Change Management for Survival: Becoming an Adaptive Leader

By

Dr. B. M. Lowder

May 27, 2009

Abstract

The paper evaluates change management as an imperative for success for the individual leader and his or her organization. Change management is first analyzed from an individual perspective and then from an organizational perspective. An individual must thoroughly understand the various stages involved in change management to successfully navigate dramatic change in their lives. Likewise, at the organizational level an adaptive leader must understand the important change management process while also being proactive in change implementation by focusing on developing an adaptive work environment (Asoh, 2004; Locke & Tarantino, 2006; Powell, 1987; Williamson, 1991). The adaptive leader understands that, as Heifetz and Laurie (2001) state, an adaptive leader must strike a delicate balance between having people feel the need to change and having them feel overwhelmed by change, leadership is a razors edge (p. 134). This paper establishes and evaluates the key steps used by an adaptive leader during the change management process to ensure the effective implementation of organizational change in a manner that has a positive impact on the organizations workforce.

Change Management for Survival: Becoming an Adaptive Leader

Introduction

Change is an inevitable part of existence for individuals and organizations and is a

prevailing factor faced by leaders in the workplace when dealing with adaption to a dynamic

business environment. During the change management process, adaptive leaders provide

direction, protection, orientation, conflict control, and the shaping of norms while managing the

change process (Conger, Spreitzer, & Lawler, 1999; Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). Organizational

change typically originates from two primary sources including change resulting from external or

internal environmental factors that are outside the adaptive leaders span of control and change

resulting from an intentional and planned implementation. However, both types of change

require a significant level of knowledge, skills, and abilities by the adaptive leader to effectively

deal with the change management process.

The paper evaluates change management as an imperative for success for the individual

leader and his or her organization. Change management is first analyzed from an individual

perspective and then from an organizational perspective. An individual must thoroughly

understand the various stages involved in change management to successfully navigate dramatic

change in their lives. Likewise, at the organizational level an adaptive leader must understand

the important change management process while also being proactive in change implementation

by focusing on developing an adaptive work environment (Asoh, 2004; Locke & Tarantino,

2006; Powell, 1987; Williamson, 1991). The adaptive leader understands that, as Heifetz and

Laurie (2001) state, an adaptive leader must strike a delicate balance between having people

feel the need to change and having them feel overwhelmed by change, leadership is a razors

edge (p. 134). This paper establishes and evaluates the key steps used by an adaptive leader

during the change management process to ensure the effective implementation of organizational

change in a manner that has a positive impact on the organizations workforce.

Dimensions of Change

Change Managements Scope

As mentioned earlier, change is extremely dynamic and consequently, the change

management process must also be dynamic and adaptive (Cao & McHugh, 2005). An adaptive

leader fully understands that organizational change must be managed with different approaches,

managed as a whole, and requires mixed methods of analysis (Cao, Clarke, & Lehaney, 2004;

Cao & McHugh, 2005). As the adaptive leader becomes proactive in change management, they

must fully grasp the multi-dimensional aspects of change and its affect on the organization and

its employees. The adaptive leader is aware that there is no one size fits all in effective change

management and to be successful, they must first understand how change affects individuals.

Change and Affect

The adaptive leaders first step in dealing with change centers on understanding its affect

on individuals. There is significant seminal research on how radical change affects individuals at

the psychological level. One construct on how individuals deal with change is the Kubler-Ross

Grieving Process Model which identifies five important levels of transition in the grieving

process including shock and denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance (Kbler-Ross,

1986, 1987). Many change models are based upon the Kubler-Ross Model because of it accurate

portrayal how individuals handle change.

The Transition Cycle Model contains steps including denial, resistance, exploration, and

commitment (Jaffe & Scott, 1999; Scott & Jaffe, 2004). Both models have very similar steps

and demonstrate an individuals reluctance to deal with and accept change when it first occurs.

