1
The interaction of project characteristics and leadership
style in creating a change approach
A multiple case analysis
By
MAARTJE BOS
June, 2019University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc Business administration – Change Management Master thesis
Student number: S3536270 Supervisor: Dr. C. Reezigt Co-assessor: Dr. O.P. Roemeling
2
Abstract
3
Introduction
A fact is that 70% of all change initiatives fail (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). There is a wide variety of factors that influence the success or failure of change projects, for example, organizational culture, structure, size, and leadership, which makes change management more difficult (Crawford, Combe & Nahmias, 2014). Dumas & Beinecke (2018) argue that this failure rate is caused by a variety of assumptions that exist around change management, such as, efficiency comes from control, prediction is possible, and change is manageable (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018). Instead, these assumptions should be treated as myths because change is unpredictable and often has unintended and unanticipated outcomes, there is no right answer, and no ‘one right way’ and organizations are in a constant state of change (Dumas & Beinecke, 2018).
Beer & Nohria (2000) argue that another reason for this high failure rate is that change leaders drown in a variety of different advises (Beer & Nohria, 2000). An analysis of the recent literature of the most frequent topics of change management reveals that change leadership is one of the change management aspects mostly dealt with and valued by research (Durão et al., 2017). This is most likely because change leadership has a significant and direct effect on firm performance (Siren, Patel & Wincent, 2016). Before diving into the change leadership literature, change leadership is defined. ‘’Change leadership is the ability to influence and enthuse others through personal advocacy, vision, and drive, and to access resources to build a solid platform for change’’ (Higgs & Rowland, 2000, p. 124).
Assumptions that surround change leadership are that the individual leader counts, only leadership is enough, and ‘one size fits all’ (By, Hughes & Ford, 2016). Instead, change is a heterogeneous phenomenon, and this calls for different forms and types of change leadership (By, Hughes & Ford, 2016). Over the past two decades, leadership scholars have developed theories that consist of different roles and multiple functions to explain the role of leadership in organizational change (Dinh et al., 2014).
4
The terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ in relation to projects are used inconsistently and ambiguously in relevant literature. Therefore the terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ in relation to projects are first defined. The hard paradigm is usually related to the rational and technical side of projects (Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013; Pant & Baroudi, 2008), compromising scientific management approaches with a focus on efficiency, clearly defined goals and objectivity (Durão et al., 2017; Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Within the soft paradigm, the focus is more on the ‘human side,’ and emphasis is on learning and exploration (Pollack, 2007; Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013). The soft paradigm is commonly associated with goals and objectives which are not clearly defined and aim to reach intangible results (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013; Sirkin, Keenan & Jackson, 2005). While literature does suggest that hard and soft aspects require two distinct ways of leadership (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013), often little is told about how the hard and soft aspects of projects lead to a change approach.
There is a need to develop approaches which bring together the success rates and factors of both hard and soft change projects (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Furthermore, relevant literature underlines that there is a need to devote more attention to change leadership, which influences the effectiveness and appropriateness of different approaches to change (Voet, 2014). There is growing evidence that change leadership affects the success or failure of organizational change initiatives and there is a need for new information and empirical evidence about change leadership issues (Battilana et al., 2010; Dumas & Beinecke, 2018). This research is an attempt to bring together the success rates and factors of change projects and aims to explore the interplay between the hardness and softness of change projects, change leadership, and change approaches. This is formulated in the following research question: ‘’How do project characteristics and leadership style interact in creating change approaches?’’ Higgs & Rowland (2011) imply that leadership influences change approaches and assert that the role of leadership in a change context is an area that is lacking empirical research (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). This research aims to extend the existing literature by creating a better understanding of how the hardness and softness of change projects and leadership style interact in creating change approaches. Indirectly this research will contribute to a reduction of the failure rate of change initiatives.
5
Theory
Whereas the previous section introduced the research question, this section reviews the most recent literature surrounding this research question. First, the relationship between project management and change management is further explained.
Organizational changes are often carried out via projects, and project-based interventions for the management of changes are crucial for success (Pádár, Pataki & Sebestyén, 2017). Furthermore implementing and coordinating the logistics of a complex change project requires project management skills to plan and execute the change initiative (Kotter, Cohen & Hoover, 2004). But, the project management methodologies mostly avoid the softer issues related to projects such as the human, political, and organizational change implications (Parker, Charlton, Ribeiro & Pathak, 2013). Hence, the integration of change management and project management has become a necessity (Hornstein, 2014). Therefore, the two fields should not be treated as mutually exclusive, and in this research, project management and change management are interchangeable.
In the remainder of this section, two streams of literature are reviewed: hard and soft aspects of projects and leadership in the change management field.
Hard and soft aspects of projects
In order to explore the interaction between the degree of hardness and softness of change projects, and leadership style in creating a change approach, first the literature on the hard and soft aspect of
projects is reviewed to gain a more precise understanding on what defines the hardness and softness of projects.
