Practices and Challenges of Change Leadership. The Case of Ethiopian Sugar Corporation

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ACRONYMS/ABREVATIONS

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Appendixes

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the study
1.2. Background of the Organization
1.3. Statement of the Problem
1.4. Objective of the study
1.5. Significance of the Study
1.6. Scope of the study
1.7. Limitation of The Study
1.8. Organization of the Paper

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Organizational change
2.1.1. Definition
2.1.2. Drivers of organizational change
2.1.3. Types of organizational changes
2.2. Change management
2.3. Leadership
2.4. Change leadership
2.5. Commitment and motivation during times of change
2.6. Analysis of best practices for organizational change

CHAPTER THREE
REASEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research design
3.2. Type and source of data
3.3. Data collection method
3.4. Target population
3.5. Method of Data analysis and presentation

CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1. Response Rate
4.2. Characteristics of respondents
4.2. Respondents Profile
4.1.1. Integrated change management activities with respect to change plan
4.4. Interview Analyses and Interpretation

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Summary of findings
5.2. Conclusions
5.3. Recommendations

REFERENCES

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank God who guides and helps me in all the ups and downs I encountered in my life.

I extend my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Assistant professor Kibret Desalegn, for his highly valuable and endless support, his intellectual guidance and critical suggestions, which were instrumental in planning and implementation of the research work and production of this thesis in its present form.

I deeply acknowledge my whole family for their supporting and taking care in a good moral and behavior from my side.

ACRONYMS/ABREVATIONS

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of Tables

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of Figures

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of Appendixes

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

ABSTRACT

T his study was conducted in Ethiopian Sugar Corporation with the purpose of analyzing the challenges and practices of change leadership. The data were gathered from employees of the corporation non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs based on their qualification, leadership and academic rank which is important to the researcher’s intent based on the selected sample interviews and questionnaires. The researcher involved a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis with purposive sampling selection and for system of thematic analysis such as interviews, focus on key informant, personal observation and secondary document to look deeper into the meaning of the trends identified in the numerical and textual data to determine its accuracy, credibility, usefulness and consistency. The study concludes the change strategic plan held in the corporation working culture is not improved staffs well couldn’t build the mutual interest each other than before, practices. Proper and timely communication was very scarce and limited to specific managerial group only. Change resistance was occurred at the beginning of change implementation plan, most of the evaluation of the change leadership was confined on the paper report on the routine activities sense of ownership, motivational and group interest was going down time to time and passive relationships of leaders towards the worker was increased. On the other hand, the study also recommends before implementation of change the corporation must conduct need assessment, creation of awareness about the importance of change and focus on behavioral change of individual as well as group, set method of coordinating system and process of activities and conduct feedback on the result. Share ideas and results made in one department to make for all. Finally, it can be suggested to further studies need to be conducted with regard to change management tools and challenges and practices of the corporation by itself.

Key words: challenges, change leadership and practices.

CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents background of the study, profile of the organization, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, methodology of the study, significance of the study, scope of the study and organization of the study.

1.1. Background of the study

Organizational change is the movement of an organization away from its present state and toward some desired future state to increase its effectiveness, (Fullan, 2010).

Regardless of the source or causes of change, all organizations are regularly faced with the need to do just that: change. The process of leading change successfully is not a trivial issue, however. It is fraught with difficulties, and sometimes the results are unsuccessful even for relatively small incremental changes Eric H and Yvonne R (2008).

Robert J (2003) stated that organizational leadership does not mean having a boss thinking of a command and then watch as it is filtered throughout the rank. Organizational leadership, instead, is the ability of management to understand its employees and company’s goals enough to bring everyone together. Furthermore, Robert J (2003) observes that frequently an organization with excellent leadership will have employees who feel that their opinions are valued and that their work is highly important to the shared success of the whole organization. Hersey and Blanchard (1988 ) argue that at least equal emphasis must be given to improving the quality of leadership if business is to succeed in achieving greater employee commitment and thereby its profitability.

After managers setup a firm’s operations strategy organizing the work and responsibilities, and staffing those operations, they turn their attention to everyday activities. This ongoing behavior of individual people carrying out various tasks enables the firm to accomplish its objectives. Getting those people to perform their jobs efficiently and effectively is at the heart of the manager’s challenge. The task of helping employees realize their highest potential in the work place is the essence of leadership. The goal of every leader is to achieve the organization’s objectives. Today’s global managers realize that increased competition requires them to be open to change and to rethink their old culturally conditioned modes of leadership (Helen Deresky 2006).

Currently, organizations all over the world are trying to be more competitive by investing on improving their leadership styles. In different circumstances researchers have examined the features and developments of organizational leadership; their studies imply that it (or organizational leadership) entertains some weaknesses in various institutions. Moreover, the degree and intensity of its drawbacks become strong when we see the situations in developing countries.

Since the new millennium, organizations’ experience has been improved, and the philosophy of leadership has also been changed to meet more changing needs of business. Literature found that some leadership styles that worked in the past may no longer be appropriate for this new age, while companies are investing large amounts of money in the hunt of leadership success.

Leadership is very important in today’s economy (Bennis & Nanus (1985) suggest that leaders learn best from leading in through adversity. They create the climate of the organization and are responsible for bringing about change within it.

1.2. Background of the Organization

Sugar development sector is one among other huge projects which enables industry take a leading role in the nation’s economy. Ethiopia has huge human as well as natural resources which enable the nation to broaden this export-oriented manufacturing industry sector and its productivity. The nation has suitable climate, wide and proved irrigable agricultural land (more than 500 thousand hectares) as well as abundant resource of water to use through canal schemes. The present “Sugar Corporation” with a vision of executing sugar development activities at a large scale came into existence on October, 2010 by the Council of Ministers Regulation No.192/2010. It has 7 sugar factories and 6 sugar development projects.

Ethiopian Sugar Corporation has introduced different change initiatives since the past five years. Among these change initiatives BSC, Kaizen and organizational structural changes can be mentioned. By implementing these changes different results have been found both in positive and negative sides.

Through introducing and implementing these change initiatives different way of change leadership was practiced and different challenges encountered. Hence, different results were obtained.

1.3. Statement of the Problem

The corporation, creating a reinforcement mechanism to celebrate success, oversee the implementation of all change plans, desired objectives and advice and assist the process owners fulfill their respective roles regarding programs of change to coordinate changes of culture, approach, systems and processes creating a robust engagement and maximizing contributions of the corporation community that can initiate and lead the development of change-oriented tools and their publications and ensure that these tools are evaluated and maintain active and progressive working relationships with all concerned bodies in terms of initiating, implementing, managing change and communication to ensure adherence and consistency of the change plan.

The corporation believes, overall change management process work with and support the corporate leadership on strategic change management directions in line with internal and external developments. All these activities will be managed using the change army format tables, evaluate the day-to-day activities and finally discussed the result of the activities gained during implementation and take the remedial action according to the result obtained. The corporation, also take over the responsibility of its side and working the best of its activities that is mandatory to continue in administrative and operational process as a competitive business succeeded in assessing its environments and putting in place an efficient structural set-up and governance system that would enhance its transformational agenda according to the corporation direction of the change management program and its implementation on the strategic plan document mentions clearly. The initiatives of the change implementation are the responsibility of change management by establishing of monitoring and evaluation office how the offices under it are enhancing change implantation processes and strengthen the realization of the corporate transformation agenda by establish baseline data to identify changes and the outcome from the agenda.

According to Haines (1995), the common problems for leaders when managing change is not nurtured, encouraged, or rewarded and it should not be forgotten in the midst of the day-to-day challenges that an organization experience.

According to Fogg (1994) that he lists several planning blockages that members of a strategic planning process should also be aware of. These include lack of top management officials commitment, lack of time and resources, changing corporate direction and priorities, stalled teams, reluctant or incompetent team members, lack of lower-level execution, lack of lower-level leadership and competence, poor coordination between functions, incompetent incumbents, unsuccessful plan, general organization malaise and cultural inertia, temporary crisis, competitive threats, and failure of a major program.

As the researcher’s point of view, there are also problems in need assessment, preparing the required strategic plan, communicate to all the members of the organization and come to agreement and implement accordingly. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to see the practices and to find challenges of change leadership adopted in Ethiopian Sugar Corporation.

Basic research questions

This study was designed to provide answers to the following basic research questions:

- What does the company’s change leadership practice look like?
- What are the main challenges faced by the company in the change leadership process and at which change leadership stage the management face most challenges?
- What are the measures taken by the management to tackle challenges faced in change initiative implementation?
- How the corporate community perceives the change strategy, the process and implementation as their interest of the change management?

§ How the new change management model is compatible and effective to the organization structure and has it helped the organization to achieve the desired goals?

1.4. Objective of the study

1.4.1. General objective

The general objective of this study is to assess the overall organizational change leadership practices and challenges in Ethiopian Sugar Corporation.

1.4.2. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this study are to:

- Assess the practices and challenges that the leadership, departments and employees of the organization face in the change initiatives implementation process.
- Identify the methods and measures that the change initiatives implemented to minimize the challenges and evaluate how much it’s effective.
- Determine which stage of change leadership is most challenging for the management?
- Assess how the new change management model that is being implemented is compatible to the company’s structure.
- Assess whether the new model of change management is effective and helped the company’s to achieve the goal?

1.5. Significance of the Study

This research may have value for the Corporation, especially for strategic and operational level leaders within the company, by providing a model for organizational change to complement and enhance the Corporation’s ongoing transformation initiative.

While a number of works regarding various aspects of historical transformation or lesser reform within the Corporation already exist, most tend to focus on specific traits and practices of the leaders involved with the change, rather than on a full-scale theoretical model for change. This research is intended to address that gap.

If research into structural reform case, perhaps the corporation should take a closer look at its change model and consider applying its principles to today’s transformation process.

At the same time, there are undoubtedly aspects of leadership within each case study, such as Corporation’s rapid decisions to remove many senior leaders and replace them with his own handpicked officers, which may not fit cleanly into the model. This research will also investigate these issues and seek to reveal more clearly where the model does and does not fit well for the organization.

From this analysis, the researcher will attempt to draw lessons that can be applied to organizations and leaders within today’s transforming sugar corporation. While the exact circumstances surrounding the various transformation efforts both the practice and the Leading Change examples are certainly different, many of the underlying challenges and goals are similar.

1.6. Scope of the study

The scope of the study is limited to head quarter of Sugar Corporation and assess the practice and challenges of change leadership in Ethiopian Sugar Corporation. The Corporation has implemented various change management tools such as Kaizen, BSC and Organizational reform change. However, this study delimits itself to practices and challenges related to implementation of organizational reform and other change initiatives.

1.7. Limitation of The Study

The aim with this thesis is not to present general guidelines on how to handle a change but rather to examine a specific change process and compare it to already existing literature in the field from a leadership perspective. This thesis will therefore focus exclusively on a specific case; a change leadership practices and challenges that occurred at Ethiopian Sugar Corporation Head Quarter.

1.8. Organization of the Paper

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter provides a detail review of relevant literature on the practice and challenges of change management. This chapter also covers brief description about change management challenges and different change management models mainly about kaizen model.

2.1. Organizational change

2.1.1. Definition

Change management experts define organizational change as an event or process wherein an organization seeks to improve its status, performance or culture by changing its structure, strategy or working methods (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010; Fullan 2011; Kotter 2014). Furthermore, Lewis (2011) defines organizational change as a prominent feature and character of businesses. Organizational change emerges in various sizes: from small procedural changes in a unit, to large-scale change. Additionally, planned company transformation is often seen as a way to make progress. Ultimately, organizational changes influence the whole company and affect the working culture.

Overall, there are a large number of studies and different perspectives on organizational change. Existing theories include, for example, studies of employee resistance, commitment, leadership, and communication during organizational change. Multiple change management and leadership authors state that managing changes can be somewhat challenging for companies. Therefore, this topic is interesting for the research because of its importance and peculiarities.

When conducting a study in the field of organizational change, it is impossible not to mention John P. Kotter. Kotter is a leadership and change management expert, bestselling author of change management books, and a renowned Harvard professor. His innovative ideas, tools, and models are a significant help for organizations around the world. (Kotter International 2017.) For example, his work “Leading Change” was selected as one of the 25 most influential business management books ever written (Medintz 2011). Kotter inspires many leaders to think outside the box and not to be afraid of implementing innovative ways in change management (Kotter International 2017).

It is also important to note that organizational change is a derivative of diverse factors such as, market pressures, economic downturns, cultural changes, technological advancements, merging of companies, or changes in the availability of resources. These factors have either forced or brought firms to self-initiate changes in order to thrive or survive. (Kotter & Cohen 2002; Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010; Lewis 2011.)

2.1.2. Drivers of organizational change

Understanding the drivers of change helps managers raise awareness and prepare action plans with change leaders and stakeholders (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010; Zimmermann 2011).

The Drivers of Change Model introduces different internal and external factors that cause the organizational change. These drivers are catalyzed by shifts in the external environment, such as social, business, political, technological, or natural environmental developments. Significant changes in any of these areas force or enable companies to react. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010; Swaim 2011; Saez 2017.)