In addition, both models have similar outcomes. However, the Transition Cycle Model provides

the best representation of the change process for individuals and organizations. Yet, the critical

issue for an individual or organization dealing with change is the amount of time that is required

to reach the final stage of the change process and the impact of the delayed acceptance and

commitment. Some individuals and organizations take many years and in fact, sometimes never

reach the final stages of the grieving process. Often the failure to reach the final stages of the

grieving process is a result of an unwillingness to accept changes inevitability. The next section

addresses the foundations of resistance to change.

Change Resistance

Individual resistance to change is one of the primary reasons that change initiatives fail at

all levels including personal and organizational. Earlier, the analysis addressed two types of

change including change occurring outside of the adaptive leaders span of control and self-

implemented, controlled change. One fact related to both types of change is that the people who

face the greatest affect from the change process resist it the most. The tremendous irony is that

this strong resistance occurs even when the change will result in an outcome that is in the

individuals best interest (O'Toole, 1996).

The Transition Cycle Models steps include denial, resistance, exploration, and

commitment. Each of the first two stages in the Transition Cycle Model, denial and resistance,

delays results in the change process for an undetermined amount of time and often leads to

mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical harm to the individuals and organizations. Adaptive

leader face the challenge of expediting the first two stages of the change process to the second

two stages of the change process, which includes exploration and commitment. Next, the paper

will address the adaptive leaders paradigmatic framework and its influence on the individual

and organizations ability to reach the exploration and commitment phase in the change

management process.

The Adaptive Leaders Paradigmatic Framework

As mentioned earlier, the adaptive leaders role in the change management process is a razors

edge because they must balance between making employees feel a need for change and ensuring

they dont become overwhelmed by change (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). To attain success in this

balance, the adaptive leader must focus on three specific considerations. According to Heifetz &

Laurie (2001), these three considerations include creating a holding environment in which the

pressures generated during the change process is neither unbearable nor too weak to be effective;

maintaining responsibility for direction, protection, orientation, conflict, and shaping norms; and

maintaining presence and poise while regulating distress (pp 134-135). Next, the paper presents

an overview of the Adaptive Leadership Model.

The Adaptive Leadership Model

The Adaptive Leadership Model addresses adaptive leadership and adaptive work within

the framework of change management. Heifetz & Laurie (2001) describe the adaptive leaders

responsibilities as including direction, protection, orientation, managing conflict, and shaping

norms (p. 135). To successfully accomplish these task, the adaptive leaders must first allow a

manageable level of pressure caused by the existing change, which is not so strong that it

overwhelms employees but allows employees to remain stimulated toward action (Conger et al.,

1999; Heifetz & Laurie, 2001; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). Second, the adaptive leader must

address leadership as a learning process (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). Third, the adaptive leader

must give the work back to the people. Fourth, the adaptive leader must protect the employees'

voice of leadership from below to ensure the flow of knowledge throughout the organization

(Heifetz & Laurie, 2001; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).

The fifth key premise in this model is the prescriptive requirement that adaptive leaders

allow employees, or followers, too experience some of the pain and uncertainty associated with

the organizational growth and environmental change (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001; Heifetz & Linsky,

2002). Sixth, the model premises that when management makes all the key and critical decisions

during the change process, they are performing a disservice to their employees by overlooking

their employees valuable knowledge and individual leadership abilities (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001;

Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). Consequently, when management makes all the important decisions

the results are short-lived, but when employees make decisions based upon their technical

knowledge, the results are long-term (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). Seventh and last, the model

explains the critical significance of employee and management input from within the

organizations lower hierarchical levels. This input is attained from lower level managers and

employees only if the adaptive leader keeps their ears open for valuable insights (Heifetz &

Laurie, 2001). The Adaptive Leadership Model establishes steps to effectively deal with change

management during an organizations change management process within a leader-follower

construct (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). The model also provides a framework that an adaptive

leader may use to implement change and effectively deal with employees during the change

management process (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Lakshman, 2006; Manus, Jeffrey, & Bin, 2003).

Next, the analysis focuses on thwo paradigmatic approaches to strengthen the adaptive leaders

knowledge base to enhance an adaptive work environment.