6
Durão, et al., (2017) and thus, the framework is still relevant today. But, instead of listing the characteristics of hard and soft projects, each dimension of the framework of Crawford & Pollack (2004) can be assessed along a scale from hard to soft. Gustavsson & Hallin (2013) emphasize that in project management, both hard and soft approaches to project management are combined, instead of being a dichotomy (Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013).
The seven dimensions of the framework of Crawford & Pollack (2004) are: goal objectivity/clarity, goal objective tangibility, success measures, project permeability (how subject the project is to risk outside project control), number of solution options, degree of participation and practitioner role and stakeholder expectations (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). In the next paragraph, the seven dimensions are elaborated upon in more detail, and all refer to the framework of Crawford & Pollack (2004) and Pollack (2007).
7
Furthermore, besides this framework, Crawford & Pollack (2004) emphasize that at the soft side of projects, organizations are seen as cultural systems with people who all have individual desires, values, roles, norms, and expectations (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). An example of a soft approach in project management is the agile method (Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013). Usually, the term leadership is more suitable for these soft approaches of project management (Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013).
This is in contrast with the hard side of projects where people’s actions are presumed to be influenced by the environment, and people are presumed to act in predictable ways (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Hard projects are usually related to the rational and technical side of projects, which implies a ‘systems’ approach (Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013; Pant & Baroudi, 2008). In a system’s approach, the project is broken down into smaller chunks and analyzed rationally and systematically (Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013). An example of a hard approach to project management is the use of state-gate models (Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013). Hard project management approaches result in a management style based on command and control (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Management is a term generally related to the hard side of projects (Gustavsson & Hallin, 2013).
The hardness and softness of projects give some clues about what the management or leadership of these projects entail. The framework of Crawford & Pollack (2004) is used to define the projects of this research more clearly in terms of hard and soft. In the next section, the literature on leadership in the change management field is reviewed.
Leadership in the change management field
In this theory section, two perspectives are described that have generally been used to understand what role leadership plays in the change management field.
The first is the leadership style perspective, which assumes that certain types of leaders will naturally handle any change situation better (Herold, Fedor, Cadwell & Liu, 2008). The second perspective originates from the organizational change management literature and assumes that any leader can engage in specified change-related behaviours (Herold, Fedor, Cadwell & Liu, 2008).
8
to create conditions that motivate the desired behavior and is seen as crucial for managing the organizational design, control, and rewards (Landrum, Howell & Paris, 2000; Greatz, 2000).
The state of the art literature (most recent and most cited literature) in general leadership literature has considered change as a situational contingency that moderates the effectiveness of certain leadership styles (Herold, Fedor, Cadwell & Liu, 2008). In this literature, a distinction is made between
transformational leadership and transactional leadership and between task-oriented and person-oriented leadership. The aforementioned leadership styles are described.
Three dimensions of behavior characterize the transactional leadership style: contingent reward, passive management by exception, and active management by exception (Holten & Brenner, 2015; Michel, Lyons & Cho, 2010). Contingent reward entails clarification of reward contingencies and the use of incentives and contingent rewards to influence subordinate motivation. Passive management-by-exception involves the use of corrective actions in response to subordinate mistakes (Michel, Lyons & Cho, 2010). The last dimension is the active management-by-exception, which includes explicitly looking for subordinate mistakes and enforcing rules to avoid future mistakes (Michel, Lyons & Cho, 2010). The transactional leadership style thus relies on incentives, rewards, punishment, and sanctions for unacceptable performance (Stoffers & Mordant-Dols, 2015). The transactional leadership style refers to leadership behavior that guides and motivates followers towards established goals by clarifying role and task requirements (Von Eck & Verwey, 2007). Motivating followers is done by appealing to their self-interests (Stoffers & Mordant-Dols, 2015).
The transformational leadership style is characterized by four dimensions of behaviours: inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and idealized influence (or charisma) (Holten & Brenner, 2015; Michel, Lyons & Cho, 2010). Inspirational motivation refers to leadership behaviours that inspire and motivates followers through creating a shared vision, providing meaning and modeling appropriate behaviours (Holten & Brenner. 2015; Michel, Lyons & Cho, 2010). Intellectual stimulation refers to leadership behavior that encourages followers to think about their conventional ideas (Holten & Brenner, 2015; Michel, Lyons & Cho, 2010). Individual consideration involves leadership behaviours that provide support and coaching to followers (Holten & Brenner, 2015; Michel, Lyons & Cho, 2010). The last dimension is idealized influence (or charisma), which refers to leader behaviours that cause followers to identify with the leader (Holten & Brenner, 2015; Michel, Lyons, Cho, 2010).
9
Modant-Dolls, 2015). Transformational leadership, over time, gains the leader ‘’credits’’ and more transformational leaders seem to get more buy-in into an organizational change. This seems to be regardless of their behavior in implementing and planning the change project (Herold, Fedor, Cadwell & Liu, 2008). Suggested is that this may very well be based on trust that has been built up over time and over multiple change events (Herold, Fedor, Cadwell & Liu, 2008). Holten & Brenner (2015) additionally found that transformational leaders have a long term positive effect on followers change appraisal (Holten & Brenner, 2015).