Changes in the external environment cause the next driver to react, and the cycle continues. For instance, the aftermath of the changes in the external environment demand new marketplace requirements. Afterwards, an organization needs to revise its business imperatives, which are all of the strategic actions essential for prosperity in the new marketplace. New business imperatives include systematic rethinking, revision of mission, strategy, long-term goals, business model, products, services and pricing. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

The next driver, organizational imperatives, consist of actions that help to achieve strategic goals set by the previous driver. These operational level initiatives include possible changes in organizational structure, processes, technology or personnel. Similarly, organizational imperatives’ effect on the next driver depends on the degree of changes. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

Eventually, strategic and operational changes influence the following driver, cultural imperatives. These imperatives create change in the organizational culture. To clarify, operational business processes introduced in a company require employees to get familiar with new practices, expand their knowledge and gain additional skills. As such, the cultural changes affect the feelings and behavior of the leader and the employees. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

The last two drivers, leader and employee behavior, followed by mindset, deter- mine how the change is sustained in the company. Foremost, the behavior of leaders and employees influence the way workers react to the organizational changes. Additionally, the behavior reshapes the new desired working culture. Lastly, leader and employee mindset must adapt to the new routine and maintain the desired changes. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

2.1.3. Types of organizational changes

Anderson & Ackerman Anderson (2010) introduce three of the most common types of organizational change: developmental change, transitional change, and transformational change. An organization can evaluate what kind of a transformation it needs to go through, to achieve its strategic goals. However, not all changes are a part of a plan. In some cases, an organization might be forced to go through a certain form of transition. Therefore, companies should understand and manage different types of change depending on its nature and complexity.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1. Developmental Organizational Change. (Anderson and Ackerman Anderson 2010)

The simplest form of organizational change is a developmental change (see Figure 2). It focuses on existing knowledge such as skills, working methods, performance standards, or other conditions that require improvement or are unqualified for the firm’s current needs. Developmental change can be described as the logical adjustment of ongoing operations because it improves the employees’ capabilities through the provision of necessary resources, training, and motivation. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2. Transitional Change (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010)

Transitional change is more complicated than developmental change. As demonstrated in Figure 2, in transitional change the current state is not improved, rather entirely replaced with a new one. Usually, the urgency for transitional change is realized when a leader identifies a problem to which a solution is not evident, or discovers an opportunity that is not being utilized. In other words, transitional change is required if existing operations must be reshaped or reproduced to suit the current or future demand of a company or a customer. Some examples of transitional change are: restructuring the organization, merging, disinvesting, integrating new technology, and creating new products, systems, processes or policies that replace the old ones. Additionally, transitional change requires people to adopt a new mindset and behavior. The aforementioned details make transitional change rather challenging, and therefore, there is a need for a strong leader. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3. Transformational Change (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010)

The life-cycle displays outcomes of company failure in the business environment, whereas reemergence represents a company’s need to go through transformational change. Chaos illustrates the result of drastic changes, as a company has failed to meet new demands for marketplace success. Finally, death or mindset shifts represents the death of the company or revival through transformational change. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

Due to the many complexities associated with transformation change, changes in strategic and operational levels have an enormous impact on the work culture, behavior and mindset. Interestingly, re-emerging does not have a planned future state, but instead, the company discovers it while going through the process of transformational change. As a result, the end scope is unknown. This means that the transformational change is facilitated rather than controlled by the managers. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

Furthermore, Zimmermann (2011) claims that organizational change can be either reactive if a company reacts to external changes and new demands, or pro- active if the company by plans ahead to gain a competitive advantage. In addition, proactive organizations are flexible and capable to adapt constantly to the changing environment. The leaders of proactive organizations are finding ways to develop the business operations and analyze changes in the external environment. In contrast, reactive organizations allow problems to arise and escalate, before taking serious actions. Consequently, proactive organizations have an advantage over the reactive ones. (Mack 2017; Pathack 2017.)

2.2. Change management

2.2.1. Introduction to change management

Nowadays, effective planning and handling organizational change are essential for a continuous business development. Organizational changes vary in size and complexity, which is why strong change management skills have become a desired attribute for managers and leaders. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010; Kotter 2014; Rick 2016.)

Kotter International (2011) defines change management as a set of tools and structures, which keep any change effort under control. Basic change management strategies are rather straightforward and are usually associated with smaller changes. On the contrary, continuous and diverse modifications are exceedingly sophisticated and require advanced leadership skills. Additionally, Rick (2014a) states that change management is a process of implementing change and getting people to understand and accept the change initiatives.

One of the first change management models was Kurt Lewin's (1947) “Unfreeze- Change-Freeze”, and that is the reason Lewin is considered to be a father of change management. Although there has been a criticism of the simplicity of the model, Lewin’s idea of unfreezing and changing organizational behavior before transitioning to a new state is fundamental for almost any kind of change model. (Cummings, Bridgman & Brown 2016.) Seventy years later, Connelly (2016) and Mindtools (2017) presented the change model in detail, which is shown in Figure 4.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4. Lewin’s Change Management Model (Mindtools 2017)

Lewin’s change model consists of three phases:

1. Unfreeze: Leaders start to prepare the organization for the change.
2. Change: Change is communicated throughout the organization. The whole staff is trained to embrace the changes and participate in the change process.
3. Freeze: After the changes are implemented and people have accepted the new ways of working, it is time to refreeze and incorporate the changes into the culture. (Connelly 2016; Mindtools 2017.)

These days’ environmental changes happen far more frequently and rapidly than ever and, as a result, they require the constant attention of businesses and organizations (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010; Kotter 2014). One can argue that ability to change is a prerequisite for a successful organization (Kotter 2014; Phillips 2014). Successful change management is crucial since it enables the company development, growth and seizing of opportunities. Conversely, poor change management should be recognized and fixed as soon as possible; otherwise it can result in growing number of unfixed mistakes and even lead to a culture of repeated failure. (Lewis 2011.)

2.2.2. Change management barriers

Swaim (2011) states that overcoming resistance to change is one of the most significant challenges for leaders. Furthermore, Gill (2003) identified that change programs fail because of inefficient management. According to Kotter, the most common reason companies fail is due to of lack of experience with successful changes. Poor management, leadership and lack of knowledge create negative feelings among employees, such as self-protection, arrogance, pessimistic attitude or general immobilization. (Kotter 2014.)

In addition to the previous, other typical change management barriers are fear of unknown, feeble leadership, broken communication, and complexity of change. Change is often seen as a short-term event and the diversity of required actions is utterly ignored. For instance, in a situation when employees are pressured to be more cost-effective or work faster for no evident reason, the corporate culture and values might be severely damaged. (Gill 2003.) Anderson & Ackerman Anderson (2010) state that negativity towards change is often a result of poor planning and leadership. Executives who see changes as purely technical or structural, without considering the feelings of the subordinates, are doomed to create emotional resistance or fear among affected employees. Therefore, leaders should avoid taking drastic actions, being unreasonable or ignoring existing opportunities when implementing changes (Rick 2015).

Similarly, based on Kotter’s & Cohen’s (2002) and Gordon’s (2017) findings, negative feelings towards changes exist almost in every organization, and they are usually caused by complacency, uncertainty or fear. Simply put, employees may be extremely committed to their responsibilities, titles, coworkers, remunerations or career recognition. Therefore, they might feel that the changes will jeopardize the things they enjoy the most in the company (Bass & Riggio 2006).

Another major barrier to change is the hierarchical structure of a company. Hierarchies enable work sectors to be divided into departments, divisions, and regional clusters; however, they also create barriers to change management. Some of the hierarchical obstacles include the insufficient number of people driving change, inefficient information flow, the pressure to remain cost-efficient, and general resistance to change. Kotter adds that management-driven hierarchies try to minimize risk and keep workers in their departments by encouraging a so called “silo-thinking”. Silo-thinking forces people to have the same daily working routine and limits information flow between the departments, resulting in a lack of collaboration. (Kotter 2014.)

2.2.3. Building effective change management

According to Kotter (2014), companies that do not revise their direction every few years might put their future success at risk. The fast-changing external environment is increasingly demanding, which undoubtedly requires companies to make swift operational changes. Moreover, employees of an organization cannot put their daily tasks aside and concentrate exclusively on change management. Instead, they need to balance both work and change management simultaneously. (Kotter 2014.)

In order to tackle change barriers, leaders should demonstrate active participation that contributes to the conformity of the work environment (Lewis 2011). Moreover, Lewis (2011) claims that both internal and external stakeholders are highly influential during the transition process. The communication model for change, presented by Lewis (2011), illustrates the various stakeholders’ roles: opinion leaders, connectors, counselors and journalists, all of which can help to build effective change management.

Opinion leaders are those who have the desire to lead other stakeholders, and are usually those working in top management positions. Connectors help to connect different types of stakeholders during the change. Most often these Connectors are middle-level managers who communicate with both the top and bottom of the hierarchy. Connectors are familiar with the value systems and languages used in the organization, helping them spread information about the change, bring knowledge together from all the stakeholder groups and, unite stakeholders to form common goals. Counselors provide social support for the stakeholders during a change. In sum, personalities, positions, and motivation can determine what form of a support stakeholders can provide, whether it is leading, connecting, supporting or reporting the progress and outcomes. (Lewis 2011.)

Finally, Heathfield (2017a) analyzed supportive actions for change management. Managers should deliver comprehensive data on the situation in a firm to the employees. Information, such as financial reports, customer feedback, performance indicators, and employee satisfaction survey results might help managers to build a case for a change. This way the informed workforce can understand the reasons for the company transformation. Heathfield recommends aligning organizational systems to support change, such as remuneration strategies. (Heathfield 2017a.)

2.3. Leadership

2.3.1. Leadership definition

Bennis (2009) defines leadership as the ability to bring a vision into reality by making swift decisions and inspiring others. Moreover, leadership is not only administrating but also improving the business operations and developing the skills of the followers. Effective leadership requires clear communication skills and the ability to identify the maximum potential of the company and its staff. (Bass & Riggio 2006; Bennis 2009.) Likewise, according to Gordon (2017), one of the most critical attributes that describe leadership is the capability to drive the culture by creating an environment that gives energy to people, enables them to grow, develop, and do their best.

Furthermore, Kotter (2014) underlines that leadership and management are not interchangeable terms. Leadership is guiding people and the company in the right direction through empowerment and inspiration, objectively enabling people to achieve organizational goals, whereas management is a set of processes that help the company to be reliable and efficient. Also, Kotter claims that leadership is not something that solely managers can practice, but rather any person in an organization. (Kotter & Cohen 2002; Kotter 2014.) The main differences between management and leadership are presented in Table 1.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 1.1. Difference between management and leadership (Kotter 2014)

Given the above, leadership skills enhance an organization's management and its individuals. Leadership allows influential people to make a difference for a business, unite people for a transition process, and influence their motivation and more. Leaders generate and sustain trust by being reliable, coherent and trust- worthy. Leaders thereby validate themselves by honoring promises, supporting co-workers in meaningful moments, and staying on course. (Bennis 2009.)

2.3.2. Transformational vs transactional leadership

Burns (1978) conceptualized leadership to be either transactional or transformational. In his definition, transactional leaders are the ones who lead with authority, and offer contingent punishments or rewards. This means, depending on their performance, employees are either rewarded or punished. Transactional leader offers remuneration or other kinds of rewards to boost employee morale and productivity. Contrarily, unproductive workers might be subject to disciplinary measures. Transactional leadership is often considered the foundation of trans- formational leadership. However, to invoke change, transactional leadership is most often considered to be less effective than transformational leadership. (Bass & Riggio 2006.)

Transformational leadership aspires followers to develop and achieve extraordinary results and constantly work on self-development. Transformational leadership emphasizes all interaction between leaders and followers by inspiring people to reach common goals, challenging them to improve their working methods, and supporting them by mentoring and coaching. Additionally, the transformational leadership characteristics are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. (Bass & Riggio 2006.)

What is more, Holten & Brenner (2013) conducted research about leadership style and the process of organizational change. They considered factors that could generate positive attitudes towards change and found out that leadership style does matter during periods of organizational change. Additionally, the commitment of employees depends on the leadership style, with transformational leadership having a better impact on the followers than transactional one. The results have also shown that leadership style during the starting phases of the organizational change mattered more than during the final stages. Therefore, the leader who manages to successfully connect with their followers during beginning stage, is more likely to maintain employee engagement during the whole transition process and organizational change. (Holten & Brenner 2013.)

2.3.3. Followers

Moran (2014) presented the insights of two leadership experts, Barbara Keller- man and Ronald E.Riggio. These insights spoke to the relationship between a leader and a follower. Simply put, “Leaders lead. Followers follow”, suggesting that leaders are usually in managerial positions, and followers as their subordinates. Furthermore, followers are those who are lower in the hierarchy, have less influence than their managers, and do the things that leaders expect them to do (Kellerman 2007). Additionally, Gordon (2017) claims that leaders gather their followers by being able to articulate and communicate vision in a simple, clear, bold and compelling form.

Moreover, Moran (2014) claims that leaders can develop five skills by being a good follower themselves: awareness, diplomacy, courage, collaboration and critical thinking.

Kellerman (2007) studied the relationship between leaders and their followers. Additionally, he has classified followers based on their level of engagement with their leaders or the organization. Kellerman claims that the level of involvement determines the relationship between the two, especially in the quality of the relationship and passion towards common goals. There are five types of followers according to Kellerman’s research: isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards. A leader should pay attention to different followers, whether they are for or against them. (Kellerman 2007.)

Isolates are type of followers that are reluctant of knowing about their leaders or the mission of the company. Furthermore, isolates are inactive, meaning they are hesitant to voice opinions about change. Isolates are often found in larger companies, where they have the best opportunity to be inactive without being noticed. This is because the top management usually does not pay attention to isolates as long as they are finishing their daily tasks. (Kellerman 2007.)

The second type of a followers, bystanders, are observers and thus more aware of what is going on around them than isolates. Despite their awareness bystanders are not engaged or motivated to participate actively in the organization. Sharing similarities with isolates, they are often silent and focused only on performing their daily tasks. According to Kellerman, bystanders and isolates are harmful for learning organizations, because they are not interested in the company’s mission or values. However, unlike isolates, bystanders are easier to encourage to be more active type of a follower due their awareness. (Kellerman 2007.)

Participants are the third type of follower and are engaged much more than the two aforementioned types of followers. This type of a follower is either supporting of, or opposed to their leaders and always trying to make an impact in the organization. For this reason, participants can either help the cause of the leader, or in case they are against, make things difficult. (Kellerman 2007.)

The fourth type of followers are activists. These followers hold strong opinions on their leaders and the organization. Kellerman describes activists as “eager, energetic, and engaged” because they put a considerable amount of effort into their leader’s initiatives or into undermine their cause. Activists have a high level of commitment, which can have major impact on a working culture. Furthermore, leaders see activists as strong workers or subordinates, which makes them valuable for the company. (Kellerman 2007.)

The final type of followers, diehards, are deeply dedicated to a cause. They are one step higher than activists in their devotion to their leaders or in their means to get them replaced. As a result, it makes them either powerful assets or a liability for the organization. Diehards practice commitment and dedication to some- one or something they consider worthy. (Kellerman 2007.)

2.3.5. Value of leadership

Currently, an increasing number of leaders switch to people-oriented leadership styles and involve their followers in decision-making (Bass & Riggio 2006; Gordon 2017). Leaders’ capabilities to inspire and motivate people may determine whether the company will be successful or not (Bennis 2009).

