Jeffry Woods_The Implementation of Change

THE LEADERSHIP IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGE IN ORGANIZATIONS
WITH STRONG SOCIAL CULTURES
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Sarasota
College of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Jeffry Clayton Woods
March, 2014

ii
Copyright © 2014
All rights reserved

iii
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Doctor of Education
by
Argosy University
March, 2014
Dissertation Committee Approval:
Robert Rabidoux, DBA, Chair Date
Pender Noriega, DBA, Member Kathleen Cornett, PhD, Program Chair

iv
Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Doctor of Education
by
Argosy University
March, 2014
Robert Rabidoux , DBA
Pender Noriega, DBA
Department: College of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences

v
ABSTRACT
Leaders often face a multitude of challenges preventing the successful implementation of
change, particularly in organizations with strong embedded social cultures. The purpose
of this qualitative study was to obtain insight as to the activities or methods used by
leaders of organizations with strong embedded social cultures to implement needed
change. The researcher interviewed 7 leaders who were employed at various learning
institutions, christian based organizations, law enforcement and athletic organizations.
What was found were 8 common themes leaders utilized to influence change within their
respective organizations. The most common theme indentified was the importance of
building employee relationships based on foundations of trust, which tended to lower
barriers of resistance, allowing leaders to successfully implement change. The ability for
leaders to utilize transformational leadership skills to implement organizational change
increased the likelihood change would be accepted and implemented by constituents.
From the data, the researcher concludes, in utilizing transformational leadership skills,
leaders are able to inspire employee commitment, increasing the successful
implementation of change in organizations with strong social cultures. Future studies
should include triangulating and validating the 8 indentified themes utilizing a qualitative
study.
Keywords: transformational leadership, trust, employee commitment

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express sincere gratitude to committee members,
Dr. Robert Rabidoux and Dr. Pender Noriega, for their invaluable support and guidance
in the planning and implementation of this research project. The deepest appreciation is
further offered to the individual participants in this study who made it all possible. Void
of their contributions of time and resources, this study would not have been possible and
for that I am forever humbled and grateful.

vii
DEDICATION
First and foremost, I give God all the Glory and Honor for sustaining me through this
process. I also dedicate this achievement to my wife and best friend, Racquel, for her
love, patience, and unwavering support. In addition, this achievement is dedicated to my
children, Laci and Clayton, in which I pray I have led by example, demonstrating with
commitment, you can achieve seemingly, insurmountable dreams. Most important, I
dedicate this achievement to my Mother, Charlotte Burwell, for without her constant
praise and motivation I would have never made it this far. She gave me the “courage to
change the things I can.” Furthermore, I dedicate this to the influential men in my life,
my four fathers, Parnell Woods, Lawrence Burwell, my high school coach, Richard Roy,
and my college coach, John Copeland, my brother-in-law David Coleman, David
Hampton, and my good friend Ed Wiley who “lifted me up.” I pray I made you all proud
and your time spent on me was not wasted nor taken for granted. And lastly, my siblings
who know me best, B.K., Brenda, and Parnell, thank you as well for your support over
the years! I love you all more than words could ever express . . . and you all know who
my favorite is . . . ALL OF YOU!

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1
The Problem ........................................................................................................................2
Organizational Change ..................................................................................................2
Organizational Culture ..................................................................................................3
Impact of Change...........................................................................................................5
Problem Background...........................................................................................................7
Purpose of Study................................................................................................................11
Research Question.............................................................................................................17
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ...................................................................17
Assumptions ................................................................................................................17
Limitations and Delimitations .....................................................................................17
Definitions .........................................................................................................................18
Significance of the Study...................................................................................................19
Organization of the Remainder of the Study.....................................................................20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................22
Transformational Leadership and Change Efforts.............................................................24
Barriers to Implementing Change......................................................................................31
Implementing Change in Institutions of Learning.......................................................33
Resistance to change..............................................................................................34
Successfully implementing change in the school system......................................38
Implementing Change in Christian Based Organizations............................................39
Implementing Change in Law Enforcement Organizations ........................................40
Implementing Change in Athletic Organizations........................................................45
Individual Stakeholders...............................................................................................48
Organizational Learning..............................................................................................50
Organizational Silence.................................................................................................52
Conflict........................................................................................................................53
Leadership Strategies for Implementing Change ..............................................................56
Transformational Leadership.......................................................................................57
Values Driven Culture.................................................................................................58
Employee Commitment and Change...........................................................................60
Employee Trust and Change........................................................................................61
Sustaining Change.............................................................................................................64
Summary............................................................................................................................66
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY..........................................................................68
Research Concept and Design...........................................................................................69
Research Method Appropriateness..............................................................................72
Sampling Strategy and Participant Selection...............................................................73
Instrumentation............................................................................................................74
Methodological Assumptions and Limitations............................................................76
Procedures ...................................................................................................................77

ix
Informed Consent and Ethical Consideration..............................................................78
Validity and Reliability ...............................................................................................79
Data Processing and Analysis............................................................................................79
Data Collection............................................................................................................80
Data Analysis...............................................................................................................81
Thematic Analysis.......................................................................................................84
Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................87
Summary............................................................................................................................88
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS.........................................................................................89
Restatement of the Purpose ...............................................................................................89
Data Collection..................................................................................................................90
Participant Demographics..................................................................................................92
Data Analysis Results........................................................................................................93
Question 1....................................................................................................................93
Question 2....................................................................................................................94
Question 3....................................................................................................................95
Question 4....................................................................................................................95
Question 5....................................................................................................................96
Question 6....................................................................................................................96
Question 7....................................................................................................................97
Significant Findings...........................................................................................................97
Relationships ...............................................................................................................97
Trust.......................................................................................................................98
Loyalty...................................................................................................................98
Integrity .................................................................................................................98
Culture .........................................................................................................................99
Commitment toward change..................................................................................99
Lack of commitment toward change ...................................................................100
Organizational structure ......................................................................................100
Respect of the culture ..........................................................................................101
Collaboration .......................................................................................................101
Cohesive culture ..................................................................................................102
Communication .........................................................................................................102
Vision/Purpose.....................................................................................................103
Open communication...........................................................................................103
Engagement .........................................................................................................104
Fear and Consequences .............................................................................................105
Consequences ......................................................................................................105
Reduce levels of fear ...........................................................................................106
Data............................................................................................................................107
Accountability .....................................................................................................108
Urgency .....................................................................................................................108
Strategic plans......................................................................................................109
Gradual change and small wins...........................................................................110
Modeling Behaviors ..................................................................................................111
High standards.....................................................................................................112

x
Positivity..............................................................................................................112
Professionalism....................................................................................................113
Christian ethics ....................................................................................................113
Evaluation and Feedback...........................................................................................114
Recognition and appreciation..............................................................................115
Chapter Conclusion .........................................................................................................116
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....117
Summary..........................................................................................................................117
Implications for Practice..................................................................................................118
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................................................122
REFERENCES................................................................................................................125
REFERENCES................................................................................................................125
Weisbord, M. R. (1987). Productive workplaces: Organizing and managing for dignity,
meaning, and community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ..........................................133
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................134
A. Interview Consent Form............................................................................................135
B. Interview Questions...................................................................................................137

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Implementing change in organizations that have strong social cultures can be very
challenging for leaders, particularly for those who fail to earn the trust and commitment
of employees. Organizational culture consists of “many intangible phenomena, such as
values, beliefs, assumptions, perceptions, behavioral norms, artifacts, and patterns of
behavior” (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2011, p. 338). Common beliefs shared by members of
an organization often influence patterns of behavior, which then shape social culture.
Blau and Scott (2003) suggested there are many:
Social conditions that influence the conduct of people . . . Divided into two main
types, which constitute the basic aspects of social organizations: 1) The structure
of social relations in a group or larger collectivity of people and 2) The shared
beliefs and orientations that unite the members of the collectivity and guide their
conduct. (p. 206)
Complex structures and complex cultures are characteristic of most societies and
organizations (Blau & Scott, 2003). Cultural relationships are fostered and norms and
behaviors are then created that often govern organizations. These norms and behaviors
often become the culture of the organization and influence the level of employee
commitment needed to achieve organizational objectives. Blau and Scott supported this
claim and suggested:
As people conform more or less closely to the expectations of their fellows . . .
their status in further turn affects their inclination to adhere to social norms and
their chances to achieve valued objectives, their patterns of behavior become
socially organized. (p. 207)
Although the achievement of bottom line objectives is important for leaders, those who
are able to foster relationships with employees based on a foundation of trust often reduce
levels of resistance, thereby facilitating current and future organizational growth (Kotter
& Cohen, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Inspiring employees on a daily basis helps