Transformational leadership has also been described as an enriched form of transactional leadership (Von Eck & Verwey, 2007). Nadler & Tushman have already established in 1990 that both
transactional and transformational leadership styles have to be used complementary during
organizational change (Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Transactional leadership has shown to be positively related to the following follower outcomes: intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, creativity, justice perception, work engagement, job performance, and positive psychological capital or also referred to as the positive state of mind of an individual (Michel, Lyon & Cho, 2010). Whilst, the
transformational leadership style has shown to be related to organizational performance and leader effectiveness (Michel, Lyon & Cho, 2010).
The article by Battilana et al. (2010) explores the relationship between managers’ leadership
competencies and the likelihood that they will emphasize different change activities (Battilana et al., 2010). They focus on two orientations of leadership, namely, task-oriented leaders and person-oriented leaders. Both orientations of leadership are described accordingly.
Two important aspects of task-oriented leaders are: pressure (i.e., set deadlines and pressuring
subordinates to work hard) and instruction (i.e., specifying procedures and giving instructions). These two aspects result in behavior such as: creating well-defined patterns and channels of communication, organizing and defining the relationships in the group, trying out new ideas, assigning subordinates to jobs, emphasizing meeting deadlines, clarifying expectations of subordinates, scheduling work to be done, specifying procedures to be followed, checking that subordinates observe rules and regulations, setting deadlines, giving instructions and orders, and pressuring subordinates to work hard (Casimir, 2001). Effectiveness of task-oriented leaders relies on the competency to clarify task requirements, and structure tasks around an organizations goals and mission statement (Battilana, 2010).
Person-oriented leaders, on the other hand engage more in behaviour such as: providing
10
2001). Effectiveness of person-oriented leaders lies at the competency to show consideration for others as well as to take the other’s emotions into account (Battilana, 2010).
People can be effective in both task-oriented and person-oriented behavior or, in neither (Battilana et al., 2010). Battilana et al. (2010), link task-oriented leaders and person-oriented leaders to three activities of implementing organization change: communicating the need for change, mobilizing other to support the change and evaluating the change implementation (Battilana et al., 2010). They found that leaders who are more effective at task-oriented behavior are more likely to focus on both
mobilizing and evaluating activities of implementation of organizational change, and leaders who are more effective at person-oriented behaviours are more likely to be effective on the communication activities of the implementation of organizational change.
In this research, similarities are found between person-oriented and transformational leadership, and between task-oriented and transactional leadership. Thus, two sets of deductive codes are created. The first set concerns the deductive codes about person-oriented or transformational leadership and consist of inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and idealized influence (or charisma). The second set of codes are the deductive codes with regard to task-oriented or transactional leadership and consist of: contingent reward, passive management-by-exception, active management-by-exception, pressure, and instruction. Lastly, a set of codes is created concerning activities of implementing organizational change, namely: communicating, mobilizing, and evaluating.
11
Method
In the previous sections, the research question was introduced, and the most relevant theory
surrounding this research question was presented. In order to answer the research question: ‘’How do project characteristics and leadership style interact in creating change approaches?’’ explorative research was needed. Explorative research helps to create a better understanding of the problem presented and has the objective of discovering future research tasks, questions, and hypotheses (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011). Explorative research forms the basis for developing new theory. Theory is the answer to queries of why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur (Sutton & Staw, 1995). Qualitative research is excellent for addressing these kinds of questions (Pratt, 2009). A form of qualitative research is the use of interviews. Interviews are a highly efficient way to collect rich empirical data (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Furthermore, interviews are suitable for
explanatory, descriptive, and exploratory research (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler,
2011). This research is qualitative research based on semi-structured interviews in three change projects at two organizations and aims to explore the interaction between the characteristics of change projects, leadership style and how these interact in creating a change approach. In this method section data collection and data analysis are further described.
Data collection
This research started by searching for three change projects. There was chosen to research three change projects to enhance external validity. There was one single condition for the three change projects: they had to be in the final stage of the change project, or the change project was finalized no longer than one year ago. It was important for the quality of this research and in the light of the
research question that the change project was not framed yet in terms of successes and failures because simplified rationalization could drive rich and complete descriptions out.
The first two change projects selected took place at an organization that provides IT solutions and creates new software platforms for customers. This organization was chosen because it operates in a continually changing environment and was inextricably interconnected with change management. In this kind of extreme situations, it was more likely that the process of interest was more transparently observable (Eisenhardt, 1989). The first change project at this IT organization concerned a transition within a department from an ad hoc working manner to the automation and standardization of work processes. The second project within this organization concerned a change project in which work processes had to be aligned and standardized to make it easier to coordinate activities in the
12
the other two change projects which were implemented within a department. Selecting more diverse cases has provided the reliable basis for generalization (Seawright & Gerring, 2008).