Naturally, trust is decisive in the relationship between leaders and the rest of the employees in an organization. Those leaders who fully rely on their followers, can expect to get faith in return. However, leaders’ ability to trust is influenced by their right to question and challenge the subordinates as well as their tasks and methods. For this reason, to achieve a mutual trust, leaders need to maintain the balance between doubt and faith. (Bennis 2009.)

What is more, Gordon (2017) talks about the power of positive leadership and the significant impact it can have. Positivity is not only a pleasant state of mind, but it is also a substantial competitive advantage. Sometimes in order to create a thriving organization, positive leaders must face and overcome adversity, negativity, and other challenges. Additionally, a positive leader should be aware that one person does not create a culture, but the whole organization should participate in the process. (Gordon 2017.)

2.4. Change leadership

2.4.1. Change leader

According to Kotter, change leadership is an engine that drives the change management process (Kotter International 2011). Furthermore, Anderson & Ackerman Anderson (2010) define change leadership as the ability to have a clear vision and lead people to co-create it. Additionally, Dunklin (2013) claims that change leadership refers to leading an organization through the change with different mindsets and capabilities than normal leadership.

Moreover, Fullan (2011) defines a change leader as someone who has the capacity to generate energy and passion in others. A change leader should have the confidence to adjust the direction of a company (Phillips 2014). Consequently, change leaders should master the seven elements of successful change leader- ship as proposed by Fullan (2011). These elements are demonstrated in Figure 5.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 5. Seven elements of change leadership (Fullan 2011)

A successful change leader should be resolute with their change efforts and build organizational commitment towards change. The foundational elements for change leadership are deliberate practice and sustained simplexity, both of which ensure that the change is not too simple or too complex for the leader or their followers. After the previously mentioned elements are integrated to daily practice, a change leader should start to motivate the masses and encourage collaboration to compete. These actions generate an innovative atmosphere that helps a change leader to learn confidently and boost the confidence of the followers. Finally, the efforts must be revised and improved to allow the change leader to know their impact. (Fullan 2011.)

Similarly, Anderson & Ackerman Anderson (2010) presented a conscious change leader model. Figure 6 illustrates that change leaders must deal with four different sectors of change: mindset, behavior, culture, and systems.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 6. The Conscious change leader accountability model (Anderson & Acker- man Anderson 2010)

Realizing the extent of the aforementioned sectors helps change leaders to understand the diversity in their work. Anderson & Ackerman Anderson (2010) de- fine the core aspects of each of these sectors:

- Mindset - values, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, ways of being, levels of commitment that relate to change
- Behavior - work styles, skills and actions, and behaviors
- Culture - norms, collective ways of being, working and relating, cli- mate
- Systems - structures, systems, business processes, and technology

Furthermore, the model indicates how the change affects different areas in a company. However, the different parts are not entirely independent. For example, a leader cannot make cultural and systematic changes without dealing with the mindset and behavior of their subordinates. For this reason, in change initiatives, one should handle all stages from internal factors to external, as well as collective or individual considerations. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

2.4.2. Change management vs change leadership

Despite their similarities, change management and change leadership are de- fined very differently. Change management is a set of tools that keeps the change process under control, whereas change leadership is an enhancement that serves to make change management more sensible and intensive. Additionally, change management deals more with smaller changes, while change leadership is crucial for larger organizational changes or accumulating a number of modifications happening in an organization. Change leadership works as engine for change management and deals with bringing together those people who have an urgency to change. Also, change leadership includes envisioning and empowering the people throughout the change effort. (Kotter International 2011.)

Moreover, Hooper & Potter (2000) specified that change leadership includes creating a vision for the company, making strategies that enable that vision to be- come reality, and ensuring that the people in organization are driving towards the same goals (Gill 2003). Put simply, change leadership enables forceful movement of the masses towards common visions and goals. (Gill 2003; Fullan 2011.)

Furthermore, R.W. Quinn & R.E. Quinn (2016) argue that change management and leadership development should be a connected topic. Changes in corporate culture and behavior are hard to maintain without effective leadership. Therefore, the concepts of change management and change leadership are intertwined. Lastly, according to Bennis (2009), learning leadership is also learning to manage change, since a leader has a vision for the organization which will eventually modify the culture.

2.4.3. Power of change leadership

Bennis (2009) states that successful change involves modifying the work culture to support the change vision, as well as inspiring those who are affected by the change. Similarly, Gill (2003) claims that the reason for ineffective change management is not the poor change management tools, but the lack of effective change leadership. Kotter & Cohen (2002) suggest that, in successful change efforts, leaders should deal with the barriers one at a time.

Preparing for a change does not require excessive resources, but only a proactive attitude. It is important to mention that creating urgency should be the initiator for any change process because it helps to bring together the key people committed to finding a successful change path. Kotter’s & Cohen’s (2002) studies have validated the fact that changing the behavior is more effective when the problem is demonstrated visually. Therefore, the “see-feel-change” approach is more useful than “analyze-think-change” when raising the awareness in the company. However, Kotter & Cohen (2002) admit that mixing both approaches is crucial for success and companies still need to report and analyze cases.

Similarly, Rick (2015) claims that leading change is planning, preparing and communicating the need to change as efficiently as possible. Leaders should place well-established communication as a number-one priority. Also, change leaders should not ignore the current work culture completely, but rather also focus on addressing what and why something needs to change, explaining it to the employees thereafter. (Rick 2015.)

Moreover, Eagle Hill (2014) conducted a survey with over 1000 working professionals that revealed strong leadership and effective communication are necessary for successful change. According to the respondents, strong leadership was the most important factor during the change efforts. Additionally, the study showed that everyday leadership and communication differs from change leadership and communication. 94% of participants who were content with the change, stated that it was thanks to their manager being a fantastic role model. In contrast, only 50% of the respondents who were unsatisfied after changes had the same opinion. (Eagle Hill 2014; Wang 2017.)

Likewise, Bennis (2009) suggests that one of the essential characteristics for leadership is acting as a role model. Leaders learn what the culture and organization must be like in the future, if they hope to develop themselves as professionals. Moreover, leaders should constantly evolve and adapt to external changes that are causing organizational changes to avoid a stall in improvements. These actions require risk-taking and problem-solving, but can be rewarding for the organization and its followers. (Bennis 2009.)

According to Lewis (2011), communication strategies and the way messages are designed and distributed influences the stakeholders who participate in the change process. Furthermore, communication approaches that are planned may lower the level of resistance in the long-term. Also, Gordon (2017) highlights the importance of staying positive when communicating, as it affects the reception of the message a leader delivers.

In sum, the power of change leadership helps to overcome issues, such as resistance and negative feelings in a company. Alternatively, insufficiently led organizational change can result in losing employee engagement and motivation. Thus, managers who communicate and lead the change successfully can improve the business and gain more commitment from the employees. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

2.5. Commitment and motivation during times of change

2.5.1. Building employee commitment to change

Hill, Seo, Kang & Taylor (2012) researched employee commitment to organizational change across all organizational levels. Hill et. al. used a case company operating as a government agent in the transportation sector. The sample for their study included over 1000 employees who directly reported to a manager. Their research focused on the role of top management and what type of a leadership they practice during changes. Hill et al. assumed that an employee's position and relationship with top management affected the commitment during organizational change. They argued that personnel involved in the strategic decision making were more likely to be committed to change. Consequently, it can be assumed that the commitment and support for change depend on the level of communication between followers and the top management. (Hill et al. 2012.)

Hill et al. (2012) discovered that the hierarchical levels of the organization matter when measuring employee commitment. Additionally, the study shows that trans- formational leaders are more effective in building employee commitment than those utilizing other leadership styles. The results suggest that the employees do not respond in the same way on every organizational level. Moreover, the impact managers have on commitment can be significant. Finally, their findings indicated that if power distance was high, the respondents had more negative feelings to- wards organizational change and their leaders. (Hill et al. 2012.)

Similarly, Miller (2015) claims that the sooner the employees are involved with the change initiatives, the better influence it has on the commitment. Moreover, Gordon (2017) highlights that trust generates employee commitment and that trust is earned through open communication and positive leadership. Furthermore, successful change management practices include involving employees in change efforts. People are more open to change when they have a chance to influence the direction the change is leading to, especially when the change has an impact on their work. Work culture gets stronger when people feel responsible for the change and actively participate in it. (Heathfield 2016.)

In addition, Heathfield (2016) proposes a set of actions to increase employee involvement for effective change management. The first action is the creation of a plan with the change team and top management early in the change process, involving as many people as possible. Stakeholders, process owners and employees who the change impacts the most should be involved. Integrated involvement enables information flow, thereby raising awareness even for those who initially resist the change. Finally, employees who actively participate and work in the change should be recognized and rewarded. (Heathfield 2016.)

2.5.2. Engagement during change

Aon Hewitt (2013) conducted research that measured employee engagement during organizational change. The results indicate that engagement varies de- pending on the type of change, such as restructuring or transformational. More- over, the study shows that highly engaged people usually perform on a higher level than those that are less engaged. If the level of employee engagement de- creased during organizational change, it led to worse business performance, or vice versa. Additionally, the research showed that individual involvement, role in the organization, training, and development are important factors that affect the engagement during organizational changes. (Aon Hewitt 2013.)

The results of Aon Hewitt’s (2013) research revealed that established connections between leaders and co-workers is important. Employees appreciate communicating with their leaders, along with seeing their colleagues cooperating and supporting each other during the change. Furthermore, according to the same study, the top five drivers of engagement during the times of change are:

1. Involvement in decision-making;
2. Understanding the career path;
3. Making personal sacrifices to help the organization;
4. Encouraging the development and
5. Leader’s willingness to have a two-way dialogue (Aon Hewitt 2013.)

The study showed that the drivers differ depending on the type of organizational change, for example restructuring or strategic transformation. During restructuring, participants felt that their co-workers or leaders making personal sacrifices for the organization and trust in others within group work were of the utmost importance. Consequently, according to the study it is important to note, that re- structuring might provide employees more diverse opportunities. Thus, why engagement can be empowered by a change leader who commits to the development of the remaining employees. (Aon Hewitt 2013.)

Finally, the study revealed that the most common way to manage employee engagement during change, was for the leader to have open dialogue with the employees. As a result, the employees feel that their input is respected, despite a new core strategy, are therefore more engaged. Additionally, employees should receive the resources to complete their new tasks, have enough training, and have sufficient time to adapt to the new working environment. (Aon Hewitt 2013.)

2.5.3. Employee motivation during change

Lewis (2011) defines the change acceptance zone as the space wherein motivation to change is higher than the stress the change creates. Since motivation is an attribute that is highly influenced during the times of change, change leaders should constantly lead by example and inspire their followers. Furthermore, Worley & Lawler (2006) claim that motivation, or lack of motivation, is one of the key barriers to organizational change. Motivated people are better at implementing actions, hence the change leader should focus on helping people to accomplish something that they have not accomplished before. This will, in turn, help the motivation of subordinates to increase (Fullan 2011).

According to Worley & Lawler (2006) organizations should adjust the reward system during times of change. As a result, Worley & Lawler described reward systems that support change effort and increase the motivation of the employees affected by the change. For example, annual merit-pay systems do not motivate or help retain the right employees as much as other types of systems. If the re- ward system is based on yearly performance, during times of change, there is little the organization can do to motivate a person not supporting the change. Worley & Lawler recommend paying employees based on their skill-level and not on the position they work in. Consequently, paying the person has a high influence on employees’ motivation to change efforts. Furthermore, individually re- warding can result in a culture where self-development and talent are a focus and change capabilities are embraced. (Worley & Lawler 2006.)

An interesting fact is that bonus systems, which reward short-term performances, motivate employees to perform better than annually paid remuneration. Additionally, bonus plans can be a huge contributor to the performance in planned organizational change, when they correspond with the market share and profit of the organization. In sum, reward systems that correlate with short-term goals and individual skills better motivate people to be more open to changes. (Worley & Lawler 2006.)

Heathfield (2017b) analyzed factors that increase employee motivation. Heath- field claimed that the level of employee motivation is highly connected with how subordinates feel the leaders see them. If an employee feels like a valuable worker, they are more motivated and are to perform better. Furthermore, Heathfield (2017c) examined leadership skills that promote motivation. Employees who feel that vision, optimism, and goals are communicated effectively, are more motivated to work accordingly. Furthermore, followers feel important when their opinions are asked and heard, which is why Heathfield (2017c) recommends regular meeting with the employees.

2.6. Analysis of best practices for organizational change

There are many organizations that have failed to adapt to the situation and make the necessary actions to combat the problems they faced. However, certain strategies have helped the companies during the times of change. In the chapter, Kotter’s Eight Steps Model, Eight Accelerators, and some other success practices are discussed.

2.6.1. Eight steps model

According to Kotter (2014), change is best managed when it is divided into separate phases, and effective techniques and actions are used during each step. Kotter claims that successful change leadership is a significant help to any change effort. Kotter & Cohen (2002) have analyzed successful change stories of companies in the book “The Heart of Change”. In this work, Kotter extensively explores the stages of his eight-step change model, explains some essential actions to succeed, and outlines some mistakes to avoid. Overall, changing employee behavior is the fundamental part of all levels of organizational change. Therefore, it is essential to recognize and implement change in a specific order. For instance, it is vital to raise urgency inside the company before starting to create a change vision. (Kotter & Cohen 2002.)

Kotter & Cohen (2002) have studied why organizations succeed or fail at large scale, analyzing how companies can use the eight-step model to succeed. Some stories of real companies who have implemented changes were used for their investigation. The authors have introduced useful techniques and approaches in each step.

The initial phase of organizational change, Step 1, should be dedicated to build- ing urgency towards upcoming change by helping people in the organization see and feel the need for change (Kotter & Cohen 2002). Many change management experts admit that helping employees understand the company’s current position helps them to embrace positive feelings towards changes (Kotter & Cohen 2002; Lewis 2011; Fullan 2011; Gordon 2017). It is essential to prepare workers for a change, before going to the next steps. (Kotter & Cohen 2002; Anderson & Acker- man Anderson 2010). Furthermore, Kotter & Cohen highlight that the sequence for the change process is not “start step 1 - finish step 1”, but there can be overlap among the eight steps. (Kotter & Cohen 2002).

