Blog 6
Understanding the Impact of Leader Behavior (Lepsinger, 2010, pp.154-166)
Team Change Makers chose to focus on chapter 5 of Lepsinger’s (2010) Closing the Execution Gap Bridge Builder 5: Facilitate Change Readiness (pp. 133-166). Lepsinger (2010) discusses several principles for making change, one of which is “understanding the impact of leader behavior” (pp. 145-154). Lepsinger (2010) elaborates on four change talk techniques which include (1) identifying the behavior, (2) building trust, (3) exploring importance and confidence, and lastly (4) conducting a pro/con analysis (pp. 157-164). Team Change Makers find fault with many of his proposed ideas.
Identify the Target Behavior
Lepsinger (2010) states “if you can’t name the behavior you want from people, you’re unlikely to get the change you need” (p.157). This is absolutely not true. It’s not about guessing what behavior is the root problem rather it comes down to leading by example. Jesus did not name behavior instead he led by example and modeled to his disciples how to behave. Northouse states “to model the way, leaders need to be clear about their own values and philosophy. They need to find their own voice and express it to others” (p.174). Furthermore, Northouse (2016) argues how leaders who lead by example do so through “inspiring a shared vision” (p.174). He points out “leaders challenge others to transcend the status quo to do something for others” (p.174). Jesus is an exemplary example:
“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19).
“[Jesus] got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him” (John 13:4-5).
According to Northouse (2016) “researchers have not been able to associate the behaviors of leaders with outcomes such as morale, job satisfaction, and productivity” (p.91). To further the point, Northouse goes on to assert researchers from the behavioral approach have not been able to identify a universal set of leadership behaviors that would consistently result in effective leadership” (p.91).
Lepsinger (2010) also notes “the more a person feels that he or she has options, the greater the readiness to change” (p.158). He then goes on to illustrate this by saying “first, you tell them that this needs to happen” (p.158). This is where Lepsinger veers off track in his thinking because people do not respond well from a dictator-like authoritative approach (Northouse, 2016). While the use of coercion is one source of power leaders can wield to effect change, Northouse (2016) clarifies “to coerce means to influence others to do something against their will and may include manipulating penalties and rewards” (p. 12). Therefore it is frowned upon for leaders to employ coercive force as a model of optimal leadership.
Work to Build Trust
Lepsinger (2010) premises his argument for leadership that inhibits change around the notion followers must feel acceptance and trust. Empathy for the followers, and understanding of their perspective is what makes them want to accept a leaders direction. Lepsinger (2010) goes on to point out that by communicating “everyone’s perspective is valid” they will inevitably “be willing to accept the need for change” (p.158). While empathy and understanding are noble ideals they are not a prerequisite for successful leadership. Militaries utilize transactional, transformational and servant leadership styles with rigid hierarchies, protocols and procedures in place. Empathy for the follower plays little to no role in their ability to complete successful campaigns (Cintron, 2018). In fact, there are often times where a leader must be direct and it is expected that the followers will follow for the benefit of the company. In emergency situations, leaders can’t be expected to sit down with every follower that has a grudge or complaint and hear them out. If that occurred the organization would falter. Ungerer et al., explain how “values without action are meaningless” and that an organization is much like a family built around “rules, experiences, myths, and legends, relationships, and rituals” (2016, p. 68). As a parent I know that sometimes you need to tell your kids to pick up their clothes, whether they like it or not. Working through a temper tantrum is not always effective. There needs to be discipline when children act out.
Lepsinger (2010) claims that reflective listening will benefit the leader by creating follower buy-in overcoming the natural instinct to debate (p. 159). While reflective listening helps the leader to remain calm and show the follower that they are being heard, it does little for productivity. Northouse (2016) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 16). Leaders and followers must achieve a goal; by reflective listening there is no forward trajectory. Reflective listening is merely a means for subduing a disgruntled employee, but it does little to challenge the employee to buy into the organization’s goal. In reality, there should be trust in a relationship, but trust is not built upon hearing meaningless complaints, trust and respect is built through strong decision making that furthers the organization’s progress towards the vision. Galbraith suggests we focus on strategic management processes, which align all areas of the organization under a unified goal (2014, p. 42). He suggests that when the plans and goals are not aligned throughout the organization, different dimensions are going to be arguing throughout the year. A strong vision and structure are far more essential to implementing change that an attitude of empathy and reflective listening.