Paradigmatic Perspectives

Systems approach. The first paradigmatic perspective that must be used by the adaptive

leader, the systems approach, is explained by Arbnor and Bjerke (1997) when they state

Systems reality is assumed to consist of components that are often mutually dependent on each

other-which means they cannot be summed upThe constitution of these components brings

about synergistic effects (p. 65). The systems approach provides an excellent framework for

observing and analyzing how change impacts inter-related sub-systems within an organizations

structure. This systemic paradigmatic perspective provides a lens, or focus, for the effective

observation of structural components and organizational dynamics. This perspective is critical to

maintaining a critical and objective mindset concerning the level of pressure exerted by the

change process and ensuring it is neither too strong nor too weak.

Actors approach. A second paradigmatic perspective required by the adaptive leader is

the actors approach, which is represented by a shared, common group perception based on the

sum total of each group members individual perceptions (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1997). An example

of this premise is the cultures commonly shared beliefs, values, and norms. Additionally, the

actors approach is based on the premise that each individual members perception of reality is

based on their own interpretations within a reality they themselves have created (Arbnor &

Bjerke, 1997). In other words, what we perceive to be true is dependent on many factors related

to our individual life experiences and belief systems and thus, many people may perceive

different truth in the exact same situation. These perspectives are essential in shaping norms and

maintaining control of employees direction, protection, orientation, conflict, and norms (Conger

et al., 1999; Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). This construct is of significant importance for the adaptive

leader to grasp the employees understanding and perceptions of reality during the change

management process.

A Multi-dimensional Adaptive Approach

Based on the previous discussion, the adaptive leader must observe and analyze change

from a combination of different paradigmatic perspectives to ensure they consider the change

management processes from both an organizational systems perspective and an actors individual

and group perspective. First, the systems approach assist the adaptive leader in dealing with the

issue of change management by addressing the organizations structure from a systemic

perspective in attaining an understanding of the interactions and interconnectedness of the many

organizational sub-systems. Second, the actors approach provides the adaptive leader a

perspective that provides an understanding of how change influences the level of distress for the

many organizational actors and their role within the organizations culture. The adaptive leader

efficiently and effectively implements an adaptive work environment by using both paradigmatic

perspectives (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).

An adaptive work environment requires the adaptive leader to manage and control

direction, protection, orientation, conflict, and norms within the organizations systems and its

actors (Conger et al., 1999; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). The analysis will

address these key considerations. First, direction requires the adaptive leader identify the

specific change management issues that need addressing to guide employees through the change

process. Second, protection entails the adaptive leader willingness to allow employees to

experience the pressures of change within a controlled range they can handle. Third, orientation

allows the adaptive leader to challenge current organizational roles while simultaneously

resisting the potentiality of quickly changing existing roles in a reactionary manner. This

component provides stability and reassurance for employees and managers and stabilizes the

culture. Fourth, managing conflict focuses on exposing existing personal, structural, and

systemic conflicts and resolving these issue before they emerge into an unmanageable state.

Fifth and last, shaping norms is critical as the adaptive leader strives to challenge and improve

existing norms that exists within the organizations culture. This component plays a significant

role in enhancing employee values, beliefs, and values concerning the organizations vision,

mission, and objectives. Next, the paper will analyze how change influences the adaptive work

environment through a discussion of the dimensions of organizational change. The four

dimensions of organizational change include processual, functional, cultural, and power (Cao,

Clarke, & Lehaney, 2000; Cao & McHugh, 2005).

Dimensions of Organizational Change

Within the adaptive leaders operative paradigm discussed thus far, the adaptive work

environment consists of four basic types of organizational change to address. These four types

of organizational change include processual, functional, cultural, and power (Cao et al., 2000;

Cao & McHugh, 2005). The systemic approach premises that each of these four primary types

of change are both interconnected and interacting at the systems and sub-systems levels (Arbnor

& Bjerke, 1997; Cao & McHugh, 2005). Whereas, the actors approach premises that each type

of change impacts the various organizational actors at varying levels and to varying degrees.

The adaptive leaders challenge is to use these two paradigmatic perspectives combined with the

adaptive leadership construct to create an adaptive work environment. Next, the analysis

addresses the four types of change, processual, functional, cultural, and power, to determine their

impact on employees and organizational performance.

