effects of lags unscathed, even the managerially saintly Jack Welch. He, rather than his successor Jeff Immelt, has increasingly been criticized for the poor performance of the GE share price since he left. The company, it has been argued, should have been left in a better position to continue to grow. The effect of lags is probably the toughest of all the challenges in measuring the success of someone currently leading an organization. This is why rushing to judgement on today’s CEOs is such a hazardous business and recognizing this as a problem is essential in measuring success.

Finally, care is needed to separate having the good fortune to be in the right place at the right time from successful leadership, just as we need to separate failure from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. “A rising tide lifts all boats” – as the aphorism goes. Successful leaders are not linked automatically to profits, or indeed to Total Shareholder Return, cash generation or economic profit. Successful leaders in the property industry

need to lead through the regular cyclical downturns in the industry, not just when all property prices are rising. The trouble is that a halo effect surrounds company success and judgement is needed to make sure that it is separated from leadership.

Step 3: As far as possible, reconcile the needs of different stakeholders. You probably wouldn’t describe someone as a successful leader if they’d just fired you. Or join in acclaiming the CEO as a great leader if you knew that increases in profits were being gained by exploiting child labour in Bangladesh. There’s not necessarily going to be unanimity about what successful leadership means to every stakeholder, and, even if the objectives are set out clearly, success won’t mean the same to everyone. Your extra profit could be my redundancy. Or it could be everyone else’s excessive carbon footprint.

So it’s possible that the views of different stakeholders won’t be reconcilable, any more than the views of some trades union leaders or some environmental campaigners are reconcilable with the actions of some managements. If that’s so, the measurement of success has to recognize a multiplicity of views. This also applies to outside comment. In public opinion polls, Sir Richard Branson is regarded as a highly successful business leader, but readers of Tom Bower’s biography of Branson are treated to a scathing analysis of the man and his – according to Bower – lack of achievement. As an outside comment, the book can be taken as fiercely unbiased and independent or as an outrageously partial hatchet job. But unless Virgin goes bust, it’s unlikely there will be a single view of his success.

Successful leadership Successful leadership isn’t what leaders do or who they are. It isn’t just what the organizations they lead manage to achieve, which may be down to very many other factors. Successful leadership is about a successful outcome against stated objectives combined with comparisons against a relevant peer group and the way in which opportunities are handled.

© 2009 The Author | Journal compilation © 2009 London Business SchoolBusiness Strategy Review Spring 200948

→

Successful Leadership

Effective Leadership

What they achieve

Leadership

What people do or who they are

= Comparison to stated objectives

+ Comparison to relevant peers

+ Handling of opportunities

Th in

ki ng

It’s also important to remember that leadership is not just about those at the top. The examples given in this article are mainly well-known CEOs to illustrate the points. But it’s important to measure leadership at any level. For those who want to measure their own success as leader, the essentials follow:

● Make sure you set out your objectives (in terms of outcomes, not inputs) so that others know what they are, particularly those who will be assessing your performance.

● Find relevant comparators.

● Have an awareness of how opportunities are handled – both those taken and those missed.

● In interpreting the information, recognize the measurement problems and take steps to mitigate them. If you are a transactional leader, make sure you have definable objectives. If lags are a problem, establish milestones.

● Recognize that the result is a matter of judgement; if you don’t trust your own, ask someone independent to do it for you.

For those who want to measure leadership in others or choose someone for their leadership qualities, the same essential elements are required. The element of judgement for those outside the organization will obviously be far greater, since the objectives and information on handling opportunities (including all those bad deals turned down) will probably not be known. By contrast, for someone inside the organization measuring the leadership of a colleague (as when a chairman is assessing the CEO’s performance), the relevant comparators and the basis for making judgements should be agreed.

In measuring your own leadership or that of colleagues, it’s not really the conclusions that matter as much as the benefit of having to define objectives, find comparators and be aware of the importance of handling of opportunities. It’s also about finding that gold mine, the candid friend. For outsiders, it’s about turning a vague impression into an informed judgement. Successful leadership is an elusive quality. It’s worth a better class of measurement. ■

Resources John Adair, The Best of Adair on Leadership and Management, Thorogood, 2008.

Warren Bennis and Robert J. Thomas, Leading for a Lifetime, Harvard Business School Press, 2007.

Tom Bower, Branson, HarperPerennial, 2008.

James MacGregor Burns, Leadership, HarperPerennial, 1982.

Jim Collins, Good to Great, Random House, 2001.

Stuart Crainer, Key Management Ideas: Thinkers that Changed the Management World, FT/Prentice Hall, 1998.

Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones, Why Should Anyone Be Led by You? Harvard Business School Press, 2006.