2
create and strengthen organizational cultures that are better equipped to manage large-
scale change (Daft, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2007). In addition, Kotter and Cohen (2002)
cited Jack Welch, a business executive who became the chairman and CEO of General
Electric stated, “you’ve got to talk about change every second of the day” (p. 14); though
this may prove difficult, if it has worked leaders must take note. In order to successfully
navigate change, leaders must develop forward looking skills to gain a sense of direction
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Furthermore, when leaders know where they are going and
have earned the trust of their employees, they “expect others to willingly join them on the
journey” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 33). However, what has worked for one
organization does not guarantee success for another organization that utilizes the same
approach to implementing change (Shafritz et al., 2011). Successfully implementing
organizational change should be a team effort and when “individual leaders throughout
the organization are involved in the daily change efforts; they have a powerful
cumulative effect” (Shafritz et al., 2011, p. 459). That cumulative effort can lead to
“economic performance” (Shafritz et al., 2011, p. 351) that can be correlated with certain
types of culture (Martin, 2006).
The Problem
Organizational Change
Organizational change is inevitable and pervasive and leaders attempting to
implement change within organizations with strong social cultures often face resistance
(Elrod & Tippett, 2002). Shafritz et al. (2011) stated, “organizational culture can be a
formidable barrier to effecting organizational change” (p. 339). For the purpose of
discussing change in this study, the researcher viewed change similarly to Deutsch,

3
Coleman, and Marcus (2006), who described change as a phenomenon “affecting
individuals and groups within a social context” (p. 437). Resistance to change can
manifest in many ways. Considering social cultures are often complex and influential,
successful leaders must utilize the power of culture to reinforce change and transform
organizations (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). In this context, organizational change can serve
as a catalyst for organizational growth.
Organizational Culture
The social structure or culture of the organization can dictate the acceptance or
opposition of change. Managers who believe culture can be managed often express the
desire to change employee behaviors as well as newly formed employee norms. This can
be problematic as managers may spend valuable resources trying to change employee
behaviors versus implementing strategies which inspire employee motivation and
commitment. Ultimately, new groups often foster new norms that can result in the
fabrication of new cultures (Shafritz et al., 2011). New norms can be seen as a threat and
an attack on tradition, particularly when old norms are embedded in the organizational
cultures or structures (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Hatch (2006) referred to the term
structure as the “relationships among the parts of an organized whole” (p. 101). In
addition, Hatch suggested organizational theorists have identified two categories of
structure within organizations: physical and social structure. Physical structure refers to
the “physical elements of an organization” while social structure refers to the
“relationships among people” (Hatch, 2006, p. 101), both of which can influence culture.
For the purpose of this study, the researcher posited the ability to effectively implement
large-scale change is in direct correlation with the quality of the relationships between

4
leaders and employees. As relationships between leaders and employees become
mutually beneficial, organizational culture is positively impacted. Hatch suggested
“leaders have tremendous influence within organizations, but their ability to effectively
mobilize this influence depends upon their knowledge of, and relationships with, the
culture and their openness to and respect for the interpretive acts of others” (p. 212).
However, when change is handled in an unproductive manner, the organization can
experience cultural challenges in areas such as employee morale and commitment,
grievances, high turnover rates, low efficiency levels, attainment of organizational goals,
and most importantly the inability to change employee behavior (Elrod & Tippett, 2002;
Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Martin (2006) suggested researchers and cultural observers are
keenly interested in understanding the cultural challenges that can affect organizational
performance. Specifically, Martin suggested researchers should aim to develop an in-
depth understanding “of the patters of meanings that link these manifestations together,
sometimes in harmony, sometimes in bitter conflicts between groups, and sometimes in
webs of ambiguity, paradox, and contradiction” (p. 361).
To develop a perspective on the use of culture with regard to this study, the
following definitions of organizational culture were used to support the discussion of
culture (Shafritz et al., 2011, p. 364).
• “Culture is a set of important understandings (often unstated) that members of
a community share in common” (Sathe, 1985, p. 6).
• “Culture is a set of understandings or meanings shared by a group of people.
The meanings are largely tacit among the members, are clearly relevant to a
particular group, and are distinctive to the group” (Louis, 1985, p. 74).

5
• “Culture is a pattern of shared beliefs and values that give members of an
institution meaning, and provide them with the rules for behavior in their
organization” (Davis, 1984, p. 1).
• “A standard definition of culture would include the system of values, symbols,
and shared meanings of a group including the embodiment of these values,
symbols, and meanings into materialized objects and ritual practices”
(Sergiovanni & Corbally, 1984, p. viii).
• “In a particular situation the set of meanings that evolves gives a group its
own ethos, or distinctive character, which is expressed in patterns of belief
(ideology), activity (norms and rituals), language and other symbolic forms
through which organization members both create and sustain their view of the
world and image of themselves in the world” (Smircich, 1983, p. 56).
Impact of Change
Developing methods to fully understand the impact of change on employees as well as on
organizational culture may prove to be beneficial for leaders. Shafritz et al. (2011)
suggested that in order for leaders to develop objective cultural perspectives they must
“learn to see the world through cultural lenses; becoming competent in cultural analysis .
. . deciphering and perceiving the cultural forces” (p. 350). Daft (2002) suggested
“getting people to change long-entrenched habits . . . is not easy” (p. 453). Moreover,
Daft posited “most people do not like change” and suggested “two-thirds of all
organizational change efforts fail” (p. 453). To illustrate, Deutsch et al. (2006) shared a
framework of change containing the topics of unfreezing, movement, and refreezing (p.
437). Unfreezing is the first step of the change process and focuses on viewing processes

6
differently and in a manner that can benefit organizations (Deutsch et al., 2006). To
enumerate, unfreezing is “concerned with the motivation for becoming different”
(Deutsch et al., 2006, p. 438). As employees and organizations experience this process of
becoming different, they transition into the movement phase, which is defined as “taking
some action that changes or moves the social system to a new level” (Deutsch et al.,
2006, p. 439). In spite of the change occurring within organizations, which is often
beneficial, the implementation of change may increase organizational resistance. The
stronger the force of resistance, the greater effort needed from leaders to continually
move organizations forward and away from their old methodologies (Deutsch et al.
2006). The reality is individuals most likely have different personal goals than the
organization and while the role of management and change leaders is to convince
employees to “direct their efforts towards organizational goals” (Furst & Cable, 2008, p.
453), the method managers choose to utilize to direct employee efforts toward the goal
can increase resistance and commitment to change. Historically, employees observe
manager behavior, examine motives for change, and, based on these data, form attitudes
regarding change (Furst & Cable, 2008). Specifically, the logic associated with
attribution theory would suggest employees’ relationships with managers often determine
their levels of commitment or alignment to particular change efforts (Furst & Cable,
2008). Therefore, successfully implementing organizational change “which supports the
new level of behavior” which reinforces the desire change, is often contingent upon
existing relationships between managers and employees. Deutsch et al., (2006) defines
this as a “refreezing” process in which there are “deliberate steps taken to ensure new
behaviors remain permanently in the system” (p. 440).

7
Appreciative inquiry, or indentifying the best in people, can strengthen
relationships and attempts to examine change from the aspect of recognizing the efforts
of employees in order to provide positive momentum toward organizational change. For
example, leaders who utilize appreciative inquiry refrain from implementing change by
problem-solving or identifying the problems first and focus on inspiring employee trust.
Cooperrider and Whitney (2005) stated “appreciative inquiry can get you much better
results than seeking out and problem solving” (p. 397). Therefore, “approaching
problems from the other side” allows leaders to utilize creativity and innovation to solve
difficult business problems.
In conclusion, successfully implementing organizational change is contingent
upon the ability of the leader to facilitate “creativity, innovations and change” (Daft,
2002, p. 454). The climate of the organizational culture can either support or serve as a
barrier to organizational change and can manifest in several forms of resistance such as
“active resistance to change, from denial through inaction or repression” (Agocs, 1997, p.
45). Hence, the purpose of the current study was to investigate methods leaders can use
to implement change, particularly in organizations that have strong embedded social
cultures.
Problem Background
Although many leaders see change as an opportunity to strengthen the
organization, many employees resist change and view change as “ painful and
disruptive,” which contributes to increased levels of fear and limited employee
commitment and motivation (Agocs, 1997; Daft, 2002, p. 470; Deutsch et al., 2006;
Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005). Ultimately, leaders of organizations desire to