Processual Change Type

Processual change involves change management that focuses on the flow of inputs to

outputs, or throughput. Processual change may involve activities across the organizations

functional boundaries, how raw materials are transformed to finished goods, or how information

is transformed to knowledge (Cao & McHugh, 2005). Thus, process changes typically include

many internal structural improvements that enhance the organizations throughput but most

importantly, enhance the value of products and/or services for customers throughout the value

chain. Many management methodologies have emerged to deal with processual change in an

effort to adapt to dynamic environmental variables and enhance quality. Regardless of the

methodologies involved and because process change is about throughput, employees are

significantly involved at every level. Next, the analysis evaluates three process-driven models

including Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA), Jurans Trilogy (JT), and Lean Six Sigma (LSS).

The majority of the process improvement methodologies fall under the total quality

management (TQM) movement. Definitions of quality vary significantly and can be very

detailed to very simple. One of the simplest definitions of quality is survival (Kaplan, 2003;

Whitmore, 2004). Other definitions of quality emphasize conformance to an established set of

final product or service standards and/or specifications (Chatterjee & Yilmaz, 1993). The

dichotomy of the various quality processual change methodologies has varying impacts on

employees functioning in an adaptive work environment.

PDAC model. Demings PDAC model does not use merit incentives or quality objectives

to achieve process improvement (Douglas & Fredendall, 2004; Fisher, Barfield, Jing, & Mehta,

2005; Manus et al., 2003). Even though Demings model uses statistical process controls to

identify and locate problems within the systems processes, he strongly opposes management by

objectives and instead focuses on the continuous improvement of the systems processes to attain

quality objectives. The lack of merit incentives in the PDAC model makes it difficult for the

adaptive leader to challenge unproductive norms. This is because management often uses

incentives as a means to change employee norms and behaviors. In addition, not using MBO can

hinder the establishment of direction and orientation in an adaptive work environment.

Demings PDAC does provide for protection, conflict management, and shaping norms.

Jurans trilogy. Jurans Trilogy establishes a process improvement model on the

foundation of quality planning, quality control, and quality improvement. Jurans model

advocates establishing quality objectives and managing the established quality plan according to

those objectives. Jurans emphasis is micro-driven with the primary focus on specific projects

during implementation and is potentially useful in establishing an adaptive work environment

because it allows the use of direction, orientation, and conflict management. However, it

remains week in the areas of protection, and shaping norms.

Lean Six Sigma. Lean Six Sigma focuses on incorporating the best of all existing quality

models into a comprehensive total quality management program. Lean Six Sigma emphases

attaining excellence in product and/or service delivery at all levels in the organization. Six

Sigma uses two quality control models which include - Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve,

Control (DMAIC) and Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, and Verify (DMADV) (Morgan &

Brennig-Jones, 2006; Smith & Blakeslee, 2002). The DMAIC model is used for existing

business processes and the DMADV is used for new processes (Morgan & Brennig-Jones, 2006).

Over the past two decades, Six Sigma has evolved to incorporate many of the

components of the existing quality programs and has been adapted to fit many different

companies and industries. Of the various process, change models, the one most closely linked to

lean Six Sigma is the adaptive work environment construct. Lean Six Sigma focuses on all the

steps in the adaptive work model including direction, protection, orientation, conflict

management, and shaping norms (Conger et al., 1999; Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). The greatest

difference between lean Six Sigma and the adaptive work environment is that when Six Sigma is

initially implemented many organizational roles change rapidly. However, lean Six Sigma is

very employee driven and places many of the same demands upon management as the adaptive

change model.

Functional Change Type

Functional change requires a strong systems approach and involves coordination and

control within the organization. Changes in the functional area include horizontal and/or vertical

structural shifts and how organizational units report to one another in the hierarchical structure

(Cao & McHugh, 2005). One example of functional systemic change is the shift from rational,

bureaucratic structures to flexible, network-based configurations with a flat authority structure

(Cao & McHugh, 2005). Some of the current models, in addition to the adaptive leadership

model, that illustrate how leaders and followers work together throughout the functional change

process include the leader member exchange model (LMX) and the and the leader-follower

model (LF).