John P. Kotter, John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do, Harvard Business School Press, 1999.

Hermann Simon, Hidden Champions: Lessons from 500 of the World’s Best Unknown Companies, Leads Press, 2008.

John Van Maurik, Writers on Leadership, Penguin, 2001.

Abraham Zaleznik, The Managerial Mystique, HarperCollins, 1990.

Business Strategy Review Spring 2009© 2009 The Author | Journal compilation © 2009 London Business School 49

Sir Andrew Likierman ([email protected]) is Dean and Professor of Management Practice at London Business School. His non-executive roles include chairman of an AIM-listed technology incubator and director of Barclays plc and the Bank of England.

Th in

ki ng

London Business School Regent’s Park London NW1 4SA United Kingdom Tel +44 (0)20 7000 7000 Fax +44 (0)20 7000 7001 www.london.edu A Graduate School of the University of London

Spring 20n • Models of Leadership 33

Facing the Challenge of Change: Steps to Becoming an Effective Leader By Margaret A. Trybus

T his position paper makes the case that all leaders need to become agents of change. The stepsto becoming a change agent are analyzed, including knowing one's organization, assessing one's leadership skills, gauging people's reaction to change, learning the process of change, and

making a commitment to change. The author analyzes Fullan's model of the phases of change

to provide a guideline to create the change process in a variety of settings. Current and future

leaders will become reflective regarding how they can develop the skills necessary to meet the

challenges of change from both an organizational and individual point of view.

The ability to lead change has become a valuable skill as organizations, including schools, are required to transform in order to meet higher expectations for success. The pace of change is rapidly increasing, and the conditions to foster change are more demanding. The learning curve to become a change-agent leader, therefore, is steep and may pose challenges for individuals who seek to have organizations benefit from change even as they recognize the barriers that exist for individuals to change. How, then, does a leader prepare to be a change agent, and what steps might he or she take to become one?

Know the Organization Leaders know the sense of urgency to change and respond to the pressure to change (Reeves, 2009). One of the first steps they must take is to assess why the change is needed and how quickly the leader must produce the change within the organization. Accountability to federal and state mandates and local district requirements to meet adequate yearly progress and improve student learning are key factors to consider. Other forms of organizational change might be localized, such as accepting a new leadership team when a new superintendent or principal takes charge. Whichever form of change is anticipated, the organization as a system has to move from what it is to what it will become, and the leader needs to anticipate how the current reality must be moved to formulate a new vision.

Senge (1990) introduced the concept of a"mental model" (p. 8), which is an assumption or a picture that influences how a leader might see the change and envision the steps necessary to take action to bring it about. "Organizations shift to a new state as a result of the new interactions and ideas" that are inherent in the change (Fullan, 2004, p. 166). Accordingly, leaders who want organizations to change must create a vision that is shared before it is implemented. "Vision refers to a picture of the future with some implicit or

34 The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin

explicit commentary on why people should strive to create that future" (Kotter, 1996, p. 68). The vision helps to make the change more coherent, understandable, and valuable to the organization. It sets the direction of change. Therefore, an important step to becoming a change-agent leader is to create a vision for change with those within the organization who will be charged to implement it.

Know Oneself and Self-Assess Leadership Skills Leaping into or sustaining change also requires introspection as to what leadership qualities and skills will be necessary to reach the desired outcome. Today's leaders may not have positional power or the title of change agent, but they do possess the courage and passion to lead the change initiative simply because they believe in the need to change and have the skills to bring it about by working with others. They see change as a necessity and also an opportunity to experience both personal and organizational growth (Evans, 2010). Accomplishing such growth means being skilled at developing relationships of trust, communicating the change vision effectively, and empowering others to take action toward change (Fullan, 2001).

Effective change agents, in addition to being visionary, know how to stimulate people by modeling risk taking and by providing intellectual and emotional stimulation and support when followers face the challenges inherent in change. Fullan (2007) called this "leveraging leadership" (p. 44), which means paying attention to developing leadership in others for the good of the organization. Change-agent leaders do not succeed by working alone but rather by building a culture of shared leadership where ownership is distributed—i.e., where "everyone has the right, responsibility, and the ability to be a leader" (Lampert, 2002, p. 38). This belief is critical to bringing about change and works to minimize resistance to change. Leaders develop skills to facilitate change by working with teams where collaboration is essential. Administrators, teachers, parents, and students then play critical roles that determine if the change will be successful (Fullan, 2008; Hall 8C Hord, 2006).