8
achieve and meet the needs of customers, shareholders, and employees. In order to do so,
organizations must continually adapt in order to develop a business that attracts
consumers. Specifically, Shafritz et al. (2011) suggested “the primary questions for
organization theory thus involve how best to design and manage organizations so that
they achieve their declared purposes effectively and efficiently” (p. 339). Many
organizations require “technical creativity” in order to achieve objectives and the
organizational culture must be one that is encouraging and “supportive of innovation”
(Shafritz et al., 2011, p. 198).
Agocs (1997) posited, based on many years of research dating back to the works
of Kurt Lewin pertaining to organizational development, a common theme among the
literature regarding the implementation of change is “most change programs or
interventions are met with resistance” (p. 45). The resistance may be employer or
individually driven and can be associated with organizational cultures that inherently
resist change. Agocs stated individuals resist change for the following reasons: (a) habit
and inertia, (b) fear of the unknown, (c) absence of the skills they will need after the
change, and (d) fear of losing power (p. 45). Stanley et al. (2005) suggested resistance is
a result of employee “organizational cynicism” (p. 430), which is defined as a negative
attitude toward or mistrust of the organization. Furthermore, leaders who fail to
demonstrate concern for the feelings of employees during the early stages of change
encourage cynicism and the likelihood of employee conflict increases. The likelihood
employees will embrace change can increase during the early stages of change. Meyer
and Allen (1997) suggested leaders who are able to consider the feelings of employees
promote employee commitment toward change. Conversely, if this step of initiating

9
change is not executed, leadership animosity may increase, causing conflict that often
negatively affects organizational culture. Conflict is a deterrent to the implementation of
organizational change and is influenced by existing relationships between managers and
employees. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory suggests relationships between
managers and employees are based on an “ongoing series of interpersonal exchanges”
(Furst & Cable, 2008, p. 453). The exchanges that occur between employees and leaders
prior to the implementation of change influence the way employees perceive the “intent
of a manager’s behavior,” particularly during the implementation of change (Furst &
Cable, 2008, p. 454). For example, managers with low LMX relationships tend to be
more abrasive toward employees (Furst & Cable, 2008). As a result, organizations often
fail to meet the needs of shareholders because the leaders have not met the needs of each
employee. Conversely, managers with strong LMX relationships with employees tend to
have better relationships, which reduces the level of resistance regarding the
implementation of change (Furst & Cable, 2008). In conclusion, as a manager in
corporate America for over 15 years, this researcher has witnessed the pressure to achieve
bottom line results from shareholders as negatively influencing director and manager
leadership styles. As a result, more managers utilize dictator styles of leadership,
affecting the formation of organization trust and curtailing the acceptance of change
efforts.
Caring for the needs of employees and the needs of the business is often an
arduous process. However, failing to do so can lead to the inability of organizations to
implement organizational change. Kouzes and Posner (2007) stated, “without caring,
leadership has no purpose” (p. xi). Leaders can increase the likelihood of successful

10
change movements when they “gain consensus on common causes” (Kouzes & Posner,
2007, p. 60). When employee needs are taken into consideration during the planning of
change, leaders limit the likelihood that change will interfere with the forward progress of
the organization. For example, Kouzes and Posner stated “tremendous energy is
generated when individual, group, and organizational values are in sync” (p. 61). It takes
wisdom, courage, skill, and compassion to embark upon change that can have major
impacts on the lives of employees in the organization. Despite the many efforts of
leaders to care for all facets of change, it is challenging to meet the needs of every
employee. However, organizations “based on a foundation of shared values” that
demonstrate strong social cultures are able to withstand the challenges often associated
with change (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 63). Conversely, Shafritz et al. (2011)
suggested “command and control cultures” are detrimental to establishing employee trust
and commitment and must be replaced with cultures that “encourage and support diverse
workforces and employee participation and empowerment” (p. 338). Through a display
of care and shared values, leaders can increase opportunities to earn the trust of
employees, which can often lower levels of resistance and result in minimal barriers to
implementing organizational change. For example, leaders who are able to encourage
employee growth also inspire employee commitment and support, which supports efforts
to grow the business (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Employees and leaders alike need
encouragement to perform at their highest level. Research clearly indicates employees
perform at higher levels when leaders consistently encourage them to do their best work
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007). The current study involved an examination of the methods
used by leaders to implement change, particularly when dealing with organizations with

11
strong social cultures. Kilmann, Saxton, and Serpa (1985) stated, “culture is to the
organization what personality is to the individual––a hidden, yet unifying theme that
provides meaning, direction and mobilization” (p. 338). Accordingly, the need for
leaders to examine current organizational cultures for the sake of implementing and
sustaining organizational change cannot be understated.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate methods leaders can use to
implement change, particularly in organizations with strong embedded social cultures.
With regard to culture, leading large-scale change often increases the likelihood for
conflict. In fact, Deutsch, Coleman, and Marcus (2006) stated planned change is an
effort for organizations to address or prevent some sort of conflict. Deutsch et al. (2006)
further stated change is an “outcome of a constructive or destructive conflict resolution
process, and the process of change as a series of conflict resolution activities that lead to
some new (changed) end state” (p. 436). Employees will experience conflict and the
ability of the leader to successfully manage the conflict can facilitate leader credibility,
which helps to facilitate organizational change. Deutsch et al. (2006) stated, “the process
of change is, at its core, a process of conflict resolution” (p. 436). Kotter and Cohen
(2002) suggested that as adversity and change are handled in a mutually acceptable
manner that meets the needs of all involved parties, leaders increase the likelihood of
successful change, particularly in strong social cultures. Successful leaders are able to
effectively communicate “what the problems are and how to resolve them” (Kotter &
Cohen, 2002, p. 8). Furthermore, successful leaders are able to “reduce feelings that slow
and stifle needed change and they enhance feelings that motivate useful action” (Kotter &

12
Cohen, 2002, p. 8). Organizations need useful action generated from committed leaders
and committed followers in order to remain innovate and competitive. Partnerships are
needed especially with organizations consisting of unions where maintaining a balance of
commitment is of utmost importance. Union stewards are often challenged as they have
to demonstrate a commitment toward the union and a commitment toward the
organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Partnerships between managers and union stewards
can aid in the implementation of large-scale change efforts. Regardless of the
composition or make up of the company, any sort of conflict can impede the successful
implementation of change efforts.
Change occurs in all organizations and in order to remain viable in the turbulent
marketplace, the ability to “adapt to change,” must keep pace with external changes
which are often driven by the demands of customers (Daft, 2002; Stanley et al., 2005, p.
429). With regard to organizational change, Kotter and Cohen (2002) conducted a survey
and received responses from roughly 400 people representing 130 organizations. The
findings revealed: (a) successful organizations look for and seize opportunities to win
big, (b) large-scale change is successful and occurs through an eight-step process, (c)
changing employee behavior is the common challenge in all eight steps, and (d) the
emphasis on changing behavior is placed on providing the truth to employees “to
influence their feelings” (p. 2). The emphasis of the survey focused on the fact that
change occurs on a daily basis and each opportunity to implement change comes with an
opportunity for organizations and employees to grow.
Agocs (1997) suggested organizations resist change because of “a) inertia, b) sunk
costs, c) scarce resources, d) threats to the power base of the old dominate coalition, e)

13
values and beliefs, f) conformity to norms and g) an inability to perceive alternatives”
(pp. 45-46). Leaders increase their chances of successfully implementing change by
acknowledging the need to change and utilizing processes to influence change such as the
eight-step process shared by Kotter and Cohen (2002).
Organizations have a tendency to undergo change and, as a result, informal
organizations can arise within the organization (Shafritz et al., 2011). Specifically,
Shafritz et al. (2011) stated “constituent groups develop their own practices, values,
norms and social relations as their members live and work together” (p. 208). Working
and living within close proximity of each other builds and forges employee relationships.
As organizations become increasingly cohesive, there is a tendency for groups to try to
maintain a balance in order to not disrupt the equilibrium of the group. Janis (1971)
stated:
The more cohesive the group, the greater inner compulsion on the part of each
member to avoid creating disunity, which inclines him to believe in the soundness
of whatever proposal is a good one, without attempting to carry out a careful,
critical scrutiny of the pros and cons of the alternatives. (p. 190)
Implementing sound change involves the ability of the team to embrace conflict and ask
difficult questions that challenge the process in order to support organizational growth.
Although conflict and change challenge the status quo and often disrupt the cohesiveness
of teams and increase levels of resistance toward change, “groupthink” or irrational
decision making is just as counterproductive to implementing successful change (Janis,
1971, p. 190). Kotter and Cohen (2002) provided leaders with an eight-step process to
overcome groupthink as well as the challenges associated with implementing large-scale
change. More important, leaders who follow the eight-step process while implementing
large-scale change help their respective organizations “leap into the future more