During Step 2, a well-established guiding team is formed. The team should be built around people with excellent teamwork skills from all levels of the organization (Kotter & Cohen 2002; Kotter 2014). The guiding team should consist of employees with internal and external knowledge of the company, stature, mutual trust and formal authority. The formal authority and internal knowledge can be helpful in removing change barriers in some of the later phases of the transition process. Furthermore, the guiding team should be able to inspire workers to drive change, create the change vision and communicate it effectively to others. Kotter & Cohen add that in large companies, successful change requires additional guiding teams in all business units to drive the action and help the transition. However, if a change is needed only in one unit or department of a company, one team may be enough. (Kotter & Cohen 2002.)

During Step 3, the guiding team’s task is to create a change vision that is clear and comprehensive. Mainly, the guiding team must know how to create a vision that includes set of strategies that are swift and realistic. Additionally, vision should show the direction for the followers. A clear change vision defines what type of change is needed, who it concerns, and how does the organization get there. (Kotter & Cohen 2002.)

When the direction is clear, the next step is to communicate it to the rest of the organization. Step 4 requires the leaders of the company to communicate the potential change as effectively as possible to their colleagues and subordinates (Kotter & Cohen 2002). When communicating with the entire firm, outstanding communication skills are required to deliver the message. Moreover, leaders who understand their followers and their feelings are more effective in communicating, showing, and demonstrating the case for organizational change. (Kotter & Cohen 2002; Kellerman 2007.)

Next, Step 5, is empowering the actions of the guiding team by making the circumstances as convenient as possible. During this stage, the guiding team should recognize the biggest barriers to change efforts and find solutions. Two common barriers include those high in the hierarchy resisting the change, and leader’s lack of self-confidence or experience in the change management field. In addition, other barriers to successful change efforts are insufficient communication, inefficient planning, general negativity, and resistance to change. Employees are more likely to empower and encourage their co-workers when they understand why the current situation is not acceptable for the organization. (Kotter & Cohen 2002.)

Furthermore, Step 6 states that the change should not be one huge leap, but series of short-term achievements on a way towards greater future. At this stage, the guiding team creates short-term wins in line with the new vision. These wins, or goals, should be visible and meaningful. Reaching these goals builds momentum for the long-term objective because people are more motivated when they can see that short-term objectives are reached. Additionally, employees in the company could be rewarded at each milestone to boost the commitment. (Kotter & Cohen 2002.)

Step 7 is associated with the endurance of the organization, its leaders and their employees when going through modifications. People might feel satisfied after short-term wins; however, the guiding team should not forget that the change is not yet fully implemented. One drawback in the final phases of change is that the change could create inadequate workload for an individual. For this reason, if a worker has too many responsibilities during or after restructuring, the tasks could be revised or delegated to other employees. Additionally, it is important not to let up the change effort, but to incorporate the changes into a company’s culture. (Kotter & Cohen 2002.)

Finally, Step 8 finishes the change effort and presents everything that has been achieved, including the new mindset and shared values, as part of the new working culture. During this stage, it is possible to create a reward system similar to in step 6, or form the change management team. Moreover, leaders should bear in mind that the employee turnover means continuous change of corporate culture, as people bring, and take part in culture. Therefore, a company should organize orientation training for recruits and stakeholders that focuses around the importance of change management. (Kotter & Cohen 2002.)

2.6.2. Eight Accelerators

Kotter’s eight-step model for leading change was revised and developed even further in 2014. The accelerate model utilizes the same steps to be accelerators that continuously look for change opportunities. The model encourages forming a large volunteer team who serve as a constant change engine and include personnel from every level of the hierarchy. (LeStage 2015.)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 5. The eight Accelerators. (Kotter 2014)

Kotter introduces a new hierarchical system as a way to accelerate towards great opportunities. This method unifies the traditional hierarchy with a guiding team network, forming a dual-operating system. This solution offers a company two systems: one that focuses on delivering everyday business processes, whereas the other searches for the new opportunities (Kotter 2014). Similarly, Anderson & Ackerman Anderson (2010) suggest that the company transformation is a continuous process, which validates the need for conscious change leadership.

Dual-operating systems help leaders to seize opportunities and avoid threats. The network does not report to any particular level of the organization, but rather works independently. Since it is already connected to each level in the organizational structure. The connection ensures that the key people are always aware of the change opportunities and threats. Additionally, top management plays a key role in initiating and maintaining the constant flow of information between different levels of the hierarchy. Key characteristics of dual operating system are presented in Table 2. (Kotter 2014.)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 2. Key characteristics of dual operating system

Kotter’s eight accelerators have shown positive results in practice. Employees had a chance to work jointly, while managers could see the network personnel take the initiative in self-development. Moreover, the dual-system assures that the company is flexible and prepared for changes. (Kotter 2014.)

Moreover, informal relationships between coworkers are not visible on the formal organization chart but are crucial nonetheless. Therefore, Heathfield (2016) and Rick (2015) recommend networking through the informal channels of the organization. The accelerate model could also improve the informal channels due to its collaboration between the hierarchy and the network. Fullan (2011) also states that having a change team connected with the whole organization helps to diminish pressure on one leader implementing change.

2.6.3. Power of small wins

Change management experts consider short-term wins a vital part of organizational change (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010; Kotter 2014; Rick 2015). Moreover, Worley & Lawler (2006) conducted research that revealed that the bonus plan correlated with short-term wins boost employee morale significantly. Nevertheless, small wins cannot be the only motivator during the change, even though they are the essential factor (Fullan 2011; Rick 2015).

According to Rick (2015) and Anderson & Ackerman Anderson (2010), short-term wins provide valuable feedback for the leaders. Leaders can also revise or get validity for their strategy, vision, and operations. Additionally, employees get an emotional uplift based on visible achievements.

Figure 6 demonstrates the required change effort for the length of delivery. As can be seen from the left side of the Figure, short term deliveries demand less effort in the same time period as one long term do. Therefore, as a figure of speak, “using three dolphins to reach change objectives is much more useful than one whale”. Smaller change efforts do not consume that much energy, and short-term celebrations boost momentum and morale, while bigger change efforts might be rather exhausting.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 6. Change should be like a dolphin, not a whale (Rick 2014b)

2.6.4. Communication

A review of literature reveals the importance of repetitive communication. For leaders, communication is the fundamental skill that serves to inspire others and efficiently deliver the message (Bennis 2009). Communication skills can be extensively used for the benefit of the opinion leaders and connectors (Lewis 2011) and the guiding team (Kotter & Cohen 2002; Fullan 2011; Kotter 2014), who are able to empower and manage a changing environment.

Anderson & Ackerman Anderson (2010) emphasize the role of communication between the managers or the change team and the employees. Exchange of ideas and information between these parties enables the change process to be smooth, as it gives a chance for everyone to feel involved. Moreover, employees who feel that changes happen to fulfill business strategy or an opportunity, are likely to maximize their efforts to achieve common goals. Additionally, Gordon (2017) argues that the best communicator and influencer is not always the one who speaks the most impressively, but the one who listens to employees, under- stands what has been said, and uses this information to make decisions that bring the company to the success. (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson 2010.)

Lewis (2011) talked about various communication roles and their impact on organizational changes. People who realize their communication role and participate in the process can make a difference. Different communication roles, such as opinion leaders, connectors, counselors, and journalists are all complementary pieces for each other. (Lewis 2011.)

2.6.5. Dialogic leadership

All kinds of human interaction and communication play a major role in organizational life. When there are issues with contact, trust and, communication among workers and managers, the performance of the entire organization is affected. One of the leaders’ main objectives is to create an environment in which employees, despite their differences, can work together, share their experiences and opinions, give honest feedback, and drive the company towards success. One effective approach to improve performance is "dialogic leadership". (Isaacs 1999.)

In order to develop highly creative and effective ideas, people must come together to share wisdom, critique one another's thoughts, and learn to think together. In many cases, developing this capability becomes a great competitive advantage for the company. The leader should have the willingness to build a balanced conversation so that people can realize all their hidden potential and voice their ideas. Some of the essential qualities of a leader are therefore the ability to hear and understand the real meaning of what people say, to listen care- fully, to respect the opinions of others and, to present various perspectives of the same problem. Additionally, a good leader needs to act as a role model for their subordinates and for their entire organization. (Isaacs 1999.)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 7. Dialogic Leadership Model (Isaacs 1999)

It is believed that some people easily “move” by coming up with various ideas and new directions. Others “follow” by adding some thoughts to what has been said before, supporting and completing. Other people “oppose” by questioning the ideas or “bystand”, by monitoring the process and giving their point of view on what is happening. It is important to bear in mind that all of these roles are equally important for the creation of a constructive dialogue. A leader should therefore also make sure that people do not always keep the same roles, but rather switch between them as often as possible. (Isaacs 1999.)

“Inquiry” and “advocacy” are two important concepts used to govern over the balance of a well-established interaction. Some workers advocate their positions, in “move” and “oppose”, while others hold different opinions. Even though, in the majority of cases, advocacy rules the conversation, one should never underestimate the role of inquiring into the actual meaning of what has been said. (Isaacs 1999.)

Dialogic leaders always aim to make highly qualitative conversations, and there are four practices that can help in building up this qualitative dialogue. They include voicing an actual opinion and inspiring others to speak up their mind, listening carefully, respecting opinions and thoughts of others as well as suspending some beliefs. (Isaacs 1999.)

CHAPTER THREE

REASEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter will provide the research methodology employed to conduct the study. Accordingly, the chapter presents site selection and description, research design, data type and source, method of data collection, total population, sample size, sampling technique, and method of data analysis and presentation.

3.1. Research design

The researcher used a more of descriptive and rarely analytical study methods to describe and test the relationship between the practice and challenges of change leadership for the selected Sugar Corporation. The methods were preferred because the aim of the study is to describe the practice and challenges of some aspects of change leadership as well as to understand the status of change leadership practice in the case company.

3.2. Type and source of data

A combination of primary and secondary data will be used in undertaking the research. To address the objectives, primary data was used mainly. In fact, secondary sources comprising of official documents of the organization, books, journals as well as internet sources were also used. Primary data was collected from reports of the company, research participants or informants in the study area. Secondary data was gathered from the already stock of literature such as books, journals, articles and newspapers, periodicals, working Manuals, reports and website and other media outlets. (Versrchuren & Hans, 1999).

3.3. Data collection method

The primary data collection methods included questionnaire and interview. To get first-hand information about the study under inquiry, both data collection methods were used. Open-ended and semi-structured questions were designed to the interview so as to obtain in-depth data about the subject under inquiry. Questionnaires were designed in structured and close-ended forms.

3.4. Target population

In this study, managers and non-manager employees the corporation head quarter were considered as participants of the study. The researcher believed that these target population were candidates to respond the questionnaire and interview questions. The respondents included top managers, middle level managers and ordinary employees working at the head quarter of Ethiopian Sugar Corporation.

Sample size

Size of the sample refers to the number of items select from the universe to constitute a sample (Kothari, 2004). Totally, the Corporation head quarter has 350 employees. Out of the whole 350 employees 34 were managers/supervisors and the rest 294 were non-managers. 27(50%) managers/supervisors and 94(31%) non-manager employees were included in data collection process of the study. Therefore, the total population for the study was 121.

In addition to the above sample, ten executive officers of each department and 15 non-manager employees were interviewed. The selections of the respondents were carried out by using purposive sampling method.

According to Yount, (2006) as cited in Gay (1987) suggest that a researcher simply can take her/his sample size 10% of large population and 20% of small population as minimums. The researcher used this sample population, to get information using questionnaire based on simple random sampling method to assure each employee in population get an equal chance of being selected.

Sampling technique

The researcher used non-probability sampling technique; based up on employees of the business undertaking was divided into managers and non-managers. The researcher used convenient sampling technique so that it helped to get the required information from pertinent respondents based on their level of responsibilities and their access to the relevant data.

3.5. Method of Data analysis and presentation

The raw data collected from questionnaires was inserted in SPSS statistical data processor software version 21. The responses of the respondents for the questionnaires, which are designed into five points rated scales were arranged and organized in the form of tables. Mean and standard deviation were used to summarize and present the data in the tables. Then, the results in the tables were discussed, along with the results from the interviews and document analysis data. Finally, in the discussion part, the findings were discussed based on the findings in the related literature.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1. Response Rate

This section presents the main findings and results of the study. Relevant issues and collected data analyzed quantitatively. In particular, this section examines the practice and challenges of change leadership at Ethiopian Sugar Corporation. To this effect, 121 copies of the questionnaire distributed to respondents 31 leaders and 105 non-manager employees. Out of the 136 copies, 4 leaders and 10 non-manager employees did not return the form. Therefore, 121 copies considered for the study. This makes the response rate 27(87%) for leader and 94 (89.5%) for operational employee. All the data collected from respondents were analyzed and interpreted. Beside this, annual plans of the non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs, reports and other relevant documents were reviewed, analyzed and interpreted to triangulate using these different sources of information.

4.2. Characteristics of respondents

The summary of information about the respondents’ distribution is based on the gender, level of Education, position of the expertise, academic rank and working of years of experiences in the corporation are presented for better understanding of their back ground. The full descriptions of the respondents of this study were shown in the table one below.

4.2. Respondents Profile

Table 4.1:- Participants profile (Both manager/ Leader and Non-Leader Employee)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The sample respondents were asked to indicate their Gender, Age, Educational back ground and year of experience in ESC. As indicated in the table, 97 (80.2%) respondents were male and 24 (19.8%) were female. Regarding job position the information showed that 27 (22.3%) were managers/leaders and 94(77.7%) were non-leader employees. As can be seen from the table about qualification, there were three categories: college diploma, first degree, master’s degree and above. The respondents, in the first category 2(1.7%) were college diploma holders, 81(67%) first degree holders and 38(31.3%) were second degree holders.

Regarding to working experiences the more than 58.6% of workers have work experience of more than 6 years in the corporation. This showed that the respondents would have better experience and experience on organizational change practices and challenges. Moreover, they knew about the whole activities done in the corporation and it is assumed they give important information for the study. The academic qualifications is believed very useful for the study that they might give genuine and responsiveness information and understand the change implementation process undertaken in the corporation.