At each of these three change projects, five semi-structured interviews were conducted to enhance external validity: one with the change agent of the change project and four with recipients of the change project (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011). Because respondents were selected with different roles in the change project, who view the research question from diverse perspectives, respondent reliability was enhanced (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The change agent was selected based on his role in the change project. The recipients were firstly chosen because they were first-hand involved in the change project and thus were highly knowledgeable. Secondly, they were selected because they could define the change project on the continuum from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’ and were able to describe the leadership style of the change agent. The researcher talked with one respondent of each change project before starting the official research to identify whether the case and respondents met the aforementioned requirements. Out of the group recipients, in the first case, the change agent selected two respondents which could be interviewed. The two recipients were then asked to choose another two recipients to interview. In the other two cases, the change agent selected the recipients that could be interviewed. Because of this, this research has a higher chance of containing biases. An overview of the characteristics of the respondents is attached in Appendix A. Remarkable is that 85% of respondents are male. This is the case because the first organization consists of almost exclusively men.
Data was collected from the respondents through semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interviews were audio recorded. To enhance internal validity, interviews were conducted with the use of an interview protocol, attached in Appendix B (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011). The
interview protocol contains the instructions given to the respondents and the questions that were asked during the interview. The questions that were asked during the interview exist out of two question sets: an explorative set of questions and a set of specific questions. The interview started with explorative questions to create an interview where insights and outcomes emerged out of the questions. This approach helped to avoid biases, which may occur when leading questions influenced the respondent or when the respondent felt pressure to give answers that were socially accepted or desired. The interview ended with specific questions that were based on recent literature of ‘hard and soft aspects of projects and the literature on ‘leadership in the change management field.’
13
example probing particular themes when they emerged to understand each case individually and as much in-depth as feasible (Eisenhardt, 1989).
In the next section, data analysis is described. Data analysis
The goal of the data analysis was to reduce the collected data to a manageable amount, to develop summaries, and to look for patterns (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011). After the first data was collected, a start was made with analysing the data. Overlapping data analysis with data collection gave a head start in data analysis but also allowed taking advantage of flexible data collection (Eisenhardt, 1989). The analysing process began with transcribing the audio recordings of the interviews (Bennett, Barret & Helmich, 2018). The transcripts of the conducted interviews are attached in Appendix D.
After the recordings of the interviews were transcribed, the transcribed interviews were carefully read with the research question in mind, to familiarize with the collected data (Bennett, Barret & Helmich, 2018; Thomas, 2006). Then the process of coding started. Through the process of coding, data was fractured and organized by the ideas contained within (Jacelon & O’Dell, 2005). In the coding process, inductive and deductive codes were used. Deductive coding was used by selecting predetermined codes or categories out of the theory presented in the previous section (Bennett, Barret & Helmich, 2018). Inductive coding was used to allow research findings to emerge from the dominant or significant themes (Thomas, 2006).
In the process of first-order coding, open coding was used, which entails selecting chunks of data and assigning them to a deductive or inductive code (a summary term) that was meaningful in terms of the research question (Bennett, Barret & Helmich, 2018). In the process of second-order coding, axial coding, and selective coding were used. Axial coding entails sorting the codes into groups or
categories, mostly done when the number of codes became too large (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011). During selective coding, there was attempted to create categories and relationships among concepts (Bennett, Barret & Helmich, 2018). Furthermore, flexible pattern matching was used to help patterns to emerge from the data and to identify cross case patterns (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Appendix C contains the codebook of this research and indicates which codes were inductively and deductively created. The software Atlas.ti was used to code as efficiently as possible and to increase research reliability.
14
codes was used to make sure the perspectives were not influenced by earlier material and to maintain consistency, which has enhanced reliability (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2011).
15
Results
This results section presents the data collected from three change projects. First, the within-case analysis of the three change projects is presented, followed by a cross-case analysis of the three change projects.
Within-case analysis: change project 1
Five interviews were conducted at this change project. One interview was conducted with the change agent, and four interviews were conducted with recipients of this change project. Recipients in this change project are employees who worked at the department where this change project took place. The need for change was evident in this change project: half of the employees of this department resigned within six months. The main reason for this high turnover was that the workload was too high, and employees were unsatisfied with the current management. The employees who stayed at the department explained the problems to the change agent, a recipient explains: ‘’We sat down with the change agent and explained what kind of problems we experienced, he helped us by explaining our problems to the higher management’’ (01RE04). As a reaction from higher management, the change agent was asked and assigned to this department to identify more precisely what the problem was and to restore the peace within the department. The change agent created some insight into the problems of this department and identified the two main issues as the work being to ad hoc and that there was a lack of experience and knowledge about the work processes. He believed that the solution to the problems of this department could be to standardize and automate the work. After discussing this with the department and higher management, this change project started.
Hard and soft aspects of the change project
The interviews with the recipients of this change project show that the goals and objectives of this change project are not very clear, some goals and objectives are mentioned: ‘’To meet customer demands as quick as possible’’ (01RE01), ’’To make our department superfluous’’ (01RE01), ‘’To achieve good results with the department’’ (01RE04). Other recipients conclude that ‘’It is not clear what we want to accomplish’’ (01RE02), and ‘’It is more a vision that we have that we want to accomplish’’ (01RE03). The change agent acknowledges that the goals and objectives of this change project are very vague and explains: ‘’It is not so easy to define at the beginning of a project what the goals of the project are, and where we want to go .. this path changes along the way’’ (01CA01). Because this project has no official, tangible goals, it is also more challenging to judge project success. Because project success is not easy to identify, it is also hard to show results to influential
16
change agent acknowledges: ‘’I spend most of my time managing all the stakeholders of this change project’’ (01CA01).