14
successful than others” (p. 3). According to Kotter and Cohen, the eight steps of large
scale change are: (a) increase urgency, (b) build the guiding team, (c) get the vision right,
(d) communicate for buy-in, (e) empower action, (f) create short-term wins, (g) do not let
up, and (g) make change stick.
Although following Kotter and Cohen’s (2002) recommendation for large-scale
change does not guarantee success, following the process can increase leader credibility
and employee motivation and commitment. Leader credibility is an important
characteristic in leading organizations and implementing change, as leaders “don’t get
extraordinary things done all by themselves” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 27). Perkins
(2000) further stated “successful leaders continually drive home the team message ‘we
are one; we live or die together’” (p. 84).
While leader credibility can influence employee trust, the behaviors of leaders are
not the most important factors contributing to organizational culture. Schein (2004)
stated “culture is the result of a complex group learning process that is only partially
influenced by leader behavior” (p. 352). Equally important as following a process to
implement change is the basic leadership concept that hinges around trust. Leaders will
find it difficult to implement change void of employee trust. The trust earned from
employees supports organizational growth, which correlates with organizational culture.
Conversely, if the leader’s “values and beliefs do not lead to success, the group will fail”
(Schein, 2004, p. 355). Kotter and Cohen’s (2002) eight-step process of implementing
change and the researcher’s pyramid of leadership credibility concept of developing a
trusting organization (See Figure 1) emphasize the importance of a foundation of trust in
supporting organizational growth and change.

15
Figure 1. Pyramid of leadership credibility created by the researcher through an
examination of the leadership principles of Jesus, combined with information in Chapter
2.
To enumerate, Kouzes and Posner (2007) surveyed over 75,000 people and the
results reflected constituents believed leaders must be honest, forward-looking, inspiring,
and competent (p. 29). Implementing change within any organization begins with the
leader’s level of credibility, which often affects employee motivation and commitment,
increases levels of innovation, and reduces employees’ levels of fear. To illustrate,
“when the rate of change outside exceeds the rate of change inside, the end is in sight”
(Daft, 2002, p. 454). When market demands outpace the level of innovation occurring
within organizations, products fail to meet customer needs and companies become
irrelevant and fail. Therefore, leaders must convey a sense of urgency in order to
influence change and facilitate the growth of their respective organizations. However,
the sense of urgency to influence change should be done with integrity, humility,
compassion, and courage in order to inspire “affective” or “emotional commitment”
Courage
Compassion
Humility
Integrity

16
(Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 11). Shockley-Zalabak, Morreale, and Hackman (2010)
concluded “distrust in organizational honesty and openness raises barriers to innovation,
creativity, and change, such as: complacency, organizational silence,
knowledge/information deficits and increased levels of risk avoidance” (p. 4).
Daft (2002) suggested a major obstacle for organizations is the inability to “adapt
to all of these changes in the environment” (p. 454). Collectively, teams are stronger and
function better when all team members assume ownership over change (Kouzes &
Posner, 2007). Furthermore, Kouzes and Posner (2007) stated that in order to achieve the
extraordinary, organizations must have leaders who are able to “mobilize others” (p. xi).
In like fashion, leaders must be able to not only achieve bottom line objectives, they must
be able to contribute to the “long-term development of people and institutions so they can
adapt, change, prosper, and grow” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. xvi). In doing so, leaders
develop trusting relationships with employees, which increases “affective employee
commitment” and supports organizational change (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 28).
In conclusion, implementing change can best be supported when employees are
emotionally committed to the change. The challenge for leaders lies in increasing the
emotional commitment levels of employees, considering many organizations are now
downsizing and each employee is being asked to do even more (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Implementing change without undesirable side effects can be accomplished, especially
when leaders are able to maintain elevated levels of emotional commitment. Meyer and
Allen (1997) concluded “commitment will be as important as or even more important in
the future than it was in the past” (p. 115).

17
Research Question
The research question used to guide this study was: What activities or methods
can leaders use to implement change in organizations with a strong embedded social
culture? In alignment with the researcher’s interest in examining factors that inspire
motivation and commitment, this study contributes to the research associated with
leadership education. The context for this study was to investigate methods leaders use
to implement organizational change, particularly in organizations with strong embedded
social cultures.
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
Assumptions
The initial assumption with this study was the ability to influence organizational
change and to sustain those changes lies in the ability of leaders to lead with integrity and
the motivation of employees to align themselves with the leadership team, trust and
believe in the vision, and commit to the organization to achieve goals and objectives.
Second, it was assumed the researcher ensured the quality of data collected from
participants through providing confidentiality statements to participants and assuring
them all feedback and participation in the study would remain confidential. In addition, it
was assumed, as a result of the confidentiality statements and trust established by the
researcher, that all participants provided honest feedback.
Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher conducted a review of the literature surrounding management,
leadership, conflict resolution, innovation, and organizational culture and change. A
plethora of research pertaining to organizational change exists, which increased the

18
difficulty for the researcher to reach a saturation point; therefore, some critical
viewpoints may have been missed.
Performing a qualitative study versus a quantitative study provides researchers
with the flexibility to identify certain phenomena one could not normally obtain via a
quantitative study. Although mixed method research can often provide multiple
perspectives regarding a research topic, this researcher believed the limited ability to
triangulate could affect the credibility of the study. Patton (2002) stated, “studies that
use only one method are more vulnerable to errors linked to that particular method than
studies that use multiple methods” (p. 248). Furthermore, utilizing multiple methods
helps strengthen a study (Patton, 2002).
Definitions
This study involved several terms that can be interpreted based on individual
biases. To ensure comprehension of the study, the following terms and definitions used
are provided.
Affective commitment: Occurs when employees become emotionally linked to
organizations (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Change agent: Individual responsible for the initiation and maintenance of
organizational change efforts (Josiah, 2007).
Credibility: The ability to inspire belief or trust.
Culture: Commonly held values, beliefs, customs, attitudes, and social behaviors
within organizations (Daft, 2002). The social behaviors often become norms as a result
of reinforcement and the continuation of these norms from one generation to the next
(Kotter & Cohen, 2002).

19
Innovation: Bringing new ideas, methods, and solutions into use (Kouzes &
Posner, 2007).
Leadership: The ability to guide and lead people; relationship of influence
between followers and leaders with shared purpose (Daft, 2002).
Organization: Equivalent of business or company—relating to its structure.
Organizational change: Strategic approaches to the implementation of policies
and programs that shift organizations from one state to a desired future state (Anderson &
Ackerman-Anderson, 2010; Weisbord, 1987).
Resistance: Occurs when employees deliberately try to avoid carrying out
instructions or disobey orders (Daft, 2002).
Stakeholders: Individuals, groups, or departments interested in the successful
implementation of organizational change.
Transactional leadership: A leadership typology that focuses on the transactional
exchange between leaders and followers in the accomplishment of organizational
processes (Josiah, 2007).
Transformational leadership: A leadership typology that focuses on creating new
behavioral systematic processes consisting of purposeful and organized methods aimed at
optimizing individual potential from lesser to greater levels of productivity (Bass &
Stogdill, 1990).
Significance of the Study
The findings of the study will benefit leaders who are looking to implement and
sustain change in organizations with strong social cultures. Organizational success is
contingent upon the ability of all constituents to embrace change, which is often the result

20
of competition, natural growth of the organization, or self-preservation. Many
organizations lack social cultures and leaders with the necessary skills to promote and
encourage change (Daft, 2002). In fact, Daft (2002) stated “a primary solution” to the
problem of adapting to change is “better change leadership” (p. 454). In today’s work
environment, success is often synonymous with change and in many ways leaders have
fostered cultures of success through their daily encouragement of change. However,
many organizations have strong cultures that make implementing change difficult. What
is known is “change is pervasive” and leaders must embrace change for the greater good
of their organizations. For example, Kotter and Cohen (2002) suggested changing the
behavior of people is a major factor in implementing large-scale organizational change.
Devoid of the commitment needed to embrace change, if employees are not motivated to
do so, forward progress is jeopardized. However, leaders who utilize Kotter and Cohen’s
eight-step model for implementing large-scale change help their organizations grow
“despite an inherent organizational inclination not to leap successfully into a better
future” (p. 6). Daft provided the following characteristics of leaders who have completed
successful change projects: (a) they define themselves as change leaders rather than
people who want to maintain the status quo, (b) they demonstrate courage, (c) they
believe in employees’ capacity to assume responsibility, (d) they are able to assimilate
and articulate values that promote adaptability, and (e) they recognize and learn from
their own mistakes.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This chapter presented the problem, problem background, purpose of the study,
research questions, assumptions, limitations and delimitations, definition of terms,

21
significance of the study, and organization of the remainder of the study. Chapter 2
contains the results of an extensive review of the relevant literature, providing a solid
foundation of knowledge upon which this study was conducted. Chapter 3 includes an
overview of the methodology, data collection approach, and support for a qualitative
approach. Chapter 4 presents the results of the data collection and analysis. Chapter 5
contains conclusions, linkages to the literature reviews, implications, and
recommendations for future research.