4.1.1. Integrated change management activities with respect to change plan

On this point the researcher tried to analyze to get answer what mechanisms used to integrate change leadership activates done. As per the view of the respondents based on the questionnaires given to the non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs, which is described in the following tables that helped to tabulate and generalize the responses, in order to make easy for analysis purpose and, hence helped to conclude the final results. As indicated on the table the responses were organized in the table form which helped to interpret facts and findings accordingly.

Table 4.2. Response on change leadership/ management activities questioned to corporate staffs

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

According to Table 4.2, 12(13%) the non-manager employees from the total of all respondents 12(10%) were not familiar with the change leadership/management implementation plan held in the corporation whereas 19(63.33%) of leaders/managers and non-manager employees from the total of all respondents 109(90%) know the change process.

On the same Table 4.2, 19(63.33%) the leaders/managers and non-manager employees that were 89(94%) of the total respondents were responded the corporation developed a set of implementable change plan before conducting implementation of change management process. Whereas 26(28%) of the non-manager employees were not responded there was no implementation plan before starting implementation process. On the same Table regarding item 3, 19(73%) of the leaders/managers and 62(66%) non-manager employees and the total of 81(68%) of the respondents accepted the implementation plan whereas 39(32%) of non-manager employees and 32(34%) of the total respondents did not accept the change management implementation plan.

Table 4.2, shows that 26(28%) of non-managers and 11(41%) of leaders/managers 37(31%) of the total of both give their response that the implementation plan was successful with respect to the target whereas 68 (72%) of non-leaders and 16 (59%) of leaders/managers and 84 (69%) of both staff members gave their response the implementation plan was not successful with respect to the target setting before implementation it shows that they didn’t know that change is on process in the corporation.

Response on Table 4.2, shows 53(56%) of the non-manager employees and 26(96%) of leaders/managers 79(65%) all together give their response that they discussed the implementation plan before it become effective whereas 41 (44%) non-manager employees and 1 (4%) of the leaders/managers staff 42 (35%) of both managers/leaders and non-manager employees did not participate in the implementation plan before the program was on progress.

On the same Table, 27(29%) of non-manager employees and 17(63%) of leaders/managers total of 44(36%) their idea was incorporated in the implementation program whereas 33 (67%) and 10 (37%) and 77 (64%) total of the non-manager employees and leaders/employees respectively gave their response that did not participate and their idea was not incorporated in the change implementation plan.

In regards to item 7, 46(49%) of non-manager employees and 12(44%) of the leaders/employees total of 58(63%) respectively believed that the progress of the change implementation program is on the right track whereas 48 (51%) of non-manager employees, 15(56%) of leaders/managers and the total respondents 67 (37%) of both didn’t agree with the progress of the change process yet.

The response of item 8, 71(76%) of the non-managers employees and 27(100%) of leaders/managers which of the total 98(81%) of the non-manager employee and leader/manager staff respondents believed that the change management process was evaluated periodically and agreed on the result and their ideas were incorporate in the plan but 23 (24%) of the non-managers and in general 23 (19%) of the respondents did not agree that mean they didn’t evaluate their progress periodically.

Based on the Table 4.2, item 9, 26(28%) of the non-manager employees and 22(81%) of leaders/managers and total of 48 (50%), both non-leader employees and leaders/managers responded when evaluation done by experts, they discussed on result and agreed up on the facts and weaknesses whereas 66(72%) of non-manager employees and 5(19%) of leaders/managers and 35(29%) of the aggregate responses didn’t agree with the disruption results of the evaluation experts.

Finally, the response of item 10, 61(65%) of non-manager employees and 25(93%) of the leaders/managers with the aggregate total response of 86(71%) gave their response that the change management was led by structured body designated by the corporation but 33 (35%) of non-manager employees and 2(7%) of managers/leaders and the total respondents of 35 (29) didn’t know whether there was a concerned body or not.

Table 4.2 above illustrates the respondents of non-manager employees and leaders/managers responded the corporation developed a set of implementable change plan, leading the change management by integrating the activities with respect to the change plan. Staffs were participating in planning process they gave their ideas and they evaluated the results periodically and they believed that the change management process is on the right truck led by the concerned and responsive body for questions and critics and gave assistance where was in need. The progress of the change process is held based on the strategic target plan.

Table 4.3 is the continuation of Table 4.2. The researcher tried to access the responses responded on the change strategic plan and analyzed the change leadership/management activities. The Table show each response given by the respondent accordingly. It contains 5 items which need to analyze and presented with respect to the response of non-manager employees and leaders/manager staffs.

Table 4.3. Response on change leadership/ management activities questioned to corporate staffs

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Based on Table 4.3, above, questionnaires issued to non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff responses were presented and analyzed. Accordingly 15 (16%) of non-manager employees and 12(44%) of leaders/managers and total of 27(22%) both non-manager employees and leaders/managers believed the change management strategic plan run by the corporation was targeted on the immediate problem. Whereas 46(49%) of non-manager employees, 13(48%) of leaders/managers staff and total of 59(49%) of both non-manager employees and leaders/managers agreed with the plan was prepared to hand over the expected threats of the organization’s problem.

On the other hand, 26 (28%) non-manager employees and 26 (21%) of both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff were believed the change plan was imposed by authorities/government bodies. So the majority of the respondents’ responded the corporation investigate the plan was prepared to hand over the expected threats of the organization’s problem that means before going to implement the change leadership/management implementation plan the corporation identified the expected threats and their impact on the organization.

On the same Table 29(35%) of non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff were evaluate change management monthly, 21 (78%) of non-manager employees and one (3.33%) of leaders/managers staff evaluate quarterly three (10%) of the non-manager employees were evaluated the change effect semi-annually. 15(50%) of non-manager employees and 22(73.33%) of leaders/managers staff 37(61.67%0 of both non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs were evaluate the result of the implementation of the change themselves, 15(50%) of non-manager employees evaluate the change result by experts assigned from outside the corporation and eight (13.13%) leader/manager staffs believed the change result was evaluated by experts from outside the corporation. So, the majority which was 61.67% of the non-manager employees and leader/manager staff evaluated their activities themselves once-a-month.

In the Table 4.3, other items such as 17(56.67%) of non-manager employees, 25(83.33%) leader/manager staffs and 40(44%) of both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff evaluated the change result monthly, 22 (26%) of non-manager employees, 6 (22%) of leader/manager staffs and 28(31%) of both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff evaluated quarterly, whereas 21 (25%) and 21(23) of both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff evaluated semi-annually. On this regards, most of the 44% of the staffs were evaluated the implementation activities monthly, 31% of the staffs were evaluated the implementation activities quarterly and 23% of the staffs were evaluated semi-annually. This shows the evaluation system is not uniformly conducted.

Accordingly, 24(31%) of non-manager employees and 21(74%) of leaders/managers staff discussed and 45(42%) of both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff agreed on the result of the change with the experts, 19(18%) the both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff discussed with the experts but if not agreed they go with their idea while 42 (40%) of both non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs discussed the result of the change with the experts and if the idea will differ they left at it is.

According to Table 4.3, above the researcher can present and analyzed integrated change management activities with respect to change plan, most of the respondents agreed that the corporation strategic plan was prepared to hand over the expected threats of the organization’s problem and training was given to familiarized with discussion different ideas were incorporated in the implementation plan concepts and importance of change was came in to agreement from all the non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff. The change leadership/management process was evaluated always by the implementer themselves and reports were presented to the management every month and if the evaluation is done by experts discussion was taken over and agreed when deviation was occurred. It is believed that the process of change activities should focus on the preparations for change through communications with staff and stakeholders before preparing the implementation of the change management plan and evaluated based on the target and take remedies according to the result obtained from the implementation.

4.2.2. Analysis of coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach

On this part the data gathered will help the researcher to present facts on change coordination over culture and system of the corporation towards the implementation program and analyzed the respondents based on the response obtained from the non-manager employees and leaders/managers staffs shown below on Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 respectively.

Table 4.4. Response on coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In order to assess coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach data was gathered from the non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff briefly shown on Table 4.4 above. Accordingly, the response on Table 4.4, indicated whether the change held in the corporation affects the working and leading/managing activities that it brought new working culture. Accordingly, 57(61%) of the non-manager employees and 18(67%) of leader/manager staffs and 75(62%) of both staffs agreed that the change was affecting their working & other activities, whereas 37(39%) of the non-manager employees 9(33%) of leaders/managers staff and 46(38%) of both the non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff responded their activities were not affected by the change.

On the other hand on the same Table 35(37%) of non-manager employees, 15(56%) of leaders/managers staff and 50(41%) of both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff gave their change facilitates their work but 59 (63%) of non-manager employees, 12(44%) of leaders/managers staff and 81(59%) of both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff were not agreed that change facilitate their work. 25(83.33%) of non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff respondents believed that the change brought new working culture where as five (16.67%) respondents were not. 52(55%) of the non-manager employees, 14(52%) of leaders/managers staff, 66(55%) both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff the respondent gave their response that change affects their work positively and 42 (45%) of non-manager employees, 13 (48%) of leaders/managers staff and 55(45%) both non-manager employees and leaders/managers staff didn’t believe the change affect their work positively.

Most of the respondents believed that the change in the corporation implemented in a rapid and continuous change. Based on the Table 4.4, the researcher can present most of the respondents disagreed change leadership/management have an effect to change coordinating with respect to culture, system and change process approach hence, the working culture is not improved, the system facilitation on working process is at medium level and change exists in the corporation is as a state of long and incremental change process. It needs much reconsideration and improvement

The Tables starting from 4.5 as usually known in the Likert scale, values are given to the Level of Agreement is that 1= Strongly Disagree (SD), 2= Dis Agree (DA), 3= Neutral (N), or undecided 4= Agree (A) and 5= Strongly Agree (SA). The values of these agreement was used to calculate the Mean value (X) and percentage of agreement or dis-agreement.

T a b l e 4.5. Response on coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach (Answered by non-managers)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note: - SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

According to Table 4.5 above the respondent’s response shows on coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach of non-manager employees level of agreement on the items of questions were analyzed and presented as follow.

As indicated on the same Table, 77(81.9%) the respondents responded agreement whereas 5(5.3%) showed their disagreement and 12(12.8%) respondents gave their response undecided. The mean value (X=3.82). Therefore the majority of respondents replied as Change leaders have sometimes a lack of consistency to the change process. On item 2 on the same Table 68 (72.3%) of the leaders/managers responded agreement whereas 18(19.1%) showed their disagreement and 8(8.5%) respondents gave their response undecided. The mean value (X=3.7) showed training was inadequate some of the questions from the change implementers were leaving unanswered which were important to facilitate the change process and workers agreement towards the success of the change management activities.

Considering item 3 responses of 43(50%) of non-manager respondents responded agreement, on the other hand 32 (34%) of respondents responded disagreement and 8 (8.5%) left undecided. The mean value is (X=323) showed half of the respondents agreement that the concerned staff members were take part in planning in the implementation of change management held in the corporation and the other half not. On the same Table item 4, 22(23.2%) of the respondents gave their response agreement whereas 61 (64.9%) disagreement and 11 (11.7%) were left undecided. The mean value (X=2.53) showed that communications about the change plan were conducted timely and relevant. This showed that there were no timely and relevant communications for most of the workers regarding to change process.

The respondent gave their response on the item 5, 64(68%) responded agreement on the other hand 14 (14.8%) showed their disagreement and 16 (17%) left undecided. The mean value is (X=3.7) which showed most of the respondent believed Change implementation create resistance in the beginning. On the same Table 4.5 item 6, 17(18.1%) responded agreement on the other hand 57 (60.6%) showed their disagreement and 20 (21.3%) left undecided. The mean value is (X=2.5) which showed most of the respondent believed resistance in change implementation is managed poorly in the corporation.

The respondent gave their response on the item 7, 68(72.4%) of the respondents gave their

response agreement whereas 20(21.2%) responded disagreement. The mean value (X=3.55) showed the majority of the respondent’s agreement was communication about the change was limited to only those directly concerned with the team leaders which means the change implementers have got lack of frequent and adequate information on what was going on the change process. As indicated on the item 8, 35(37.3%) of respondents responded agreement, 45 (48.9%) respondents responded disagreement and 13 (13.8%) left undecided and the mean value (X=2.5) showed conflicts within the change were not properly looked for. As indicated on the item 9, 21(22.4%) of respondents responded agreement, 62 (66%) respondents responded disagreement and 11 (11.7%) left undecided and the mean value (X=2.56) showed conflicts in the change process were not properly and timely solved. On the other hand, Response of Item 10, 36(38.3%) respondents responded agreement whereas 34(36.2%) of the respondent responded disagreement and 24 (25.5%) left undecided. The mean value (X= 3.01) showed most of the respondents agreed on the direction of the implementation was influenced by resistance.

With regard to item 11, 26(27.7%) of respondents responded agreement whereas 48(51.1%) responded disagreement and 20 (21.3%) left undecided. The mean value (X= 3.5) showed most of the respondents didn’t agree on the change strategy, system design and processes were determined completely outside of corporation’s control which mean the strategy of change implementation was not imposed by the government that the corporation controlled the overall implementation change strategy, system design and processes.

On the same Table 4.5 item 12, 58(61.7%) of respondents were agree on contrary 13(13.8%) of the respondents responded disagreement and 23 (24.5%) left undecided. The mean value (X=3.50) which showed disagreement on the reason for change were not clear and there were different views of the goals of the implementation. Hence, the reason of the change undertaken by the corporation and the goal of implementation were clear. Based on the above Table, 56(59.6%) respondents responded on the item agreed on implementation leadership was unclear and change leaders were not utilized effectively on contrary 15(16%) responded disagreement and 23 (24.5%) left undecided.

The mean value (X=3.45) showed disagreement. Hence, in implementation process leaders were clear they know the reason why change is needed and they perform their jobs effectively according to the plan.

As indicated in item 14 Table 4.5, 12(12.8%) responded were agree contrary 64(68.1%) responded disagreement. The mean value (X=2.26) showed dis agreement. Hence, there was no incentive to motivate change implementers regarding the change process. On item 15 responses for key implementation personnel were chosen, put in charge and left unchanged,26(26.6%) responded agreement on the same item 32(34.1%) responded disagreement while 36(38.3) left undecided. The mean value (X=2.95) showed dis agreement. The aim of item 16 on the same Table was to check the respondents attitude whether ideas were openly communicated within the implementation process or not. Consequently, 27(28.7%) of non-manager employees responded agreement whereas 55 (58.5%) responded disagreement and 21 (22.3%) respondents left undecided. The mean value (X= 2.74) showed agreement ideas were openly communicated and encouraged within the implementation process.