Leader Member Exchange Model. When dealing with organizational change, the

Leader-Member Exchange Model (LMXM) premises that leaders develop different relationships

with different members in their work groups based upon specific membership characteristics and

traits (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994). In this model, the term exchange refers to the leader follower

relationship, which varies from high quality to low quality. The LMXM premises that there is a

high exchange level when certain characteristics exists in followers including attitudinal

similarity, extraverted personality, a strong internal locus of control, and a strong growth need.

In essence, a high level of exchange, or a high quality relationship, is most likely to develop

when the follower demonstrates one or more of the aforementioned characteristics.

Understanding the LMXM can significantly enhance the adaptive leaders ability to develop an

adaptive work environment.

Leader Follower Model. The Leader - Follower Model (LFM) is a social psychology

construct and adds new dimensions to the analysis of leadership and organizational change. The

LFM falls within the actors paradigmatic approach and provides a unique perspective for the

adaptive leader during the norm shaping process. As group relationships develops within

organizational social situations, a leader emerges within the group based on group dynamics

(Hogg, 2001). Hoggs premise is that a leader emerges from within the social structure because

they are prototypical of the groups norms, values, and beliefs. Hoggs argues the leaders

prototypical characteristics are as important for leadership development as any traditionally

defined leadership traits, characteristics, or attributes (Hogg, 2001). As followers become a

cohesive group, their perceptions of how well the leader matches the intergroup prototype

influences their choice and endorsement of the leader. In essence, the organization's dominate

social group allows leaders and followers to emerge as a result of prototypicality (Hogg, 2001).

Although this model affects functional change, it is very important to both the cultural change

type and the power change type and can enhance the adaptive leaders ability to develop an

adaptive work environment.

Cultural Change Type

Cultural change is concerned with values, beliefs, norms, traditions, and human behavior

within the organizational structure (Black, 2002; Claver, Gasco, Llopis, & Gonzalez, 2001). One

component of adaptive work involves the adaptive leader challenging and re-shaping

unproductive norms. Organizational culture is one of the most difficult dimensions of change

management and involves both formal and informal structural components (Burke & Litwin,

1992; Naor, 2006; Turner, 1986). An organizations culture is the sum-total of the employees

shared values, beliefs, norms, and traditions and thus, the adaptive leader must use the actors

paradigmatic approach when dealing with the cultural change type (Bate, Khan, & Pye, 2000;

Johnson, 1990; Tichy, 1983). One factor that impedes the change management process is a lack

of commitment on behalf of both managers and employees (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer,

Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004). This lack of commitment is often the result of employees and

managers psychological resistance to change and the failure of management to enhance their

understanding and awareness of the change process (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Whitmore,

2004). According to Heifetz & Laurie (2001), steps that help eliminate the cultural resistance to

change and enhance the development of an adaptive work environments are maintaining

disciplined attention to the various actors, giving the work back to the people, protecting the

voices of leadership from below, and practicing leadership as learning (pp 135 140). In

addition, Heifetz & Laurie (2001) suggests using additional steps in the adaptive work model,

which recommends that the adaptive leader manage and control direction, protection, orientation,

conflict, and norms to help expedite the change management process (p. 135). Developing an

adaptive work environment through organizational learning enhances the cultural change

management process and positively influences cultural transformation (Sung-Choon, Morris, &

Snell, 2007; Tichy & Cohen, 1998; Yarrow, Hanson, & Robson, 2004; Zollo & Winter, 2002).

The actions discussed above lead to an effective adaptive work environment by instilling

a sense of shared meaning within employees concerning how the change process impact them

both positively and negatively (Halley, 2002; Hillon, 2005; Stewart, 2002; Weick, Sutcliffe, &

Obstfeld, 2005; Whitmore, 2004). This cultural empowerment aligns the culture with the change

process, thus making it a natural part of the emerging structure (Asoh, 2004; Chalofsky, 2003;

Hannah, 2006; Linnarson, 2005; Locke & Tarantino, 2006; Powell, 1987; Williamson, 1991).