22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate methods leaders can use
to implement change, particularly in organizations that have strong embedded social
cultures, as implementing change in the workplace can be an arduous process particularly
within organizations that are resistant to change (Van Dijk & Dick, 2009). However,
leaders who are able to include, inspire, and motivate employees often experience lower
levels of resistance than their counterparts who may place more focus on achieving
profits versus improving relationships. Many internal and external factors influence
change (Khan, 2010). Van Dijk and Dick (2009) stated employees do not necessarily
resist the concept of change, they resist the “anticipated consequences or expected efforts
that may be associated with change such as a loss of status, loss of pay, or loss of
comfort” (p. 144). However, with “vigilance, a deep well of patience, and a good change
management process” (Austin, 2009, p. 39), leaders can be successful implementing
change regardless of the obstacles. Kouzes and Posner (2007) suggested employees
follow the person first and then the plan. The importance of organizational cultures that
support change cannot be understated. Although implementing change in the workplace
involves risk, great rewards are attainable when leaders inspire employees to commit to
and align with a shared vision.
Organizational culture can influence the acceptance or opposition of change
efforts in the workplace. Weick and Quinn (1999) suggested change is often a result of
poor organizational performance or a “failure of people to create continuously adaptive
organizations” (p. 362). A culture built on trust often fosters a workforce commitment to
achieve objectives and to solve business challenges in creative and innovative ways

23
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). For example, cultures with “horizontal relations” value
“flexibility . . . individual and group empowerment, diversity and customer service”
(Shafritz et al., 2011, p. 338), which all support the attainment of organizational
objectives. In summary, the formation of quality relationships between leaders and
employees can often determine whether change is accepted in organizations.
Lowering the levels of cynicism and skepticism often associated with change and
fostering organizational trust, the most basic fundamental aspect of leadership, can return
huge dividends for leaders attempting to implement change. Stanley et al. (2005)
suggested skepticism is closely related with cynicism, as skeptics rarely believe the
implemented change will be successful. Cynics have limited trust in the capability of the
manager leading change; as a result of this belief, the stated change will not be successful
(Stanley et al., 2005). Specifically, Stanley et al. stated, “cynics not only doubt the
substance of a communication, but also the motives behind it” (p. 436). Shafritz et al.
(2011) suggested “lasting organizational reform requires changes in organizational
culture” (p. 338). Employees who are unwilling to follow managers and support the
process of change often rebel partly due to organizational cultures that reflect and utilize
poor values such as “hierarchy, rigidity, homogeneity, power based on authority and
associations in closed networks, and reliance on rules” (p. 338). These demonstrated
values are major barriers to implementing organizational change. The formation of an
organizational culture built on trust can foster employee motivation and commitment,
thereby reducing levels of cynicism associated with resistance of organizational change.
This chapter presents the results of a review of the literature that provided the
background information for the study. The focus of the study was on the leadership

24
implementation of change in organizations with strong social cultures. Four aspects of
change are examined to provide the background support for the research study: (a)
transformational leadership and change efforts, (b) barriers to implementing change, (c)
strategies and tools for implementing change, and (d) sustaining change.
Transformational Leadership and Change Efforts
The benefits of change are plentiful for leaders, though leaders often
underestimate the power of building relationships in order to maximize opportunities to
influence change. Elrod and Tippet (2002) suggested leadership should be viewed as an
art and the ability to lead as the art of guiding others through change. Employees who
perceive their managers as being “influential upward and outward . . . generally have
high morale and feel less critical or resistant to their boss” (Kanter, 1999, p. 320) and are
less resistant to organizational change. Although many efforts to implement change are
unsuccessful, management scholars understand the importance of mangers overcoming
obstacles of resistance in order to increase success rates associated with implementing
change (Furst & Cable, 2008; Kull, 2003). Many leaders utilize opportunities to
implement change in order to facilitate the growth of their organizations (Daft, 2002).
For example, during the onset of the change planning process, transformational leaders
who are able to include those affected by the change often “reduce organizational
resistance” and create a “higher level of psychological commitment among employees
towards the proposed change” (Lines, 2004, p. 193). Fullan (1993) suggested change is
prevalent in institutions of learning and “is ubiquitous and relentless, forcing itself on us
at every turn” (p. vii). Similarly, Hull and Schultz (1993) posited institutions of learning,
such as middle and high schools, that are able to manage the forces of change also

25
increase their ability to grow and develop. Conversely, the challenge within schools is
often the forces opposed to change far outweigh the desires to implement needed change
(Schultz, 1993). According to Kull (2003), transformational leaders are “visionaries” (p.
7) who effect change utilizing innovation and common visions to influence
organizational culture. In addition, Shafritz et al. (2011) posited “a strong organizational
culture can control organizational behavior” (p. 339), which is often the result of
organizations being led by transformational leaders. However, as has been noted, change
can be a sensitive topic for many employees and contributes to increased levels of stress,
which can affect organizational results (Daft, 2002). Alas (2008) defined organizational
change as a “planned response to pressures from the environment and forces within the
organizations” (p. 114). To successfully implement change, leaders must be able to
foster relationships with employees that encourage employee participation in change
efforts. Transformational leaders often include those they are leading in the change
process in order to inspire commitment. In fact, research supports the benefits of leaders
who seek employee participation with regard to strategy change (Lines, 2004).
Collins (2001) suggested that during the implementation of change, leaders who
cultivate trusting relationships with employees enhance their leadership effectiveness. In
addition, Collins stated “transformational leadership aims to bring about organizational
change” (p. 12). At the organizational level, transformation commences as “employees
begin to question current strategies” (Verhezen, 2010, p. 198). In addition, Kouzes and
Posner (2007) posited “leadership is a relationship” (p. 24) and the quality of the
relationship can determine how successful a leader will be in implementing change. In a
recent study, the composition of the process of implementing change entailed “80%

26
leadership (establishing direction, aligning, and motivating and inspiring people), and
about 20% management (planning, budgeting, organizing, and problem-solving)”
(Bonheim, 2006, p. 24). Hence, successful relationships are formed when leaders
motivate and inspire employees by providing a “shared vision” that increases leader
credibility and trust (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 27). This can be accomplished utilizing
a transformational leadership style versus a transactional leadership style.
Transformational leadership styles often inspire long term employee commitment as
leaders utilize methods to develop the personal and professional skill set of employees.
Conversely, transactional leadership styles often produce short term organizational
change which often addresses an immediate need. Above all, leader behavior can
influence relationships with employees and help or hinder organizational growth.
The multitudes of organizational issues require new and innovative solutions,
which requires a fundamental change in leadership direction that can reduce employee
levels of resistance toward change. Van Dijk and Dick (2009) defined resistance as
“behavior not in line with the attempts of the change leader” (p. 143). Employees with
limited trust in a leader’s ability to lead change will resist the change, significantly
impairing the ability of the organization to grow and adapt to the changing needs of
consumers (Van Dijk & Dick, 2009). In fact, Kanter (1999) stated leaders with limited
amounts of trust may see themselves as being “weak and powerless and find their
subordinates resisting or discounting them” (p. 320). In addition, leaders with limited
amounts of trust tend to use “more punishing forms of influence,” which is
counterproductive in helping employees to embrace the needed change (Kanter, 1999, p.
320). In order to remain innovative and competitive, Kanter suggested leaders need to

27
encourage all employees to aid in the discovery and development of new ideas. New
ideas help keep the firm alive and prevent leaders from using previous solutions to fix
new problems. In order to manage the turbulent times associated within organizational
cultures, the ability to remain innovative is crucial to organizational success (Stanley et
al., 2005). Furthermore, as previously noted, early inclusion in solving organizational
challenges can increase employee commitment to change. Disequilibrium and balance
are embraced by innovative cultures, providing the stability as well as the challenges
organizations need to sustain forward momentum (Davila, Epstein, & Shelton, n.d.).
Hesselbein (2001) stated it is difficult to build organizations that are innovative and
creative, though leaders must foster supportive work environments which enable
organizations to perform better than they have in the past. Conversely, leaders who are
unable to foster cultures where employees feel safe to take risks often fail to address the
deeply rooted organizational issues that are preventing organizational change. Leaders
must use their power to “mobilize resources, to get things done” not to create “fear, terror
and tyranny,” all of which contribute to the deeply rooted organizational issues (Kanter,
1999, p. 320). Furthermore, employees most likely will refrain from taking risks
associated with organizational change if there is a lack of trust in the leader who is
facilitating the change. In conclusion, deeply rooted issues involving trust negatively
affect leader effectiveness and impair an organization’s ability to innovate (Kouzes &
Posner, 2007, p. 37).
Many employees desire to follow leaders they can trust. Leaders who display
trustworthy characteristics increase their level of credibility among their peers and, most
importantly, their employees. Furst and Cable (2008) stated “organizations are