The last item questioned to the respondent whether key implementation personnel were chosen, put in charge and changed every time. Based on the Table 4.5, 33(35.1%) respondents responded agreement. On contrary 34(36.2%) responded disagreement and 27 (28.7%) respondent left undecided. The mean value (X= 2.96) showed agreement on the item.

On the view of the researcher concerned the response given to the questionnaire filled by non-manager employees are presented and analyzed item by item that gives some sort of understanding with different literature coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach. Change process is likely to be time consuming and the management would have to consider the type of appropriate strategy or combination of strategies best suited to pursue the organization’s new direction, focus on the preparations for change through communications, the delivery of general change management awareness, and introduce the staffs through frequent training to understand their new roles and their contribution to success of the organization on bringing into the reality the changes in accordance with the agreed plans and the business objectives. Some of the respondent responded neutral/undecided.

As the researcher’s point of view they might not want to give their response on that item or they might understand in the other way beyond the questionnaire intention, so there might be further study on the implementation of strategic change plan of the corporation. Therefore, their response was not included in the conclusions and recommendations of the study.

T a b l e 4.6. Response on coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach (Answered by Leaders/managers)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note: - SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

According to Table 4.6 above the respondent’s response shows on coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach of leaders/managers staff level of agreement on the items of questions were analyzed and presented as follow.

As indicated on the same Table, 16(70.4%) the respondents responded agreement whereas 8(29.6%) showed their disagreement. The mean value (X=3.52). Therefore the majority of respondents replied as change leaders have sometimes a lack of consistency to the change process. On item 2 on the same Table 24 (88.9%) of the leaders/managers responded agreement whereas 3(10.1%) showed their disagreement. The mean value (X=3.89) showed training was inadequate some of the questions from the change implementers were leaving unanswered questions which were important to facilitate the change process and workers agreement towards the success of the change management activities.

Considering item 3 responses of 16(59.3%) of leaders/managers staff respondents responded agreement, on the other hand 11(38%) of respondents responded disagreement and 1 (1.1%) left undecided. The mean value is (X=3.22) showed most of the respondents’ agreement that the concerned staff members were take part in planning in the implementation of change management held in the corporation and the other half not. On the same Table item 4, 15(55.6%) of the respondents gave their response agreement whereas 12 (44.4%) disagreement. The mean value (X=3.19) showed that communications about the change plan were conducted timely and relevant. This showed that there was a gap on timely and relevant communications for about half of the leaders regarding to change process.

The respondent gave their response on the item 5, 9(33.3%) responded agreement on the other hand 18 (56.7%) showed their disagreement. The mean value is (X=2.85) which showed most of the respondent believed Change implementation on didn’t create resistance in the beginning. On the same Table 4.5 item 6, 21(77.8%) responded agreement on the other hand 2 (7.4%) showed their disagreement and 4 (14.8%) left undecided. The mean value is (X=3.78) which showed most of the respondent believed resistance in change implementation is managed poorly in the corporation.

The respondent gave their response on the item 7, 15(55.5%) of the respondents gave their response agreement whereas 11(40.7%) responded disagreement and 1 (3.7%) left undecided. The mean value (X=3.15) showed the almost half of the respondent’s agreement was communication about the change was limited to only those directly concerned with the team leaders which means the change implementers have got lack of frequent and adequate information on what was going on the change process. As indicated on the item 8, 18(66.7%) of respondents responded agreement, 9 (33.3%) respondents responded disagreement. The mean value (X=3.48) showed conflicts within the change were not properly looked for. As indicated on the item 9, 7(25.9%) of respondents responded agreement, 14 (51.9%) respondents responded disagreement and 6 (22.2%) left undecided and the mean value (X=2.74) showed conflicts in the change process were not properly and timely solved. On the other hand, response of item 10, 11(40.7%) respondents responded agreement whereas 15(55.5%) of the respondent responded disagreement and 1 (3.7%) left undecided. The mean value (X= 2.96) showed most of the respondents agreed on the direction of the implementation was not influenced by resistance.

With regard to item 11, 21(77.8%) of respondents responded agreement whereas 6(22.2%) responded disagreement. The mean value (X= 3.7) showed most of the respondents didn’t agree on the change strategy, system design and processes were determined completely outside of corporation’s control which mean the strategy of change implementation was not imposed by the government that the corporation controlled the overall implementation change strategy, system design and processes.

On the same Table 4.5 item 12, 7(25.9%) of respondents were agree on contrary 18(66.7%) of the respondents responded disagreement and 2 (7.4%) left undecided. The mean value (X=2.52) which showed disagreement on the reason for change were not clear and there were different views of the goals of the implementation. Hence, the reason of the change undertaken by the corporation and the goal of implementation were clear. Based on the above Table, 13(48.1%) respondents responded on the item agreed on implementation leadership was unclear and change leaders were not utilized effectively on contrary 10(37%) responded disagreement and 4 (14.8%) left undecided. The mean value (X=3.07) showed disagreement to the term. Hence, in implementation process half of the leaders were clear they know the reason why change is needed and they perform their jobs effectively according to the plan.

As indicated in item 14 Table 4.5, 19(70.4%) responded were agree contrary 8(29.6%) responded disagreement. The mean value (X=3.48) showed disagreement. Hence, there was some incentive to motivate change implementers regarding the change process. On item 15 responses for key implementation personnel were chosen, put in charge and left unchanged, 16(59.2%) responded agreement on the same item 5(18.5%) responded disagreement while 6(22.2) left undecided. The mean value (X=3.52) showed dis agreement. The aim of item 16 on the same Table was to check the respondents attitude whether ideas were openly communicated within the implementation process or not. Consequently, 19(70.2%) of non-manager employees responded agreement whereas 1 (3.7%) responded disagreement and 7 (25.9%) respondents left undecided. The mean value (X= 3.74) showed agreement ideas were openly communicated and encouraged within the implementation process.

The last item questioned to the respondent whether key implementation personnel were chosen, put in charge and changed every time. Based on the Table 4.5, 8(33.6%) respondents responded agreement. On contrary 14(51.9%) responded disagreement and 5 (18.5%) respondents left undecided. The mean value (X= 2.81) showed disagreement on the item.

On the view of the researcher concerned the response given to the questionnaire filled by non-manager employees are presented and analyzed item by item that gives some sort of understanding with different literature coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach. Change process is likely to be time consuming and the management would have to consider the type of appropriate strategy or combination of strategies best suited to pursue the organization’s new direction, focus on the preparations for change through communications, the delivery of general change management awareness, and introduce the staffs through frequent training to understand their new roles and their contribution to success of the organization on bringing into the reality the changes in accordance with the agreed plans and the business objectives. Some of the respondent responded neutral/undecided. As the researcher’s point of view, they might not want to give their response on that item or they might understand in the other way beyond the questionnaire intention, so there might be further study on the implementation of strategic change plan of the corporation.

Table 4.7:- Leaders’ responses regarding the practice of “Creating and Maintaining a Diversified Team”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note:- SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree Frq= Frequency

The table 4.7 above depicts respondent leaders’ self-rating about the extent to which they were effective in terms of “Creating and Maintaining a Diversified Team”. Four items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 11 (40.7%) and 2(3.7%) tended to agree and strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 3.07. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense of confidence about their effectiveness in terms of spending sufficient time in building team and couching. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nditem (about spending a lot of time to enhancing teamwork sprit) is also similar and the mean score is 3.29. In the cases of the 3rdand 4thitems, the respondents even tended to rate themselves high. The means scores about “facilitating collaboration and trust among each other” and “exerting effort and pressure to improve performance” were 3.0 and 3.63 respectively. The aggregate mean score also is close to 3.25. Therefore, it implies that the confidence level of the leaders about their effectiveness in creating and maintaining a diversified team is a little higher than medium. This implies that the leaders practiced a medium effort and faced challenges to create and maintain diversified team. Therefore, as leaders, self-assessment to perform this theme, was challenging. Regarding to employee perception see on the following table 4.8.

Table 4.8:- Employees’ opinion regarding the practice of “ Creating and Maintaining a Diversified Team ”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note: - SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, , U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.3 above depicts respondent employees’ opinion rating about the extent to which leaders were effective in terms of “Creating and Maintaining a Diversified Team”. Four items meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 24 (25.5%) and 4(4.3%) tended to agree and strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 2.66. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense about leader’s effectiveness in terms of spending sufficient time to team building and coaching. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd item (about spending a lot of time to enhancing teamwork sprit) is also similar and the mean score is 2.58. In the cases of the 3rd item (abut facilitating collaboration and trust among each other) it has been found 28(29.8%) tended to agree and 5(5.3%) tended to strongly agree, and 4thitems (exerting effort and pressure to improve performance) it has been found, 31(33%) tended to agree and 8(8.5%) tended to strongly agree. The means scores were 2.81 and 3.03 respectively. This implies respondents have a modest sense of confidence. The aggregate mean score also is close to 2.77. Therefore, it implies that the response rate of employees about leaders, effectiveness in creating and maintaining a diversified team is moderate. So regarding to “team building”, “enhancing teamwork sprit among members and department”, “creation of collaboration and trust among each other” and “improve employee performance” leaders should work to enhance their performance.

Table 4.9:- Leaders’ responses regarding the practice of “Inspiring others to Share the

Leader’s/Organizational Vision”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note:- SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, , U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.4 above depicts respondent leaders’ self-rating about the extent to which they were effective in terms of “Inspiring others to Share the Leader’s/ Organizational Vision”. Three items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 13 (48.1%) and 2(7.4%) tended to agree and strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 3.63. This implies that the respondents have a little lower than strong sense of confidence about their effectiveness in terms of create clear understand about organization vision, mission, and objectives. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nditem (about initiate others to engage in goal setting of the unit) is also similar and the mean score is 3.26. In the cases of the 3rd item, (about leading others with their plan for the future). It has been found that 13(48.1%) tended to agree and 11(40.7%) tended to strongly disagree. The mean score was 3.37. This implies that respondents have modest sense of confidence. The aggregate mean score is close to 3.42. Therefore, it implies that the confidence level of the leaders about their effectiveness in inspiring others to share the Leader’s/ Organizational Vision is around medium level. Therefore, as leaders self-assessment they perform good but needs to work more hardly on this theme, that means it was somehow challenging. Regarding to employee perception see on the following table 4.10.

Table 4.10:- Employees’ opinion regarding to the practice of “Inspiring Others to Share the

Leader’s/ Organizational Vision”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note: - SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.10 above depicts respondent employees’ opinion rating about the extent to which leaders were effective in terms of “Inspiring others to Share the Leader’s/ Organizational Vision”. Three items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that

58(617%) and 8(8.5%) tended to agree and strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 3.5. This implies that the respondents have moderate sense of confidence in terms of understanding about organization vision, mission, and objectives. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd item and 3rd (about “triggered to accomplish the corporation vision” and “motivated for engagement and success of corporation goal”) is also similar and the mean score is 3.26 and 3.14 respectively. The aggregate mean score was close to 3.30. Therefore, it implies that the response rate is medium. In this theme, the employees’ response rate is compatible with leaders’ response. This implies that employees’ perception and leaders’ self-assessment is similar, as per table 4.4 information the aggregated mean score was 3.42 which indicates that leaders believed about themselves, they perform this theme at medium level. In addition to that, employee perceptions on table 4.9 information the aggregated mean score was 3.30, which indicates that as employee perception, leaders have good practicing.

Therefore, regarding to “crating the corporation vision, mission, objectives”, “initiate others to engage in goal setting”, “leading others with their plan”. Therefore, the corporation leaders should work harder.

Table 4.11:- Leaders’ responses regarding the practice of “Facilitating Open and Clear

Communication among Coworkers”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note: - SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree and Frq = Frequency

The table 4.11 above depicts respondent leaders‟ self-rating about the extent to which they were effective in terms of “Facilitating Open and Clear Communication among Coworkers”. Four items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 16 (59.3%) and 1 (3.7%) tended to agree and strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 3.41. This implies that the respondents have high sense of confidence about their effectiveness in terms of communicating the corporation’s mission, vision, goal, and strategy to the subordinates. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd and 3rd items (“creating clear understanding on rules, regulations and policy of the corporation” and “communicating effectively with dignity all units in the corporation”) mean score is 3.63 and 3.52 respectively table 4.22. In the case 4thitem (“giving freedom to the subordinates to express their opinion”) was 3.52. The aggregate mean score also is close to 3.52. Therefore, it implies that the confidence level of the leaders about their effectiveness in creating and maintaining a diversified team is lower than strong and not much far than medium. Therefore, as leaders self-assessment they perform medium on this theme, that means it was challenging in some level. Regarding to employee perception will see on the following table 4.12.

Table 4.12:- Employees’ opinion regarding the practice of “Facilitating Open and Clear Communication among Coworkers”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note:- SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, , U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The Table 4.12 above depicts respondent employees’ opinion rating about the extent to which leaders were effective in terms of “Facilitating Open and Clear Communication among Coworkers”. Four items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 43 (45.7%) tended to agree 8(8.5%) tended to strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 2.79. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense about the effectiveness of leaders in terms of “communicated by leaders about the corporation’s mission, vision goal, and strategy”. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd item (about create clear understanding on rules, regulations and policy of the corporation) is also similar and the mean score is 2.4. In the cases of the 3rd and 4thitems (“communicating effectively with dignity all units in the corporation” and “giving freedom to the subordinates to express their opinion”) the respondents have modest sense. The means scores were 2.5 and 2.13 respectively. The aggregate mean score also is close to 2.45. Therefore, it implies that the confidence level employees about their leaders’ effectiveness in case of Facilitating open and clear communication among Coworkers is nearly moderate. In this theme, the employees’ response was not compatible with leaders’ response. This implies that employees’ perception and leaders’ self-assessment is not the same, as per table 4.11 information the aggregated mean score was 3.52 which indicates that leaders believed about themselves, they perform this theme strongly. Whereas employee perception on table 4.12 the aggregated mean score was 2.45, which indicates that as employee perception leaders perform moderately but much lower than the perception of the leaders which shows disagreement at some level. So regarding to “communicate employees’ about the corporation’s mission, vision goal, and strategy”, “create clear understanding on rules, regulations and policy of the corporation”, “communicating effectively and with dignity” and “giving freedom for subordinates to express their opinion” leaders should work to enhance their performance.