Power Change

Power change involves the power distribution as it relates to factors that significantly

influence organizational decision-making. Power type change focuses on creating an

environment in which the dominate coalition is representative of all the organizational

participants, or actors. However, this egalitarian power distribution is most often not the case

and one or a select few groups of organizational participants, or actors, possess the majority of

power in an organization. Hence, this area of change management is typically the most difficult

to manage and presents a tremendous challenge to change management process. The adaptive

work model does not effectively deal with this particular type of change.

Adaptive leaders can mitigate the power change issue by developing team coalitions

throughout the organization as they seek followership at all functional levels. The adaptive

leader can focus on the systems approach to establish cross-functional teams specifically

designed to integrate and synergize organizational resources and stimulate interdependency

between various organizational sub-systems (Kerr & Ulrich, 1995; Noel & Charan, 1988; Tichy

& Cohen, 1998). Additionally, the adaptive leader can focus on the actors approach to enhance

the organizations culture and shape norms to enhance commitment to the change process.

These steps can strengthen the adaptive leaders position of power by developing follower

support.

Summary

The adaptive leader faces a dilemma of establishing a delicate balance between having

people feel the need to change and having them feel overwhelmed by change (Heifetz & Laurie,

2001). Hence, leadership in a change management environment is a razors edge. Change

tremendously affects both employees and organizations, and consequently, both are highly

resistent to its inevitability. Adaptive leaders implement change in an adaptive work

environment by providing direction, protection, orientation, conflict control, and shaping of

norms (Conger et al., 1999; Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). In addition, steps that help eliminate the

resistance to change include maintaining disciplined attention to the various actors, giving the

work back to the people, protecting the voices of leadership from below, and practicing

leadership as learning (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). Thus, the adaptive leader must be proactive and

strive to create an adaptive work environment that is conducive for change (Asoh, 2004; Locke

& Tarantino, 2006; Powell, 1987; Williamson, 1991).

To become proactive in the change management process, the adaptive leader can

implement an adaptive work environment based on the premises presented in this paper. First,

the adaptive leader must attain an understanding of changes influence on both the individual and

the organization by understanding the steps in the Transition Cycle Model. Second, the adaptive

leader must embrace a multi-dimensional paradigmatic perspective, including the systems and

actors approaches, in order to implement the adaptive work environment more effectively and

efficiently. Third, the adaptive leader must observe, classify, and analyze organizational change

within a four-level framework that defines change types as processual, functional, cultural, and

power. Fourth and last, the critical razors edge for an adaptive leader during the change

management process involves a delicate balancing act between having employees feel the need

to change and ensuring that they are not overwhelmed by change (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001).

Successfully attaining this balance requires a tremendous knowledge of the many variabled

discussed throughout this paper. In summary, the framework presented throughout this paper

provides the adaptive leader with an enhanced ability to understand and implement

organizational change through developing an adaptive work environment. The adaptive work

environment establishes a delicate balance on the razors edge of change management wherein

employees feel a need for change but are not overwhelmed by the change process.

References

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for creating business knowledge (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Asoh, D. A. (2004). Business and knowledge strategies: Alignment and performance impact analysis. Unpublished Ph.D., State University of New York at Albany, United States -- New York.

Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach To organization structuring: Where organization design meets organizational development. Organization Science, 11(2), 197-211.

Black, J. (2002). The cultural key to net gains. Business Week Online, N.PAG. Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and

change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523. Cao, G., Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2000). A systemic view of organizational change and TQM.

The TQM Magazine, 12(3), 186. Cao, G., Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2004). The need for a systemic approach to change

management: A case study. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(2), 103. Cao, G., & McHugh, M. (2005). A systemic view of change management and Its conceptual

underpinnings. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(5), 475. Chalofsky, N. (2003). Meaningful work. T+D, 57(12), 52-58. Chatterjee, S., & Yilmaz, M. (1993). Quality confusion: Too many gurus, not enough disciples.

Business Horizons, 36(3), 15. Claver, E., Gasco, J., Llopis, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2001). The strategic process of a cultural

change to implement total quality management: A case study. Total Quality Management, 12(4), 469-482.