28
cooperative systems that rely on the willingness of members to behave in ways that
support the organization” (p. 453). The willingness or desire of employees to support the
organizational goals is contingent upon a certain level of trust. The level of trust between
leaders and employees often determines the success level of change implementation
(Rudolph, 2009). Successfully implementing change and earning the support of
employees is difficult, particularly for leaders with low levels of credibility and an
inability to foster trusting relationships. For example, Kouzes and Posner (2007)
provided a comprehensive list of the impact of managers with low credibility on
employees. Low manager credibility and low LMX tend to yield employees who: (a)
only produce if they are being watched carefully, (b) are primarily motivated by money,
(c) criticize the organization privately but praise in public, (d) look for other jobs when
the company experiences problems, and (e) feel unsupported and unappreciated (p. 39).
Successfully implementing change within an organization is difficult to achieve when
employees express concerns such as these with regard to their organizations.
Furthermore, employees may find it challenging to support leaders they do not trust.
When employees witness leaders demonstrating credible behavior, leaders improve their
opportunity to influence organizational change and reduce barriers associated with
change. According to Kouzes and Posner, transformational leadership involves leaders
who are able to demonstrate the following list of characteristics they created after
questioning tens of thousands of people around the world. Employees believe leaders are
credible when “they practice what they preach . . . walk the talk . . . their actions are
consistent with their words . . . they put their money where their mouth is . . . they follow

29
through on their promises . . . they do what they say they will do” (Kouzes & Posner,
2007, p. 40).
Consequently, through the demonstration of these characteristics, leaders can
begin to lay the groundwork for change supported by a foundation of trust. Kull (2003)
stated “transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend self-interests for the sake
of a higher cause-accomplishing the vision he or she has carefully articulated” (p. 12).
Moreover, employees with a “high level of trust and confidence in their managers” tend
to view change in a positive manner and offer support to their managers during the
implementation of change (Furst & Cable, 2008, p. 455).
Implementing change is a necessary skill that can determine the success or failure
of a leader. In addition, the ability for organizations to embrace change and adapt to
change is crucial for organizational growth. For example, the ability to engage
employees for the sake of helping them grow personally and professionally often
correlates with reductions in organizational resistance to change and the growth of the
organization. In addition, Kull (2003) suggested organizational leaders must have the
ability to help employees comprehend and process the need for organizational change.
Furst and Cable (2008) suggested managers utilize “hard and soft” tactics to reduce
employees’ resistance to change or to “manipulate or force a targets compliance with a
request” (p. 454). The soft tactics that support organizational growth include
ingratiation, which includes “managers providing praise for employee efforts,” and
consultation, when managers “ask employees to provide suggestions or assistance in
carrying out change” (Furst & Cable, 2008, p. 454). Conversely, the use of sanctions
occurs when managers utilize fear tactics to influence compliance to change, which is a

30
deterrent to organizational growth and employee commitment (Furst & Cable, 2008, p.
454). Leaders who tend to utilize sanctions or “punish employees” in order to drive
compliance to meet or exceed metrics and objectives impact their ability to maximize the
benefits associated with transformational leadership (Furst & Cable, 2008, p. 454).
Transformational leadership is associated with “improving the performance of followers
and developing followers to their fullest potential” (Northouse, 2007, p. 181).
Accordingly, this researcher concurs with Kull, who stated “leaders and those who hire
them should make the development of transformational leadership a lifelong priority” (p.
87). Leaders who consistently exhibit transformational leadership skills support their
respective organizations as they are able to encourage and motivate followers (Kouzes &
Posner, 2007; Northouse, 2007). Weaver (2003) cited Sashin (1981) in her study and
posited:
People like to feel important and have their worked recognized as important . . .
they like to feel independent in their relations to their supervisors . . . they like to
be consulted about and participate in actions which personally affect them. In
short, employees, like most people, want to be treated as belonging to and being
an integral part of some group. (p. 24)
Northouse (2007) stated, “to create change, transformational leaders need to develop into
strong role models for their followers” (p. 190). Being capable of influencing others to
achieve advanced levels of success is contingent upon the ability of the leader to generate
employee trust. The use of transformational leadership increases the likelihood leaders
will earn the trust and commitment from their followers, especially during times of
change. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) posited dynamic leadership separates successful
and unsuccessful organizations. In addition, according to the president of Hyatt hotels, as
was cited by Maxwell (1993), the majority of employees want to do a good job.
Employees’ performance can often be associated with the type of leader they are working

31
for. To enumerate, Kull (2003) stated “transformational leadership is a superior
leadership style in times of organizational change” (p. 87). Employees who work for
transformational leaders tend to accept and commit to implementing change in support of
the leader. Therefore, research supports the use of transformational leadership over the
transactional leadership styles to increase levels of employee satisfaction, employee
output, and most importantly, organizational trust (Kull, 2003).
Barriers to Implementing Change
Though the process of implementing organizational change can appear to be
complex, leaders who are able to remove barriers imposed by social systems increase
their chances of leading significant change within their respective organizations.
Furthermore, leaders who fail to communicate a shared vision behind which employees
can align restrict levels of employee commitment, thereby reducing the successful
implementation of change. Granger (2009) stated “the stronger an employee can believe
in the core values and the direction of an organization the higher the level of
commitment” (p. 13). Earning employee trust and commitment reduces a major barrier
that often stems the successful implementation of organizational change. Reducing
barriers to change requires leaders to reduce employee resistance to change using
methods that inspire commitment versus forcing temporary compliance. Deci, Koestner
and Ryan (1999) stated, “efforts to diminish resistant forces through coercion or other
means of force may lead to temporary compliance rather than lasting change” (p. 646).
Zander (1950) and Deutsh (1973) identified factors that can lead to an increase in
employee resistance to change:

32
• Basing the logic for the change on personal reasons rather than objective
reasons
• Disregarding already established group or organizational norms
• Lack of uniformity or agreement in the rationale for the change
• Using illegitimate techniques that fall outside of the boundaries and norms of
interaction
• Negative punishments and threats
• Sanctions that are inappropriate in kind (e.g., reward of money for agreeing to
support a group’s strategic direction)
• Influence that is excessive in magnitude (p. 446)
Social systems within organizations often perceive change as a threat and try
their best to maintain or “restore equilibrium” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 35). Reducing barriers,
communicating a shared vision, and promoting the growth of collaborative relationships
can generate the energy needed to implement change. Not surprisingly, employee
commitment is less impacted by personal “beliefs and makeup;” rather, levels of
commitment are more influenced by the “organization’s mission statements and internal
practices” that can influence leader behavior (Granger, 2009, p. 15). In addition, in the
presence of strong LMX relationships between managers and employees, characteristics
such as “support, mutual trust, respect and liking” demonstrate the collaborative efforts
needed to bring about organizational change (Furst & Cable, 2008, p. 454). Furthermore,
leaders who demonstrate higher levels of concern regarding their employees tend to
remove the barriers that prevent employee commitment (Granger, 2009). However,
strong social cultures can negatively influence employee behaviors as well as the

33
implementation of change particularly when organizational and employee values are not
in alignment. Agocs (1997) suggested that due to the existence of strong social cultures,
“every change agent has failed” (p. 45) at one point in time or another. In particular, a
phenomenon that affects the implementation of change is the disconnect between
“stakeholders and complex, seemingly irrational and often political reactions to new
initiatives” (Austin, 2009, p. 39). Some leaders will choose to impose the will of the
leadership team to influence change, which can result in driving compliance versus
employee commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Although change may be interpreted as
an inconvenience among employees, reducing the barriers to implementing change can
further serve as a catalyst for innovation.
The researcher examined four different types of organization which often have
strong social cultures which reduce the implementation of change. Those organizations
include institutions of learning, Christian based organizations, law enforcement agencies
and athletic organizations. The following sections contain an examination of multiple
barriers to implementing change in such organizations which include individual
stakeholders, organizational learning, organizational silence, and conflict.
Implementing Change in Institutions of Learning
Creating a mindset of change within organizations of learning can be frustrating
for administrators, teachers, and students, and undoubtedly is not an easy task to
accomplish (Sarason, 1990). Organizational culture within schools and universities is
very important and can support or curtail efforts to provide innovative quality education
opportunities for students. In fact, teachers are the “primary agents of change” and often
have the most influence on students during organizational change efforts (Espinoza,

