7/28/2019 Managing the Emotions of Change

1/2

Managing the emotions of change

Another reason why strategic leadership is important appears to be the way that good leaders handle

the emotion and tensions which accompany strategic changes. Strategic leaders make critical decisions

about how much a strategy needs to be modified to ensure its implementation though making it more

acceptable to resistant groups, and about how much a strategy should be maintained in the face of suchopposition in order to achieve important strategic purposes. These leadership calculation must allow

groups supportive of the status quo to vent their tensions and emotions. Consequently, the ability to

give emotional forces an outlet, and the ability to make judicious modifications of the strategy, are

important leadership capabilities that are required to create and sustain a coalition for change through

an implementation phase.

Strategic leaders, mission statements and strategic documents

Wilkinson and Pedlers case study of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council illustrate a common concern

about strategy documents in general the worry of leaders and strategic managers that they have a

planning or strategy document which, although they mave have taken great pains to circulate it as

widely as possible throughout their organization, is ignored. Apparently the chief executive and the

head of policy at Walsall Council questioned, mean anything to anybody, or was it window dressing, or

even just the product of ivory tower writing?

These kinds of concern ought to prompt the question: exactly what is the functionality of a mission

statement or strategy document in practice? Are mission statement used as the starting point for

strategic leaders and top managers to select strategic actions? Is the idea of agreeing a mission

statement to provide the basis for coherent direction of the organization by the leaders and top

managers? Are strategy documents meant for operational managers, as a framework for their decisions

and action, and therefore do operational managers need to keep such documents to hand when makingdecisions? These uses within the management structure would need to be taken into account when

deciding on the content, layout and presentation of such as statement and documents. Presumably, the

pay-off for a well-designed document from his point of view would be better decision making leading to

better organizational performance.

It is apparent, however, that many strategic leaders and top managers have hopes of mission

statements and strategy documents in terms of the general understanding, and inspiration, of

employees at all levels of the organization. They think that if they circulate the mission statement to all

employess, then each and everyperson will become much clearer about what they have to do. And if the

mission statement can be made inspiring, either through its uplifting sentiments or through the passionwith which it is communicated by leaders, its hoped, presumably, that employees will become

committed to the same general purpose and overall strategy. If there is an assumption that poor

performance reflects as widespread Lack of clarity about purpose, or a general lack of commitment to

that purpose, then a written mission statement could seem like a fast route to success.

Mission statement s may also be communicated to the public and to service users, presumably with the

ntention of inspiring confidence and convincing them that the public services are well managed.

7/28/2019 Managing the Emotions of Change

2/2

There is another point which bears serious consideration. This is the idea that there may be times when

leaders and strategic managers should delay presenting a strategy in a document. Quinns study of ten

large private sector organizations certainly found this.The reason was the organizational and power

relationships in which top executive operated. Quinn suggest that decisions may be delayed or kept

vague so as to encourage lower level members to participate, to allow more time to get more

information, and to develop commitments.In crisis situation executives will want to consider how power

bases and how different groups are being affected and also will keep their options open until they have

a better appreciation of these factors. So, we should not assume that effective strategic leaders always

rush to bring out formal statements of their strategic thinking and plans.

Bryson also points out the complication of political considerations in issuing strategy documents :

It is conceivable, of course, that preparation and publication of formal strategic plan would be politically

unwise. Incompatible objectives or warring external stakeholders, for example, might make it difficult to

prepare a rational and publicly defensible plan. Key decision makers will have to decide whether a

formal strategic plan should be prepared, given the circumstances the organization faces.

In other word, there are situations where it would not be useful to have a strategy document. This may

seem odd, but only from a very technical perspective which sees decision making as an information

processing and problem solving activity and the strategy document as the formal statement of a

solution. If decision making is seen, instead, as the interplay of action between interested parties trying

to maximize their own utilities, then the document is something to be fought over.The implication is

that the power of an information process and problem solving approach to enforce rational decisions

has its limits, and beyond these limits strategy takes it chances in the manoeuvres of competing interest

groups.