Explore Issues of Importance and Confidence
Lepsinger (2010) purports “getting people to articulate the importance of a change and their confidence in their ability to make the change themselves increases the likelihood that resistance to change will diminish” (p. 161). However, people resist change even when they know it is important or if they feel confident they can accomplish what is needed to change Reeves (2009) explains “any change will meet resistance, because change is loss… even the most productive and essential changes represent the death of past practices” (p. 45). Therefore, Lepsinger’s approach is useless without first allowing the direct report to work through their feelings of grief and loss.
The onus is also on the leader to provide a reason for the change. For example, in the case of an educational leader, Knight (2009) posits “change leaders should propose new ways of teaching only if they’re confident they will have a positive impact on student achievement” (p. 509). There is a moral mandate that effuses the change process in education. According to Fullan (2013), educational change needs to be viewed as a “’Whole-system reform’ – the moral purpose of raising the bar and closing the gap for all students in the entire state, province, or country” (p. 3). While an administrator might provide reasons for change in a teacher’s practice, they must also “be aware that they walk on sacred ground when they suggest new ways of teaching, especially when they criticize a teacher’s current teaching practices” (Knight, 2009, p. 511). It is, therefore, imperative the transformational leader “focuses on higher-order, intrinsic, and moral motives and needs of followers” (Sergiovanni, 2007, p. 61). Thus, instead of walking the teacher through questions of their feelings of importance and confidence in required change, as suggested by Lepsinger (2010), the literature instead suggests it is the leader who takes the teacher through the sense of loss and then purpose.
Conduct a Pro/Con Analysis
Figure 6.5 in Lepsinger (2010) depicts a staircase where the benefits of changing a behaviour occurs as a person’s readiness for change increases (p. 164). The more ready a person is to change, the more he will find advantages in the change. According to Lepsinger, knowing the person’s perceptions “gives you a powerful metric for evaluating and measuring readiness” (p. 164), therefore conducting a Pro/Con Analysis is a great way to guide an employee into seeing the advantages or disadvantages of change. This, however, is a waste of time and energy. According to this thinking, everyone in the building will be at different levels of change readiness, with no promise of forward momentum. The reality is, when an organization deems a change is necessary, its members must be able to adapt to the change quickly regardless of their feelings of readiness. Hughes et al. (2014) state “Strategic leadership often involves significant organizational change” (p. 14) and that “Organizational mission, vision, and values are important aspirations components that create meaning and purpose for stakeholders … [they are] the important beliefs that drive and connect people in the organization” (p. 25). If an organization member can not align their personal values with the organization’s mission, vision, and values, they should not be continue their employment there. Of course, if the organization is not able to determine the specific strategic drivers, “the result is that people feel overcommitted” (Hughes et al., 2014, p. 27) from the lack of focus, which could cause people to resist further change. But personally coaching every member of the every team in an organization in their “readiness,” through the use of a Pro/Con Analysis is a waste of time and money for the organization.
References
Cintron, J. (2018, April 05). Leadership Styles in the Military. Retrieved from https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/leadership-styles-military-25296.html
Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada Inc.
Galbraith, J. R. (2014). Designing organizations strategy, structure, and process at the
business unit and enterprise levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (n.d.). Primal leadership realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from https://acarthustraining.com/documents/Primal_Leadership-by_Daniel_Goleman.pdf
Holy Bible: New International Version. (2001). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Hughes R., Colarelli-Beatty K. & Dinwoodie D. (2014) Becoming a strategic leader.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Second Edition.
Knight, J. (2009). What can we do about teacher resistance? Phi Delta Kappan 90(7),508-513. Retrieved from http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/Archive/pdf/k0903kni.pdf
Lepsinger, R. (2010). Closing the execution gap. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sergiovanni, T. (2007). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016). Navigating Strategic Possibilities : Strategy Formulation and Execution Practices to Flourish. Randburg: KR Publishing. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1427028&site=eds-live