34
2006, p. 7; Hope, 1990). Forcing teachers to change is not a sustainable strategy; the
importance lies in developing strategies to increase teacher commitment to embrace the
implementation of change within school systems. Espinoza (2006) posited “educators
have to believe in change in order for it to take root” (p. 3).
As has been noted, organizations that include the recipients of change in the
planning of change positively affect the implementation and sustaining of change.
Creating a shared vision in which all participants of change are included can energize
organizations (Fullan, 1993; Espinoza, 2006). The National Center for Education
Statistics reported in a 1997 study that “schools with high levels of faculty influence also
had high teacher commitment,” which supports the importance of “meaningful
involvement in affecting change” (Espinoza, 2006, p. 6).
Resistance to change. Implementing change within school organizations is a
“complex undertaking,” particularly in schools with organizational cultures continually
presented with multitudes of educational reform initiatives that all appear to have similar
levels of urgency (Harris, 2006, p. 9). Fullan (2007) supported this view by indicating
the need and speed of change required to remain relevant can appear insurmountable.
However, Fullan contended that although many challenges exist within organizations that
prevent change, people are able to reinvent themselves to move organizations forward.
School research indicates the benefits of school administrators being able to facilitate
growth using strategies that involve: “(a) transformational leaders and (b) the
development of a strong leadership team” (Olsen & Chrispeels, 2009, p. 380).
Regardless of the initiatives, administrators look toward teachers for their commitment to
the implementation of these new initiatives but often come up short. Nevertheless, Fullan

35
(1993) stated “a mindset of change” (p. 4) has been difficult to foster in many school
systems, which can affect the ability to implement change. In fact, Fullan further
addressed the condition of change within schools systems and stated “you cannot have an
educational environment where change is continuously expected alongside a conservative
system and expect anything but constant aggravation” (p. 6). The implementation of
change within schools systems affected by higher levels of “socio-economic deprivation”
presents additional obstacles for school administrators (Harris, 2006, p. 9). Indeed,
quality leadership is a key element in the successful implementation of change.
However, Harris (2006) posited quality leadership is “not sufficient to combat the
stubborn relationship between social disadvantage and underachievement” (p. 9).
Educational reform is a major concern for many administrators, particularly those who
not only have to deal with political implications of poor schools, as the social tragedies
that occur because of poor educational opportunities cannot be ignored. Hence, the sense
of urgency to confront schools that continually underperform because of ill-equipped
leadership teams to embrace change and refrain from accommodating complacent and
conservative mindsets. Effective schools have effective leaders and regardless of
geographical and social issues “can improve in spite of the context in which they find
themselves” (Harris, 2006, p. 10). Furthermore, Harris stated “all schools have the
potential to succeed and that the quality of leadership is an important contributor to their
improvement” (p. 10). Quality leadership does not guarantee success, though it can make
the daunting and arduous task of balancing the needs of students, parents, and school
administrators more palatable.

36
A source of frustration for many administrators is closing the gap between the
implementation of initiatives often designed to improve the quality of learning for
students and the achievement levels of these students. An inability to emotionally engage
and encourage teachers to embrace change can lead to increased levels of fear, which is
often a natural response to change (Fullan, 1993). Furthermore, teachers who are
resistant to change often analyze change based on its potential impact (Friend & Cook,
1996). Limited or marginal teacher buy-in to change is a major barrier to the
implementation and ownership of change.
Ownership in solving problems serves as a barrier toward the implementation of
change. Specifically, Fullan (1993) stated “deep ownership comes through the learning
that arises from the full engagement in solving problems” (p. 31). Conservative schools
often face challenges in solving problems because of teachers’ inability to collaborate
(Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Rosenholtz, 1989). Helping to foster teacher collaboration
inspires the motivation and commitment needed to solve problems and embrace needed
change. In fact, earlier studies examined the impact of collaboration and shared
leadership roles among teachers and showed a positive relationship with student
academic performance (Harris, 2006). The momentum generated from collaboration can
serve as a catalyst to move the entire organization forward, ultimately increasing the
opportunity to provide a better a learning experience for students. Leonard and Leonard
(2001) stated collaboration is exemplified when “school staff members come together on
a regular basis in their continuing attempts to be more effective teachers so that their
students can become more successful learners” (p. 7). In closing, sustaining
organizational change requires teachers to be “motivated to implement mandated

37
educational change” (Espinoza, 2006, p. 5). Conversely, teachers who feel “saddled and
conflicted about the process of change” can stall change efforts (Evans, 2001, p. 92).
Teachers who lack the motivation to support change affect organizational culture and
potentially student success. In fact, several researchers have provided logic as to the
source of resistance towards change for many teachers which include:
• Change often threatens the personal comfort zone of teachers (Hartzell, 2003).
• As a conservative occupation, change threatens personal levels of proficiency
and leads to the innate desire to avoid change and maintain the status quo
(Hartzell, 2003).
• Teachers have a strong sense of autonomy that is challenged during the
implementation of change (Hartzell, 2003).
• Change increases tension and conflict (Fullan, 1993).
• Teaming within schools is often challenging because of differences in
teachers’ values and beliefs and a desire not to work with other teachers who
are not respected (Fullan, 1993).
• Change may place teachers in a position of not knowing versus being the
“knowledge source” (Espinoza, 2006, p. 43).
• Change often “disturbs the equilibrium” (Espinoza, 2006, p. 43).
Simply cajoling students and teachers to embrace change fails to generate sustained
momentum to make change stick. Successfully implementing change in the school
system requires the necessary balance of “pressure and support, while building positive
relationships” (Harris, 2006, p. 10).

38
Successfully implementing change in the school system. Successfully
implementing change occurs as leaders reduce the amount of fear associated with change
through education and the ability for change agents to “internalize the change itself”
(Heifetz & Linsky, 2002, p. 3). In addition, Schultz (2011) suggested “an effective leader
who has a clear moral purpose and focuses on developing relationships at all levels of the
organization, will undoubtedly, have followers that will walk through the process of
change with them” (p. 33).
The probability of successfully implementing change within school systems
increases when teachers comprehend three dimensions of change (Espinoza, 2006).
Fullan (1991) posited three dimensions need to be considered during the implementation
of change: “(a) the possible use of new or revised materials, (b) the possible use of new
teaching strategies and (c) the possible change of beliefs” (p. 38). Collectively, the
dimensions of change provide a useful guide for administrators and educators to meet
their moral obligation in providing the best learning experience for students (Fullan,
1991; Jacoby & Associates, 1996). Furthermore, utilizing Fullan’s dimensions of change
supports the professional growth of educators, which can increase the innovation and
creativity needed to solve many of the challenges school leaders face in providing quality
educational experiences. For example, Espinoza (2006) stated “one way to encourage
changes in teachers’ instructional practices is to provide adequate training prior to
implementation” (p. 7). The result is teachers who are able and willing to develop
students “who can live and work productively in increasingly dynamically complex
societies” (Fullan, 1993, p. 4).

39
In conclusion, albeit often difficult, implementing change in schools can be
accomplished by focusing on the quality of relationships within the school, the sharing of
leadership roles, and providing development opportunities for teachers that challenge
them to grow (Harris, 2006).
Implementing Change in Christian Based Organizations
Accommodating change has been a major barrier for Black churches “given the
black church’s fundamental conserving quality” (Douglas & Hopson, 2001, p. 104).
Core and contingent values of the Black church can affect the ability of the church to
embrace needed change. Core values are defined as those values associated with and
recognize what essentially defines Black personhood (Douglas & Hopson, 2001). In
addition, core values are associated with what is professed by the Black church while
contingent values are what the church promulgates or publicly declares. However, what
the church declares publicly conflicts with the core values of the church, which often
promote ideologies associated with love and forgiveness. Specifically, Douglas and
Hopson stated “the positive conserving character of the church can manifest itself as a
more restrictive conservative stance that has the tendency to mitigate justice and to
promote inequality and exclusiveness” (p. 104). For example, discussions pertaining to
HIV, homosexuality, and the treatment of women in the church are topics that conflict
with the core value system of the Black church (Douglas & Hopson, 2001). Although
this is one area of concern, it is an area that remains taboo to discuss within the Black
church. Ironically, the African American church was founded during the slave era as a
means to provide support and uplift during tumultuous times. Four hundred years later,