Conger, J. A., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lawler, E. E. (1999). The leader's change handbook: An essential guide to setting direction and taking action (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Douglas, T. J., & Fredendall, L. D. (2004). Evaluating the Deming management model of total quality in services. Decision Sciences, 35(3), 393-422.

Fisher, C. M., Barfield, J., Jing, L., & Mehta, R. (2005). Retesting a model of the Deming management method. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(3), 401-412.

Halley, A. A. (2002). Teaching leadership as engaged 21st century social science: A portfolio of transition learning ecologies. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(9/10), 1035.

Hannah, C. S. (2006). Antecedents and mediating factors of organizational alignment. Unpublished M.S., San Jose State University, United States -- California.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124-134.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (2001). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 131-141.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). A survival guide for leaders. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 65-72.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487.

Hillon, M. E. (2005). A comparative analysis of socio-ecological and socio-economic strategic change methodologies. Unpublished Ph.D., New Mexico State University, United States -- New Mexico.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200.

Jaffe, D. T., & Scott, C. D. (1999). Getting your organization to change : a guide for putting strategy into action. Menlo Park, CA

Lanham, MD: Crisp Publications ; Distribution to the U.S. trade [by] National Book Network. Johnson, G. (1990). Managing strategic change: The role of symbolic action. British Journal of

Management, 1(4), 183. Kaplan, N. J. (2003). Surviving and thriving when your customers contract. The Journal of

Business Strategy, 24(1), 16. Kerr, S., & Ulrich, D. (1995). Creating the boundaryless organization: The radical reconstruction

of organization capabilities. Planning Review, 23(5), 41. Kbler-Ross, E. (1986). Death : the final stage of growth (1st Touchstone ed.). New York:

Simon & Schuster. Kbler-Ross, E. (1987). Working it through (1st Collier ed.). New York: Collier Books. Lakshman, C. (2006). A theory of leadership for quality: Lessons from TQM for leadership

theory. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(1), 41-60. Linnarson, H. (2005). Patterns of alignment in alliance structure and innovation. Technology

Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(2), 161-181. Locke, A., & Tarantino, A. (2006). Strategic leadership development. T+D, 60(12), 53-55. Manus, R., Jeffrey, A. O., & Bin, W. (2003). Advancing theory development in total quality

management: A "Deming management method" perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(7/8), 918.

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.

Morgan, J., & Brennig-Jones, M. (2006). Six Sigma and the future of quality. Management Services, 50(2), 46.

Naor, M. (2006). The relationship between culture, quality management practices, and manufacturing performance. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Minnesota, United States -- Minnesota.

Noel, J. L., & Charan, R. (1988). Leadership development at GE's Crotonville. Human Resource Management, 27(4), 433.

O'Toole, J. (1996). Leading change: The argument for values-based leadership (1st Ballentine Books ed.). New York

San Francisco: Ballentine Books ; Jossey-Bass Publishers. Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal

and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 990. Powell, W. W. (1987). Hybrid organizational arrangements: New form or transitional

development? California Management Review, 30(1), 67. Scott, C. D., & Jaffe, D. T. (2004). Managing change at work: Leading people through

organizational transitions (3rd ed.). Boson, MA: Crisp Publications.

Smith, D., & Blakeslee, J. (2002). The new strategic Six Sigma. T+D, 56(9), 45. Stewart, W. H. (2002). How work gains meaning in contractual time: A narrative model for

reconstructing the work ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2), 65. Sung-Choon, K., Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational

learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 236-256.

Tichy, N. M. (1983). Managing strategic change: Technical, political, and cultural dynamics. New York: Wiley.

Tichy, N. M., & Cohen, E. (1998). The teaching organization. Training & Development, 52(7), 26.

Turner, B. A. (1986). Sociological aspects of organizational symbolism. Organization Studies (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.), 7(2), 101-115.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

Whitmore, J. (2004). Something really has to change: Change management as an imperative rather than a topic. Journal of Change Management, 4(1), 5-14.

Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269-296.

Yarrow, D., Hanson, P., & Robson, A. (2004). Made in the 21st century. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(5/6), 829-839.

Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351.