Table 4.13:- Leaders’ responses regarding the practice of “Empowering Incumbents to Take Action”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note:- SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, , U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.13 above depicts respondent leaders‟ self-rating about the extent to which they were effective in terms of “Empowering Incumbents to Take Action”. Five items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 15 (55.6%) and 1(3.7%) tended to agree and strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 3.22. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense of confidence about their effectiveness in terms of delegate supervisors with authority for subordinates. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd and 3rd item (about “Identify employee arrogances or grievance properly and take action timely” and “Delegate the right person at the right place”) mean score were 3.11 and 2.27 respectively. It implies that the respondents have modest sense. Similarly, in the case of the 4Th item 5Th item (abut Influenced by others party on decision making” and “distribute power for others as per their accountability”), the mean score was 3.37 and 3.15 respectively. This also implies that respondents have tended to modest sense of confidence. The aggregate mean score is close to 3.12. Therefore, the confidence level of the leaders about their effectiveness in Empowering Incumbents to Take Action is moderate. This implies that, as leaders’ self- assessment this theme is challenging. Regarding to employee perception will see on the following table 4.14.

Table 4.14:- Employees’ opinion regarding to the practice of “Empowering Incumbents to Take Action”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note:- SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, , U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.14 above depicts respondent employees‟ opinion rating about the extent to which leaders were effective in terms of “Empowering Incumbents to Take Action”. Five items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 42 (44.7%) and 4(4.3%) tended to agree and strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 3.09. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense of confidence about leader effectiveness in terms of delegate supervisors with authority for subordinates. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd and 3rd item (about “take action properly and timely” and “Delegate the right person at the right place”) in this case respondents have modest sense and the mean score is 2.67 and 2.59 respectively. The pattern of response in the case of the 4Th and 5Th item (abut Influenced by others party on decision making” and “distribute power for others as per their accountability”), the mean score were 3.21 and 2.4 respectively. This implies that the respondents’ rate tended modest sense. The aggregate mean score also is close to 2.86. Therefore, this implies that the effectiveness of Empowering Incumbents to Take Action is moderate. The outcome is similar with leaders self-rating response. This implies that employees’ perception and leaders’ self-assessment the same, as per the table 4.13 information the aggregated mean score was 3.12 which indicates that leaders believed about themselves, they perform this theme modestly. Whereas employee perception on table 4.14 the aggregated mean score was 2.86, which indicates that as employee perception leaders perform moderately but the perception level is lower than the leader’s perception. So, regarding to “delegation of supervisors and their authority”, “take action properly and timely for employee arrogances or grievance”, “delegation of the right person at the right place” and “distribution of power for others” leaders should work to enhance their performance.

Table 4.15:- Leaders’ responses regarding the practice of “Providing Inspiration to Others”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note:- SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, , U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.15 above depicts respondent leaders‟ self-rating about the extent to which they were effective in terms of “Providing Inspiration to Others”. Five items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 13 (48.1%) and 4(4.3%) tended to agree and strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 3.41. This implies that the respondents have medium sense of confidence about their effectiveness in terms of treating followers with respect. The pattern of response in the case of 2nd and 5Th item (“followers are satisfactory on existing policy” and “experience to give credit and reward for other performance”), the mean score was 2.7 and 2.96 respectively. This implies that the respondents had modest sense. The pattern of response in the case of 3rd and 4Th item (abut leadership skill and consider as a model for others and leading by “doing” rather than by “telling”) is also had the mean score is 3.48 and 2.67 respectively. This implies that the respondents have medium sense of confidence. The aggregate mean score also is close to 3.04.

Therefore, this implies that the confidence level of the leaders about their effectiveness in

Providing Inspiration to others is medium. Therefore, as leader’s self-assessment they perform moderate on this theme, that means it was challenging and more effort is needed to overcome the challenges. Regarding to employee perception will see on the following table 4.16.

Table 4.16:- Employees’ opinion regarding to the practice of “Providing Inspiration to Others ”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note: - SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.16 above depicts respondent employees‟ opinion rating about the extent to which leaders were effective in terms of “Providing Inspiration to Others”. Five items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 32(34%) tended to agree, 9(9.6%) tended to strongly agree with the first item. The mean score was also 3.19. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense of confidence about their leader effectiveness in terms of Leaders treat followers with respect. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd item (about satisfied on existing policy), it has been found that 16(17%) tended to agree, 3(3.2%) tended to strongly agree. The mean score was also 2.42. This implies that the respondents have a sense of confidence which was below medium level. The pattern of response in the cases of the, 3rd, 4Th and 5Th (Leaders, lead by “doing” rather than by “telling”, leadership skill consider as a model for others and give credit and reward for other performance) is also similar. The mean score is 2.82, 2.99 and 2.49 respectively. This implies that the respondents have modest sense confidence. The aggregate mean score also is close to 2.78. Therefore, the response of employees about leaders’ effectiveness in providing inspiration to others is moderate. Compared with leaders result it is compatible. This implies that employees’ perception and leaders’ self-assessment is almost the same, as per the table 4.15 information the aggregated mean score was 3.04 which indicates that leaders and employees have the same perception on this theme. Employee perception on table 4.16 the aggregated mean score was 2.78, which indicates that as employee perception leaders perform modestly. So regarding to “treating followers with respect”, “creation of followers satisfaction on existing policy” update leadership skill” and “give credit and reward for other performance” leaders should work to enhance their performance.

Table 4.17:- Leaders’ response regarding the practice of “Leading internal stakeholders and politics

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note:- SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, , U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.17 above depicts respondent leaders‟ self-rating about the extent to which they were effective in terms of “Leading internal stakeholders and politics”. Five items were meant

to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 11 (40.7%) and 4 (14.8%) tended to agree and strongly agree respectively with the first item. The mean score was also 3.15. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense of confidence about their effectiveness in terms of “experience to manage conflict timely with fire arbitration”. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd item, 3rd item and 4thitem (about “leading by giving freedom for others to express their opinion”, “developing good human relations with stakeholders” and “fulfilling social and all other responsibilities”), had the same mean score value which is 3.52. This implies that the respondents have a sense of medium themselves. Similarly, in the case of the 5Th item (“followers are satisfied on existing leadership style”), the mean score is 2.82. The aggregate mean score also is close to 3.31. Therefore, it implies that the confidence level of the leaders about their effectiveness in leading internal stakeholders and politics is medium. Therefore, as leaders self- assessment they perform good on this theme, but it was challenging and needs additional effort to advance. Regarding to employee perception will see on the following table 4.18.

Table 4.18:- Employees’ opinion regarding to the practice of “Leading internal stakeholders and politics”

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note:- SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, , U= undecided, A= agree, SA= strongly agree F rq= Frequency

The table 4.18 above depicts respondent employees‟ opinion rating about the extent to which leaders were effective in terms of “Leading internal stakeholders and politics”. Five items were meant to address this theme. Accordingly, it has been found that 22 (23.4%) tended to agree, 37(39.4%) tended to disagree, with the first item. The mean score was also 2.73. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense about their leader effectiveness in terms of “manage conflict timely with fire arbitration”. The pattern of response in the case of the 2nd item and 3rd (about “leading by giving freedom for others to express their opinion” and “developing good human relations with stakeholders”). The mean score is also 3.14 and 3.23 respectively. This implies that the respondents have a modest sense confidence about their leader effectiveness. In the cases of the, 4th and 5th (“fulfilling social and all other responsibilities” and “followers are satisfied on existing leadership style), the mean score is 3.19, and 2.43 respectively. The aggregate mean score also is close to 2.94. Therefore, the response of employees about leaders’ effectiveness in Leading internal stakeholders and politics is moderate. This implies that employees’ perception and leaders’ self-assessment is the same. As per the table 4.12 information, the aggregated mean score was 3.31, which indicates that leaders believed about themselves they perform moderate on this theme. Whereas employee perception on table 4.13 the aggregated mean score was 2.94, which indicates that as employee perception leaders perform modestly. So regarding to the theme five items “manage conflict timely with fire arbitration”, “giving freedom for others”, “developing good human relations with stakeholders”, “fulfilling social and all other responsibilities” and “implementation of proper leadership style” leaders should work to enhance their performance.

4.4. Interview Analyses and Interpretation

To support the findings obtained from the survey questionnaire the researcher interviewed three top-level leaders. Accordingly, the result of the interview data presented here under in the form of narrations. When the interview time the researcher were meet with three leaders and raised four equations around the leadership practice the question s and responses presented on the following t able.

Table 4.19:- I n t e r v i e w Q u e stio n s and Response

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations that the researcher found the challenges of change leadership adopted in Ethiopian Sugar Corporation.

5.1. Summary of findings

From the study it is revealed that Ethiopian Sugar Corporation vision to overcome the existing shortcomings in its performance in order to achieve corporate goal and respond to the ever-changing societal needs and global standards. The researcher tried to suggest alternative solutions to the finding problems which were raised basic questions in the first chapter of this paper. The basic questions were:

1. What does the company’s change leadership practice look like?
2. What are the main challenges faced by the company in the change leadership process and at which change leadership stage the management face most challenges?
3. What are the measures taken by the management to tackle challenges faced in change initiative implementation?
4. How the corporation staffs/community perceives the change strategy, the process and implementation as their interest of the change management?
5. How the new change management model is compatible and effective to the organization structure and has it helped the organization to achieve the desired goals?

To find out responses from non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs of the above basic questions of the study, a descriptive case study method was employed. One hundred twenty-one non-manager employees and leader/manager staff participants were responded on the questionnaires distributed to find the relevant information. Finally, on the basis of analysis and interpretation of the data gathered through all the instruments.

Regarding integrate change leadership activities with respect to change plan in the Corporation 89.74% respondent of non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs were responded the corporation developed a set of implementable change plan targeted on immediate problem successful with respect to the target and all staffs were familiarized the concepts of change through training. Training and communication was not continuously conducted that leads some of the staffs forgot the implementation program to be slow down the momentum of the initial consensus.

Concerning coordinating change with respect to culture, system and change process approach

62% of the non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs were responded the change affecting their working & other administrative activities negatively that means only 42% of the respondent believed the working culture is improved staffs build the mutual interest and love their job and organization.

Regarding the management of change process 37% of the non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs were responded the corporation was in a state of slow incremental change where as 56% of the respondents were relied on either the change was evolved through long periods of stability with fundamental change or constantly undergoing small changes or didn’t brought any change at all. This showed most of the respondents were confused the status of the change progress. Hence, the change leadership should be evaluated and revised and make any necessary amendments through discussing of the staff and the stakeholders of the corporation.

Considering adequate and timely resolution of conflict 62.81% of the respondents were disagreed. On this regard the majority of the staffs didn’t get solution for conflicts on time and adequately.

Considering communication about the change is limited to only those directly concerned with the team leaders 68.59% of the respondents of staffs’ were agreed. On this regard the majority of the staffs didn’t get information timely and adequately.

It was identified by the study that 60.33% of the non-manager employees and leader/manager staffs responded agreement on the direction of the change implementation plan in the corporation was influenced by resistance. The cause of resistance to change management has various reasons and the degree of resistance also high or low. It should be identified the cause and the degree of affecting the working activities and take necessary majors appropriately.

The study shows 59.51% respondents were disagree and strongly disagree to the question incentives were arranged with the implementation to aid the process of change. Only 25.62% respondents were agree for proper incentive and credit availability. From this finding the researcher draw the practice in regard to incentive and recognition is not good and should be improved well.

It was identified by the study, from interview questions related to evaluation and measurement of a change leadership with respect to impacts and results from change, measuring the outcome of the activities relay only on materials without considering whether the problem issue was in the burning point or not. It was given by the Ethiopian Sugar Corporation for all projects/factories assuming the way of problem-solving fit for all. The corporation itself evaluate the whole activity depending on relevancy and measure the progress.

Measuring of activities was done by report that shows physical observation need to every department if that report is right or not; this kind of evaluation is burdensome and lead to negligence and beyond control the issues which need immediate supervision.

As the interview evidence questions related to perception with respect to process and implementation of change management, sense of ownership, national and individual interest was going down time to time and passive relationships of leaders towards the worker was diminished. So, refreshment training and further change implementation result assessment should be taken to reinstate reinforcement mechanism and should be prepared for those who didn’t achieved and those who achieved accordingly.

On this point document review evidence on implementation of change management, resistance at the begging of change implementation and it was not managed well. The plan of departments activities is prepared by the department head, discussion was conducted with the staff in the department and submitted to executive officer accordingly, evaluation was conducted based on the plan through discussion on the report. The plan didn’t contain how change is managed when deviation would appeared. Resistance can have different reasons and different degree that need to identify and discussed with individuals or group and solve appropriately.

The current often challenges of the leadership practice are lack of trained, experienced and competent human resource, employee resistant to change, frequent turnover of employees, lack of incentives for employees, slow manner decision making, increasing rate of rental buildings shortage of car are major challenges for Corporation leaders. Finally they believe employee satisfaction depend up on their work behavior. However, many of stakeholders are satisfied with the Corporation leadership practice.

5.2. Conclusions

Based on the analysis and findings of the study the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Sense of ownership, motivation and group interest was going down time to time and passive relationships of leaders towards the worker was increased and individual interest spread unexpectedly.
2. Due to change implementation plan working culture is not improved as expected.
3. Change evaluation system was mostly relay on paper report. Practices of sharing ideas and experiences would continue and improved specially done by highly professionals and more experienced staffs.
4. Change management tools was not consistently used to implement change management systematically. Choosing different implementation of change management by itself didn’t a solution to overcome the organization problem. As the researchers intention, before the change implementation plan was prepared; there must be a need assessment and identified the problem chose the change leadership strategy and aware the worker how the problem is dangerous to the organization and come to agreement almost all the workers, then, through discussion prepare implementation plan.
5. The result of the study concluded that transactional, democratic, and bureaucratic leadership styles were practiced in the Corporation. As the study depicted, the dominantly practiced leadership style was transactional leadership followed by the bureaucratic one.
6. Based on the gathered information and revealed results of the study was observed that employee’s satisfaction level was moderate.
7. Based on the gathered information and results of the study it was observed that there was relationship or link between the perceived leadership style and employees’ satisfaction. Regarding this transactional leadership style positively affected employees’ satisfaction, while bureaucratic leadership style affected negatively.
8. As can be seen in the analyses and findings the corporate leaders faced the following major challenges that are:- limitation of giving credit and reward for others performance, lack of trained, experienced and competent human resource, employee resistance to change and frequent turnover, lack of proper and timely communication of the right information, lack of assigning the right person at the right place, delegation of supervisors with authority for subordinate and distribute power for others as per their accountability, unfulfilled social and other responsibilities, leading others with their plan for the future and slow manner of decision making and practice.