40
the principles of the African American church remain in question due to the blatant
disregard and avoidance of sensitive issues.
African American churches which are resistant to change often remain stagnant
and stale, negatively impacting potential revenues received from tithes and offerings
which could be obtained from new members.
Pastors who demonstrate a proactive approach to anticipate and prepare
congregations for change “add a protective element to pastoral leadership that could
make a significant difference when faced with leading change” (Whitesel, 2010, p. 143).
Pearse (2011) further stated the ability to reduce resistance to change begins with the
ability of church leaders to “delicately balance pushing ahead with change” and resist
every opportunity to “excessively enforce change,” which is counterproductive towards
effective leadership (p. 65). Lastly, limited leadership abilities demonstrated by church
leaders can reduce the momentum and velocity needed to successfully implement and
maintain change in organizations such as the church (Pearse, 2011).
Implementing Change in Law Enforcement Organizations
Implementing organizational change within law enforcement agencies either
supports organizational growth or can threaten the core values that govern precincts
(Charrier, 2007). Often, simply creating the motivation to become different is met with
intense opposition from precinct personnel. In fact, particularly within police precincts,
Deutsch, Coleman, and Marcus (2006) stated “the critical psychological process involved
in unfreezing is concerned with creating the motivation for becoming different” (p. 438).
For example, during the 1990s throughout New York precincts, computerized or
comparative statistics were utilized, comparing key statistical measures which correlated

41
with the ability of precincts to reduce crime levels. Commanders and precincts that
attained high and low scores were recognized Deutsch et al. (2006). The motivation or
“driving force” to change was often a result of the desire to be recognized for doing well
in the community (Deutsch et al., 2006, p. 438). In addition, Charrier (2007) stated
internal factors such as “police morale, police culture and collective bargaining units” are
often the common challenges that can either “promote or hinder organizational change”
(p. 32). In fact, Corsentino and Bue (1993) suggested contributors to low morale and
stress and elevated turnover percentages may be associated with the inability of police
management to engage frontline managers during change negotiations. Indeed, police
leaders may find the path to the implementation of change less obstructed and may utilize
dictator types of leadership styles to efficiently implement change; however, there are
clear indications that dictator styles of leadership inspire and motivate using fear tactics
and often minimize long-term sustained change. Ultimately, the driving force behind the
needed change must be greater than the change itself (Deutsch et al., 2006). This change
is brought about by inducing conflict or tension in order to elevate levels of motivation to
change. Deutsch et al. (2006) suggested the tension manifests in the form of “stress,
discomfort and anxiety” (p. 439). If too much conflict is created, for example though the
extreme use of dictatorship methods of leadership, employee emotional commitment to
change is minimized. If not enough conflict is created, change efforts falter and prevent
the “unfreezing” of former methods (Deutsch et al., 2006, p. 439). Leaders who develop
the ability to lead effective change are able to create enough conflict to motivate
organizations to address policies and procedures that may be limiting their ability to
reach their highest potential. Specifically, the ability for organizations and precincts to

42
manage “ambiguity” correlates with “creativity, effective leadership, as well as
productive conflict resolution and successful change,” all of which contribute to increases
in employee levels of commitment (Deutsch et al., 2006, p. 430). Implementing
successful change within precincts requires personnel to personally commit to and bind
themselves to the needed change and believe the change can support growth efforts to
support communities (Deutsch et al., 2006).
Successful police executives continually attempt to improve the ability of their
respective precincts to “assess and meet the needs of the public” (Charrier, 2007, p. ii).
One approach to meeting the needs of the public is to develop an adaptive culture that is
receptive and responsive to environmental change. Developing an adaptive culture is of
utmost importance to ensure police management will be able to effectively deal with
change. However, Charrier (2007) stated “developing an adaptive organization requires a
leadership-centered culture” (p. 61). A leadership-centered culture may provide leaders
with the ability to facilitate community relationships to support local police efforts.
Historically, efforts to influence organizational change have been hampered because of
the “traditional hierarchal chains of command” (French & Stewart, 2001, p. 16). In the
midst of change, Charrier posited “to sustain an adaptable organizational culture, police
executives must provide a culture that encourages flexibility in planning, establish a
collaborative environment, encourage managers to be change agents and develop a
mechanism to evaluate progress towards obtaining organizational goals” (p. 1). Meeting
organizational goals requires employees to be motivated and committed, which is directly
correlated with the leadership team’s ability to build and foster relationships. French and
Stewart (2001) concurred and suggested the early engagement of employees with regard

43
to implementing change is priceless and may increase employee empowerment and
commitment. However, the threat to revert to previous ways is imminent, requiring
leaders to monitor “commitment testing” behaviors (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2006,
p. 400). Deutsch et al., (2006) suggested commitment testing occurs “when we are faced
with the choice of reverting to old behaviors” (p. 440). In the world of law enforcement,
change is inevitable and new policies and procedures are often implemented to ensure
public safety and the safety of law enforcement officers. Therefore, failing to commit to
change within law enforcement agencies could potentiality bring unwanted and unneeded
risk to the public as well as law enforcement officers. In conclusion, Deutsch et al.,
(2006) states “the desire to support the change state is incompatible with the desire to
revert to old habit” (p. 441).
Maintaining openness and creating organizational cultures “receptive to
innovation and change” is a crucial aspect of implementing change in law enforcement
agencies (Pekgozlu, 2008, p. 4). French and Stewart (2001) stated, “the savvy
implementation for organizational change remains a primary issue for law enforcement”
(p. 18). Conversely, the antiquated bureaucratic methods of leadership often found in
police organizations have been proven to be an ineffective way to implement
organizational change. In particular, many police organizations maintain the “power
centered at the top, resulting in modest change efforts” (French & Stewart, 2001, p. 14).
In like fashion, too much involvement at the subordinate level can reduce organizational
effectiveness and the urgency needed to implement change, which results in managers
forcing change that drives employee compliance versus employee commitment
(Corsentino & Bue, 1993). French and Stewart further suggested “today’s law

44
enforcement organizations engage new organizational practices that focus on
empowerment, teamwork, and participative management” (p. 14). Similar to other
organizations, the inclusion of employees during the process of change can increase the
levels of commitment to execute needed change. A reoccurring phenomenon within
police precincts is the emergence of a younger generation of police officers who tend to
require more open transformational leadership tactics (Charrier, 2007). The “what’s in it
for me” mantra is characteristic of Generation Y which consist of children born after
1980’s. The educational composition of Generation Y and the Millennial Generation is
changing the infrastructure of police organizations as well. For example, Charrier (2007)
stated more police officers are entering the field with bachelor’s degrees which is
“requiring police executives to shift from traditional autocratic leadership styles of
management and focus more on transformational leadership that also ensures strong
ethical governance” (p. 33). Ultimately, transformational leaders aim to increase levels
of follower motivation and commitment to positively support the attainment of
established standards and goals (Charrier, 2007). French and Stewart posited
organizational success should not “prevent managers from looking forward” (p. 15) in
order to support current success rates.
Some police organizations resist change and resistance to community-oriented
policing (COP) which is defined as a community organized effort to deter crime, is one
area that has received mixed reviews (Adams, Rohe, & Arcury, 2002). According to
Adams et al. (2002), many police chiefs and sheriffs have lost their jobs due to their
inability to implement COP programs. However, organizations that favored team
participation with regard to decision-making supported the opportunity to introduce COP.

45
Leaders of law enforcement agencies who develop an understanding of the
various skill sets required of change leaders are better able to support and lead their
respective organizations. Developing a vision that supports the transition from managing
to a leading philosophy can influence the “personality of the culture” to be one that is
capable of embracing change (Charrier, 2007, p. 61). For example, participation from all
levels of leadership is crucial in order to effect organizational change. Specifically, the
inclusion of all parties affected by change can increase change success rates as involved
middle managers “are accountable for implementing new paradigms and ensuring
success” (Charrier, 2007, p. 34). In other words, involved middle managers are able to
connect with employees to inspire the needed commitment that serves as a catalyst for
change.
In conclusion, failure to engage and earn manager level commitment to the
implementation of needed changes severely affects the ability of police leaders to
implement needed change. In fact, police leaders who fail to “sell the new paradigms to
middle managers” impact change as middle managers are the “link between the
implementation of change” (Charrier, 2007, p. 34).
Implementing Change in Athletic Organizations
Implementing positive change in intercollegiate athletics requires the collective
action of administrators and coaches. Among the most highly visible area of change in
intercollegiate athletics was the implementation of Title XI, which addressed gender
equity compliance. For example, Title XI required administrators to ensure fair treatment
was provided to further opportunities for women in education and athletics. Conversely,
the conception of Title XI was met with much resistance as various NCAA coaches

Jeffry Woods_The Implementation of Change

Jeffry Woods_The Implementation of Change

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Jeffry Woods_The Implementation of Change

Ähnlich wie Jeffry Woods_The Implementation of Change (20)

Jeffry Woods_The Implementation of Change