Know How Others React to Change Because change is complex, a leader must understand resistance to change. Inherent in the change process is the anticipated ĴMÍ/J back that change provokes. The readiness to change varies within individuals, even when the organization desperately needs to change. This means the change-agent leader may have to make compromises to meet the needs of the organization while still being responsive to the needs of the individual.

When people believe change is imposed upon them and they cannot make meaning of the change, they will resist it (Evans, 2010; Fullan, 2007). This resistance causes change-agent leaders to feel overwhelmed because their leadership may be threatened and their competence challenged. Successful leaders are cognizant of the inherent fear of change and do not minimize the human factor that must be managed.

Margaret A. Trybus, Ed.D., is the president of Iota Chapter, Lambda State j (ii..), where she has been a member for 30 years. A past recipient of the I

liEnima Reinhardt International Scholarship and Lambda State scholarships, ! .she has presented at state leadership workshops on the topic of change |

riind- leadership, wliicli she teaches to doctoral and master level students at j Concordia University Chicago. As a change-agent leader, Margaret strives to j

' ehipowcr women educators through DKG by actively recruiting her graduate students to become future chapter leaders. Margaret.trybusifficuchicago.edu

Spring 2011 • Models of Leadership 35

Change-agent leaders know how to apply pressure with support, while being sensitive to what appear as /o55e5 rather than gains. Rather than just suggesting what will be changed and how the change will occur, such leaders must take an approach to answer the why change question in a way that will help people envision personal gains along with the organizational ones. This will help people maintain their identity and integrity while in the change process.

Evans (1996) captured this idea of helping followers when he suggested creating psychological safety:

The change agent must make clear his caring and support, his commitment to working with people to take the difficult steps toward new learning. He must reaffirm connection and help make the change meaningful to people by finding the familiar in the new and strength amidst the weakness, (p. 58)

Helping people develop coping skills through change will require the leader to be compassionate even when facing the most resistant colleagues. This means developing patience, humility, and the belief that each individual is of value and worth in order to develop a collaborative approach to change.

Learn the Process of Change Fullan's (2007) model of the phases of change will help the leader design a process that makes sense of planning, implementing, and monitoring change. These three phases require an understanding of the necessary amount of change, which may be either first or second order. First-order change may work to improve the effectiveness of what is already in existence and may only involve select groups of individuals. Second-order change is more systemic in nature and requires large-scale alterations to organizational structure, norms, and beliefs (Evans, 1996). Change-agent leaders are astute at assessing the capacity for first- or second-order change and may strategize an approach that determines if the change process is at the beginning stage or initiation. During Phase 1 initiation, leaders need to determine whether the change is feasible or desirable and whether it builds on what may already be in existence (Fullan, 2007). This is a critical component that assesses support for the change and the resources needed to implement the change.

Phase 2 of Fullan's model is the actual implementation of change, which can last from 2 to 3 years depending on the clarity of the actions that need to be taken. Often implementation starts with piloting an initiative and measuring its outcomes. Such field testing of implementation before going to a larger scale allows the change-agent leader time to work with implementation teams of willing volunteers. This strategy helps develop the shared leadership needed for implementation and can produce data (not just beliefs) that are used to build acceptance for the change.

Phase 3, "called continuation, incorporation, routinization, or institutionalization"

The challenges of

change encourage the

development of a new

kind of leader who

understands that change

is complex and brings

about uncertainty—but

is the cornerstone of growth

and improvement.

36 The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin

(Fullan, 2007, p. 65), is where the change either becomes part of the system or is discarded. To make such a decision, change-agent leaders need to use a combination of closely monitored data and a normative belief that the change will help the organization improve over time. The leader must use judgment to determine whether the individuals in the organization will continue to grow while the change is sustained. At this phase, the leader needs to articulate professional development, resources, and a reasonable timetable that builds a critical mass of implementers who are not totally dependent on the change-agent leader alone.

Making the Commitment One cannot be a change agent without being a leader. Likewise, a leader without a vision for change will be ineffective and short-lived. Together, leadership and change are needed for the future of schools, classrooms, and systems that strive to improve. Being committed to creating a plan that relies on the strength of an organization and the individuals within that organization will require the leader to have knowledge and skills related to the change process. The challenges of change encourage the development of a new kind of leader who understands that change is complex and brings about uncertainty—but is the cornerstone of growth and improvement. Facing this challenge and reflecting on the necessary steps to becoming a change agent will improve the performance of all current and future leaders.

References

Evans, R. (1996). T7)e human side of school change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, R. (2010). Seven secrets of the savvy school leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2004). Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2007). Tbc new meaning of educational change (4* ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (2008). ITje six secrets of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change (2"'' ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lampert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40.

Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Senge, P. ( 1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday

Copyright of Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin is the property of Delta Kappa Gamma Society International and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.