Where the change agent focusses most of his time on managing stakeholders, the recipients are managing the change project themselves. This is possible because the change agent tries to facilitate the recipients in their needs. One of the recipients acknowledges: ‘’[change agent] listens well, and he ensures that the team gets what it needs to function properly’’ (01RE02). The project has a
participative approach, and recipients are encouraged to think along in the change project because they are seen as experts in their field of work. They are asked to think about which current work processes or procedures could be automated or standardized. One of the recipients describes this in the following example: ‘’We always question ourselves why we do certain things. If we do something because it is the normal procedure, we question why it is, and if it is still the right way’’ (01RE03). This example also shows that this project is focused on debate and questioning of basic assumptions made about a situation. Furthermore, some team members have more talents than just their professional skills, which can help de change project. The change agent of this change project describes: ‘’Team members must help shape this change.. they have to find out what their roles and strengths are, and that of other team members’’ (01CA01).
Another dimension that has a clear influence on the project is the project permeability, defined as how subject the project is to risk outside project control (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). This change project is mostly influenced by technological developments, which lead to new products on the market. New products lead to new customer demands and ultimately lead to new ways of working for this department. One of the recipients describes this process: ‘’At some point the technology catches up with us, what we have automated in our project is then no longer necessary, that is how it works in the IT business’’ (01RE03). But not only new technological developments lead to a change in customer demands. Customer demands are also influenced by how people think about topics and what people think is important, the so-called social factors. Social factors thus, also influence this change project. Leadership in the change project
Aspects of both task-oriented or transactional leadership and person-oriented or transformational leadership have been found in the leadership style of this change agent.
Concerning task-oriented or transactional leadership, this change agent gives instructions and
pressures recipients to work hard, for instance, the change agent explains: ‘’I have said to the team, it is crucial that we spend on the minimum 50% of our time on this change project… I provide
17
On the person-oriented or transformational leadership dimension, this change agent shows especially behaviours that are part of the individual consideration dimension, inspirational motivation dimension, and intellectual stimulation dimension. On the individual consideration dimension, the change agent shows envolving and coaching behaviour. The recipients acknowledge that they perceive the change agent as envolving: ‘’He is always listening to us, and he doesn’t forget what I have told him… he is also listening to what is happening on the background not only to what you tell him’’(01RE03). Moreover, the change agent confirms that he is focused mostly on coaching during this change process: ‘’I focus most of my attention now at individuals who have a crucial role in this change project… I strive to be a coach for them’’ (01CA01). Recipients of this change project acknowledge: ‘’He asks me the right questions and helps me to move forward’’ (01RE01), ‘’He is making me think about what I am doing, in a positive way’’ (01RE03). The inspirational motivation and the intellectual stimulation dimensions are also reflected in this coaching behaviour of this change agent. By coaching his recipients, the change agent motivates recipients, helps them questioning their basic assumptions and helps them to model appropriate behaviours.
What was very clear in this change project was that all recipients explained (without being asked explicitly) that they had a very high level of trust in the change agent. The recipients explain: ‘’He gets the project done’’ (01RE01), ‘’If we do not like something he would fight for us to change it’’
(01RE02), ‘’He makes sure that our team is aligned’’ (01RE03) and, ‘’He is always there when we need him’’ (01RE04). Also this trust seems to be mutual, one of the recipients explains: ‘’He trusts his people, when someone comes to him with a problem, and you can argue why you see it as a problem and how you can solve it, he believes you and gives you all the time and room you need’’(01RE03). The trust recipients have in this change agent stems from the reputation and organizational know-how of this change agent. One recipient explains: ‘’He has been in multiple places in the organization, so he knows what the organization wants and expects from our department.. he knows to place our department in the rest of the organization’’ 01RE04). For this change project, this seems particularly important because the department felt not understood by the rest of the organization for a long time. Moreover, recipients are very open about how they feel about the change project. Their attitudes towards the change are mixed, one of the recipients describes: ‘’You can hear teams say in the corridors: I cannot wait for this change to happen!’’ (01RE01), whereas another recipient explains: ‘’For me it is difficult because I actually enjoyed working in it and now it is changing’’ (01RE02). Change approach
18
The change agent explains: ‘’The team where you have to change with is crucial, looking for the right people to bring about this change is an essential part of this change’’ (01CA01). Furthermore, the change agent started coaching the heroes of the team to make sure that they could act as a role model for the rest of the team. The change agent defines the heroes of the team as: ‘’The people who can shape the change you have in mind fairly quickly’’ (01CA01). It seems like this change agent was particularly focused on mobilizing activities for this change project to succeed.