5.3. Recommendations

Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations were made to be seen critically; to alleviate the challenges and practices of the corporation change leadership strategic plan implementation.

1. Before implementation of change the corporation must conduct need assessment and then creation of awareness about the importance of change and why change is needed should be answered came to agreement with the workers and stakeholders.
2. If agreement come to being, Strategic change leadership plan is prepared, training should be conducted, communicate again and again until to bring the idea for all the workers of the corporation.
3. The corporation must set different mechanisms to resolve problems including resistance identifying and minimizing tools, evaluation tools and time of implementation to make the change institutionalize.
4. Focus on behavioral change of individual as well as group, set method of coordinating system and process of activities and conduct feedback on the result. Share ideas and results made in one department to make for all.
5. The leaders of the corporation should practice both task oriented and people-oriented leadership styles in addition to transactional type of leadership.

People-oriented leadership; in a style leader totally focused on organizing, supporting, and developing the people in their teams. In addition, it tends to encourage good teamwork and creative collaboration. So, based on findings participative leadership practice recommended for corporation leaders and followers’ relationship.

6. It is obvious that, human skill & competency is one of the major resources for a company to achieve its objectives. But is difficult to achieve the objectives without core recourses competencies or ideal. Therefore, the Corporation leaders should exert their effort to exploit human competency through: -
- Put in the right person at the right place: - the corporation should delegate employees based on educational, experience back ground for promotion as well as for engagement.
- Give appropriate reward, recognition and promotion for employees’ satisfaction, motivation and better efficiency. The leader can give rewards, recognition and promotion to those have completed the work it leads employees for better performance and this is punishment for who does not complete the work as per the requirement of job. This important to enhance the implementation capacity of the Corporation and then the leadership and employees are able to have good performance with smooth interaction for achievements of the entire objective of the corporation and to run for Excellency.
- Furthermore, HR department should do skill inventory to find the gap and works to improve their skill through training, guiding, supporting and follow up.

7. Regarding to the problem of slow manner decision making the corporation should be give solution on using latest technology and distributing diction making authority for every leaders, managers and heads as per their authority and responsibility.
8. Leaders can play a major role in developing and improving employees’ engagement. It is suggested that, the leaders of the corporation should pay more attention to delegation of authority, participating in goal setting.
9. The Leaders should work to fulfil social and other responsibilities. These could be achieved with the help of effective, efficient and accountable leadership.
10. The leaders should give Attention to review the organization’s policies and procedures in the areas delegation of authority on decision making and the overall working system.
11. Finally, the Ethiopian Sugar Corporation should conduct need assessment for every project/factory that might not have the same problem, the strategy and approaches may differ from project/factory to project/factory. The controlling and follow up mechanisms also different in each case, so fit for all is not suited to all colleges under it.

REFERENCES

Alsher, P. (2017). 7 Best Practices for Communicating During Change. IMA. http://www.imaworldwide.com/blog/7-best-practices-for-communicating-during-change.

Anderson, D. and Ackerman Anderson, L. (2010). Beyond Change Management: How to achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Aon Hewitt (2013). Managing Employee Engagement During Times of Change. http://www.aon.com/attachments/human-capital-consulting/2013 Managing_Engagement _ During _Times_of_Change_White_Paper.

Bass, B. and Riggio R. (2006). Transformational Leadership. 2nd Edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bennis, W. (2009). On Becoming a Leader. 3rd edition. New York: Basic Books. Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row

Connelly, M. (2016). The Kurt Lewin Change Management Model. Change Management Coach. http://www.change-management-coach.com/kurt_lewin.html.

Dunklin, H. (2013). What Is Change Leadership? Richardson Blog. http://blogs.richardson.com/ 2013/02/04/what-is-change-leadership.

Eagle Hill (2014). Eagle Hill Consulting: Eagle Hill National Workplace Change Management Survey. http://eaglehillconsulting.com/wp-content/up- loads/2017/03/Eagle-Hill-Consulting Change Is Change-White-Paper.pdf.

Fullan M. (2011). Change Leader: Learning to Do What Matters Most. (n.p.): Jossey-Bass.

Gill, R. (2003). Change management-- or change leadership?. Journal of Change Management 3 (4), 307-318.

Gordon, J. (2017). The Power of Positive Leadership: How and Why Positive Leaders Transform Teams and Organizations and Change the World. New Jersey: Wiley.

Heathfield, S. (2016). Change Management Lessons About Employee Involvement. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/change-management-lessons-about-employee-involvement-1917806. Accessed on 19 November 2017.

Heathfield, S. (2017a). Building Support for Effective Change Management. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/build-support-for-effective-change-man- agement-1917807.

Heathfield, S. (2017b). Tips for the Leader about Employee Motivation. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/building-employee-motivation-morale-1918764. Accessed on 27 November 2017.

Heathfield, S. (2017c). Learn Daily Leadership Behaviors That Inspire Motivation. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/leadership-inspires-motivation-1918765.

Hill, S., Seo, M., Kang, J. and Taylor, S. (2012). Building Employee Commitment to Change Across Organizational Levels: The Influence of Hierarchical Distance and Direct Managers' Transformational Leadership. Organization Science, 23(3), pp. 758-777.

Holten, A. and Brenner O. (2013). Leadership style and the process of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 36 (1), 2-16.

Hooper, A. and Potter, J. (2000). Intelligent Leadership. London: Random House. Isaacs, William 1999. Dialogic Leadership. The Systems Thinker 10 (1), 2-5.

Kakkar, H. and Sivanathan N. (2017). Why We Prefer Dominant Leaders in Uncertain Times. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/08/why-we-prefer-dominant-leaders-in-uncertain times.

Kellerman, B. (2007). What Every Leader Needs to Know About Followers. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2007/12/what-every-leader-needs-to- know-about-followers.

Kotter International (2011). Change Management vs. Change Leadership – What’s the Difference? Forbes.https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2011/07/12/change-management-vs- change-leadership-whats-the-difference/#ed4e48d4cc6b.

Kotter International (2017). John Kotter bio. https://www.kotterinternational.com/ team / john-kotter/ .

Kotter, J. (2014). Accelerate: Building Strategic Agility for a Faster-Moving World. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kotter, J. and Cohen D. S. (2002). The Heart of Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

LeStage, G. (2015). How Have Kotter’s Eight Steps for Change Changed?. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2015/03/05/how-have-kotters-eight- steps-for-change-changed/#4576bc83c7b6.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method reality in social science; equilibrium and social change. Human Relations 1 (1), 5-41.

Lewis, L. (2011). Organizational Change: Creating Change Through Strategic

Communication. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Löfgren, K. (2013). Qualitative analysis of interview data: A step-by-step guide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRL4PF2u9XA.

Mack, S. Being Proactive Vs. Reactive. Chron. http://smallbusi- ness.chron.com/being-proactive-vs-reactive-57503.html.

Medintz, S. (2011). The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books.. http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/arti- cle/ 0,28804,2086680 _2086683 _2087679, 00.html.

Miller, B. (2015). When Your Business Navigates Change, Involve Your Employ- ees in the Process Early. Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/arti- cle/242790.

MindTools (2017). Lewin’s Change Management Model: Understanding the Three Stages of Change. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_94.htm.

Mirola, T. (2016). Planning and Implementing Marketing Research. Saimaa University of Applied Sciences. Faculty of Business Administration. Lecture notes.

Moran, G. 2014. 5 Ways Being A Good Follower Makes You A Better Leader. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/3029840/5-ways-being-a-good- follower-makes-you-a-better-leader.

Netland, T. (2013). The World Class Manufacturing programme at Chrysler, Fiat & Go. Better Operations. http://better-operations.com/2013/05/22/world-class- manufacturing-at-chrysler-and-fiat/.

Pathak, H. (2017). Organizational Change. Safari. https://www.safaribook- sonline.com /library/view/organizational change/9789332510487/xhtml/ch3.3.3.xhtml.

Phillips, A. (2014). How to Lead Your Team Through Change. Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235832.

Quinn, R. W. and Quinn, R. E. (2016). Change Management and Leadership Development Have to Mesh. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/01/change-management-and-leadership-development-have-to-mesh.

Ragan’s PR Daily (2012). Analyst: JCPenney rebranding ‘worse than we thought’ https://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Analyst_JCPenney_rebranding_worse_than_we_thought_11943.aspx.

Rick, T. (2015). Organizational change management pitfalls and mistakes. Torbenrick.eu. https://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/change-management/infographic-organizational-change-management-pitfalls/.

Rick, T. (2016). Barriers to organizational change. Torbenrick.eu https://www.tor- benrick.eu/blog/change-management/barriers-to-organizational-change/.

Saez, A. (2017). What Are the Causes of Change in an Organization? Bizfluent. https://bizfluent.com/info-8230942-causes-change-organization.html.

Sutevski, D. n.d. 32 Drivers of Organizational Change. http://www.entrepreneur- shipinabox.com/6001/32-drivers-of-organizational-change/.

Swaim, R. W. (2011). Nine Reasons Organizations Need to Change. PEX: Process Excellence Network. https://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/organizational-change/columns/why-organizations change and what they can change.

Worley, C. G. and Lawler, E. (2006). Winning Support for Organizational Change: Designing Employee Reward Systems That Keep on Working. Ivey Business Journal. https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/winning-support-for-organi- zational-change-designing-employee-reward-systems-that-keep-on-working/.

Zimmermann, N. (2011). Dynamics of Drivers of Organizational Change. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.

APPENDIX I

Leadstar College of Management and Leadership

School of Graduate Studies

M a s ter of Art in Leadership (MAL)

Dear sir/madam

Q u estionnaire to be filled by Managers/Leaders

I am a student at Leadstar College of Management and Leadership pursuing studies in Masters of Art in Leadership program. The purpose of the questionnaire is to assess the practices and challenges of change leadership in Ethiopian Sugar Corporation. The study is used solely for academic purpose, i.e. it is carried out as a partial requirement for the degree of master of art in leadership (MAL) at Leadstar College of Management and Leadership. The information you give here shall not be identified by your name by any means; hence its confidentiality is kept with due care. The completion of this questionnaire is only on voluntarily basis, and the fact that you filled-in the form implies that you reflected your consent. To this end, you are kindly requested to give your genuine opinions. The questionnaire consists of two parts.

Instructions to be followed are indicated in each part.

Thank you very much for your time and support.

Wubante Alehegn

P AR T I: Demographic Information

General Instructions

Please indicate your choice by putting the symbol mark (√) where you think is appropriate in the boxes provided to each preference.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Questioners to be filled by Leaders/Managers

P AR T II: change Assessment Questions

2.1. Questions related to change leadership activities with respect to change plan

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.2. Questions related to leading change with respect to culture, systems and change process approaches

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

P AR T III: Leader’s opinion on the implementation

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

P AR T IV: challenges of Leaders' Practice.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

APPENDIX II

Leadstar College of Management and Leadership

School of Graduate Studies

M a s ter of Art in Leadership (MAL)

Dear sir/madam

Q u estionnaire to be filled by Non-Manager Employees

I am a student at Leadstar College of Management and Leadership pursuing studies in Masters of Art in Leadership program. The purpose of the questionnaire is to assess the practices and challenges of change leadership in Ethiopian Sugar Corporation. The study is used solely for academic purpose, i.e. it is carried out as a partial requirement for the degree of master of art in leadership (MAL) at Leadstar College of Management and Leadership. The information you give here shall not be identified by your name by any means; hence its confidentiality is kept with due care. The completion of this questionnaire is only on voluntarily basis, and the fact that you filled-in the form implies that you reflected your consent. To this end, you are kindly requested to give your genuine opinions. The questionnaire consists of two parts.

Instructions to be followed are indicated in each part.

Thank you very much for your time and support.

Wubante Alehegn

P AR T I: Demographic Information

General instructions

Please indicate your choice by putting the symbol mark (√) where you think is appropriate in the boxes provided to each preference.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Questioners to be filled by Non-Manager Employees

P AR T II: change Assessment Questions

2.1. Questions related to integrate change leadership activities with respect to change plan

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.2. Questions related to leading change with respect to culture, systems and change process approaches

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

P AR T III: Employees’ opinion on the implementation of the change process .

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

P AR T IV: Employees’ opinion on leaders practice .

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

APPENDIX III

Interview questions for both Managers and Non-Managers

1.1. Interview questions related to evaluate and measure a change management with respect impacts and results from change

1. When did you first hear about this change and what was your first reaction?
2. What steps were taken in your Corporation to introduce this change?
3. Did the change evaluated periodically?
4. Who did the activities of the evaluation?
5 . In your evaluation how much the target was successful?
6. What kinds of tools used to measure the change performance?
7. How does current performance compare to other organizations?

1.2. Interview questions related to perception with respect to process and implementation of change leadership
1 . Did the change contribute to the working and administrative process?
2. Were there any difficulties in adopting this change?
3. What kinds of support did you receive from your Corporation in the process? Do you think this support was enough?
4. What benefits do you think this change has brought for the corporate communities?
5. What are some of the challenges for corporate communities in the new system?
6 . What was the reaction when you heard the change strategy?
7. Did the Corporation change leaders face passive relationship with the staff?
8 . What can be done now to make this change work in a better way?
9. Can you suggest what approach, systems and processes to maximizing contributions of the corporate community?
10. Are you still interested in this change effect?
11. Any other comments in relating this initiative that you would like to add?
12. Can you mention the advantages and the problems you face with in the change implementation?
13. Is there enough support from key stakeholders?
14. What lesson learned when you get through?

[...]