Then as the new team was shaped, they started to change: standardize and automate the work. It seems like there is not one approach used to identify what is going to be automated and what not. The only focus is on solving the main problems first and problems that occur in daily tasks. The change agent explains: ‘’Sometimes you work on a problem and you think that that is most important, but when you start working on the problem it can be that another problem is even more important that you did not see on the forehand, and you then start working on that’’ (01CA01). One recipient explains: ‘’There are so many problems that have to be solved right now, everyone tries to solve their problems as fast as possible, but this is of course not the right way to do it’’ (01RE02). Then when a task is
standardized or automated, the team describes this in a procedure, or when it is a complicated task, they give a demo to other team members. One of the recipients describes this: ‘’Sometimes I am busy a whole day exploring if there is a solution for a certain problem, also if I discover that I cannot fix the problem I have to document it, so my team members do not have to do the same work all over again’’ (01RE03).
19
this change agent, he can easily select people to help in this change project. The rest of the change approach is an emergent process where changes are made whenever they become a necessity. Within-case analysis: change project 2
Four interviews were conducted at this change project. One interview was conducted with the change agent, and three interviews were conducted with recipients of this change project. This change project took place in a team called the program team. The three recipients are members of this program team. This program team was created one year ago and had a central, steering, and coordinating function within the organization. It was this program teams responsibility to coordinate the work of the
development teams, who develop the product for the customer, within a particular business unit within the organization. Unfortunately, this program team struggled to make clear what work needed to be done, lacked a clear division of responsibilities, and had no clear communication structure. Because of this, there was a lot of unplanned work. One of the recipients explains: ‘’There was a whole lot of unplanned work and all that unplanned work led to a delay. So there was a lot of invisible work that was not included in the planning, and a lot of it had a direct impact on our customers.’’ (02RE03). Another consequence was that the development teams had no clear understanding of how the product for the customer should look like. One of the recipients describes what happened: ‘’We started building the first part, building the second part and then when we were thinking about the third part we thought.. what are we actually making? This does not meet what [customer name] wants or what [customer name] wants!’’ (02RE02). This led to an excessive workload, and deadlines of this program team were not met. It became clear to this program team that something had to change. The people of the program team shared their concerns with the change agent. Based upon this, and upon
observations, the change agent made himself, the change agent decided to help this program team. Hard and soft aspects of the change project
This change project that was created within this program team has a clear goal according to the change agent: to ensure that all development teams under supervision of this program team become more efficient and effective to deliver great software. All recipients acknowledge that this change project should ultimately lead to a better product for the customer. Next to this primary goal, the respondents describe a set of sub-goals: ‘’Ensuring that the process runs as smoothly as possible from start to finish’’ (02CA02), ’’To ensure that the balance between planned and unplanned work is excellent’’ (02RE01), ‘’That we have a business question and that the development team says: hey, we should do it this way’’ (02RE02), ‘’Sharing best practices with each other’’ (02RE03).
20
great? And what would be reasonable?’’ (02CA02). Meeting deadlines is used as an indication of project success. Not meeting deadlines is a signal for the change agent and recipients that they have not reached project success yet. The change agent and one of the recipients both state that they are intended to measure the cycle time of the process more in detail in the future to judge project success. The change agent in this project has a clear opinion of how the work processes should be arranged to work as efficient and effective as possible. The change agent spends a part of his time on explaining and convincing recipients how and why they should change their work processes.
One of the recipients says: ‘’He has such great persuasiveness and substantiated evidence, [change agent] does his research and has excellent arguments why we should do it like this’’ (02RE02). The change agent in this change project acts thus more like an expert and focus in this change project lies thus more on efficient delivery and optimization of the predetermined solution. One of the recipients acknowledges: ‘’I see him as the expert in process management’’ (02RE02).
The role of the change agent is very clear in this change project, and although the recipients have all very clear roles in day-to-day operations, in the change project, it seems rather vague who is
responsible for what. One of the recipients describes a situation where no one seems to take
responsibility: ‘’They were asked to plan the next meeting to talk about the change project, and they didn’t do it.’’ (02RE03).
Project permeability, defined as how subject the change project is to risk outside project control (Crawford & Pollack, 2004) is high in this project. This change project is mainly subject to the changing demands of the customer and changing laws and regulations. Customers can change their product wishes last minute, resulting in a change in the work processes of the development teams. The change agent explains: ‘’Sometimes customers think at the last moment, let’s do something completely different!’ (02CA02). The customers are the most important stakeholders of this project and should thus be managed carefully. Furthermore, this project is also subject to changing laws and regulations. One of the recipients explains: ‘’Our customers are ultimately responsible for this, but we simply say we deliver a system that complies with the law’’ (01RE02). These two factors make it even harder for the change project to be successful because it makes it more difficult to make successful software in an efficient and effective way.
Leadership in the change project
The change agent in this change project shows person-oriented or transformational leadership and signs of task-oriented or transactional leadership.
21
team members to make problems more visible. The change agent explains how he does this: ‘’I ask them: what are your biggest problems? Where do you feel most bad about? Well, we made a list of those things together, and a top six soon became apparent.’’ (02CA02). Intellectual stimulation behaviour is also seen in the change agent when he is helping to structure the work processes. The change agent explains how he helps to map the work processes in the department: ‘’I ask them what kind of links are there in the workflow? Who does what then? Do we know that from each other? Do we have agreements on this?’’ (02CA02).
On the task-oriented or transactional leadership dimension, pressuring behaviour is mostly seen. Pressuring behaviour is mainly seen when the change agent sets deadlines for the change project together with the program team. The change agent acknowledges that setting deadlines for the change project is something that he does with the program team continuously. He explains: ‘’We use
deadlines continuously and strive to meet the deadlines together’’ (02CA02).
What was very outstanding in the leadership of this change agent was that all recipients perceive him as very knowledgeable and that he spends a great amount of time at convincing recipients. That the change agent is perceived as very knowledgeable stems according to the change agent from his reputation, he explains: ‘’Because I have been working here for a long time, I have built up a reputation that I just want to help people and that I am well experienced in doing change projects’’ (02CA02). Other recipients acknowledge: ‘’I see [change agent] as an expert in the field of change management’’ (02RE02), ‘’He knows so many frameworks and theories’’ (02RE03). Furthermore, the change agent is perceived as very convincing by all recipients. One of the recipients says: ‘’He is good at arguing why we are doing something, and he can bring it very convincingly, he is persistent in it and he can explain it well’’ (02RE02).
Moreover, in this change project recipients seem open about their attitudes towards the change project. The attitudes of recipients are mixed, one of the recipients explains: ‘’I said to [change agent] this is sheer nonsense, but after a while, he convinced me of the added value’’ (02RE02), whereas another recipient describes: ‘’It all changes to slowly’’ (02RE01).
Change approach
After the change agent had observed the program team for a while and shared his observations with his colleagues, he decided it was time to help this program team. The change agent started to meet with this program team to create some insight into the main problems of this program team. The openness to share problems was there right from the start. According to the change agent this is due to the fact that he has worked for fourteen years in this organization and that people know him, he explains: ‘’We know each other, we work with each other, but with some I also have social
22
of the recipients explains: ‘’[change agent] is very good in looking at, if you want to change this, you need to put together these people..’’ (02RE01). Because of this change agents organizational know-how, he could easily select people in the organization he thought could help this program team to move forward. With this group, the change agent started moving this program team towards improvement. It thus became clear that this change agent focused at first in this change project on mobilizing activities.
Moving this program team towards improvement was mostly done in two ways: convincing and coaching the recipients. Convincing the recipients was primarily used in redesigning work processes and practices. The change agent had to convince recipients of the best way to approach and solve this problem. One of the recipients describes this: ‘’He is good at arguing why we are doing something, and he can bring it very convincingly, he is persistent in it, and he can explain it well’’ (02RE02). After all recipients agreed upon the approach and solution, the change agent started to coach the recipients to help the team make improvements and solve their problems. The change agent explains: ‘’I try to prescribe as little as possible and I especially ask them: hey .. what happens here? So people learn to see, learn to solve their problems, and then learn to share that again ... I try to apply that to all the problems they have’’ (02CA02). One of the last steps of the change approach of this change agent is to evaluate the changes made and to help this program team to share what they have learned with other teams to try to improve the whole organization. The change agent describes: ‘’The last stadium is spreading the facts. So in this case not only within this program team, but how can they share it with the other teams they coordinate’’ (02CA02). It thus became apparent in this change project that this change agent spent, next to mobilizing activities, particular attention to evaluating activities during the implementation of this change project.
To summarize, this change project emerged bottom-up out of problems that this program team
23
approach of this change agent is to evaluate the changes made and to help this program team to share what they have learned with other teams to try to improve the whole organization
Within-case analysis: change project 3
Four interviews were conducted at this change project. One interview was conducted with the change agent of this change project, and three interviews were conducted with recipients of this change project. The change agent in this project is an external interim manager. Recipients of this change project are employees working for the municipality where the change project took place.
This change project started when three municipalities decided to integrate to become one large municipality. This became a necessity due to the political ambitions of the government. The aim is to organize the Netherlands in a more decentral way so that the municipalities can take up more
responsibilities. The expectation is that larger municipalities will provide more professional and business-like management (Rijksoverheid, 2019). One of the recipients acknowledges: ‘’The municipality has so many tasks and more and more tasks are added, you cannot do all the tasks yourself as a small municipality, together we are much stronger’’ (03RE01).
The change agent was an external interim manager and was assigned to manage the transition in one of the three municipalities to the new municipality for the last year before the three municipalities would integrate on the first of January, 2019. The task of the change agent was twofold: firstly this change agent was asked to ensure that the basics of the work processes were well organized and that some projects were implemented and secondly, he was asked to guide the employees of the municipality to a new position within the new municipality, or within an organization that would carry out business operations for the municipality. The within-case analysis of this change project is focused on the tasks that the change agent got assigned to, this analysis is not about the broader process of how
municipalities are integrated.
Hard and soft aspects of the change project
24
While the change agent had a very clear role and task he had to fulfill in the change project, recipients were trying to find out what kind of role they wanted to fulfill in the change project. One of the recipients explains how to claim an active role in the change project: ‘’We made a work group with all the people that fulfilled the same function as mine to deliberate about what needed to happen within our expertise, for the change project .. we had to claim that role ourselves’’. (03RE02). The change agent explains that recipients could either participate in the so-called working groups where the integration of the municipalities was actively discussed, or they could choose not to be active in the working groups and then kept aloof. All recipients were advised by the change agent to participate but were not obligated to do so. The change agent acknowledges: ‘’When recipients say, I am fine with the current situation, then I ask them are you sure? And if they tell me yes, oke, I respect that … I did all advise them to participate, like administrative employees, they have to participate too, I also tried to stimulate that’’ (03CA03).
The goals of this change project are tangible and can be measured both quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative results were measured through the costs of the change project and whether deadlines were met. The change agent explains: ‘’It is an integration project and there is an x number of activities that need to be done. Otherwise, we cannot integrate, so we measure where we are and what still needs to be done’’ (03CA03). Qualitative results in terms of employee satisfaction were also visible according to the change agent but were not measured. The change agent explains: ‘’I always say if you look at the change process and you look at the people, what do you see in the workplace.. and if you see the improvements then why should I measure it?’’ (03CA03).
The project permeability, which is defined as how subject the project is to risk outside project control (Crawford & Pollack, 2004) was in this project very high. Political factors especially influence this project. Politics have a high influence on the governance of the Netherlands and if politics change, it is possible that this change project changes to. The change agent acknowledges: ‘’The change of
restructuring the organization depends on various issues and how society thinks we should handle them’’ (03CA03).
25
stakeholders are the inhabitants of the municipality. An attempt was made to involve the inhabitants of the three municipalities actively, one of the recipients explains: ‘’They have asked the inhabitants what do you think is important for the new municipality? That schools remain for our children or have public transport here, or we want to have a tree on that square, or we want a bench, yes, it is very different and that information has been collected, and what happened to it next? I do not know that’’ (03RE02).
Leadership in the change project
The change agent in this change project shows person-oriented or transformational leadership and task-oriented or transactional leadership.
On the person-oriented or transformational dimension the change agent shows behaviour on the individual consideration dimension by coaching and supporting recipients. The change agent describes how he tries to coach recipients: ‘’I try to help them to make the right decisions… I ask them, would you like this? Do you think you can handle a function like this? We can work out together where the interests of that person lie.. ‘’ (03CA03). One of the recipients acknowledges: ‘’he listened to me, helped me where he could, like a coach’’ (03RE01). Furthermore, all recipients describe that they feel supported by the change agent: ‘’He was good at supporting me, he said: you have to do this, show what you are worth and just fight for what you are worth. Otherwise, I might have thought well I give my position to [name] and it has been good .. I am not going to start this .. but he said to me: you must now show what you are worth!’’ (03RE01), ‘’If we wanted something to be arranged, he would arrange it for us’’ (03RE02), ‘’He went out of his way for us.. he tried to do his best for his
recipients’’ (03RE03). Recipients explain that this was mostly the case at the beginning of the change project.
On the task-oriented or transactional dimension, the change agent showed pressuring and instructing behaviour. Instructing behaviour was mostly seen when the change agent had to instruct the recipients to do work-tasks, for instance one of the recipients describes: ‘’He then came in and said laughing: o, the mayor has thought of something again, because then he would have consulted with the mayor again, and then he would come back with gigantic jobs for us..’’ (03RE01). Pressuring behaviour was mostly seen when the change agent had to pressure recipients to do work-tasks: ‘’I said [change agent] this is not possible! Yes, yes he said, then it is only a six instead of an eight but make sure it is done because the mayor wants it’’ (03RE01).
26
there is also more to it.. If you had emotions then you thought oh, yes indeed there is more than this’’ (03RE01). However, intense emotions accompanied this change project, and this behaviour was also interpreted different sometimes, one recipient explains: ‘’He could come across as a bit laconic, you know? That I thought yes, but I want to stay here and I want to fight for what I'm worth here, you do not know what it’s like’’ (01RE03).
Recipients were very open in their attitudes towards this change project. One recipient describes what this change project provoked emotionally: ‘’You are hurt on your abilities, because something you've been doing for six years, and suddenly opinions are formed by all sorts of independent people.. and I really thought who are you? Who do you think you are? To judge me in this way for something that I have been doing well for six years ..?’’ (03RE01). Besides this, there were also some positive reactions on this change project: ‘’I see it as a journey of discovery, it is also fun, I see it as a challenge’’ (03RE02).
Change approach
This change project was initiated top-down by political ambitions. As the change agent describes it: ‘’The recipients have no choice.. although, they have a choice, they can choose to change along, or they can apply for a different job at a different organization’’ (03CA03).
The change agent has described that he had just finished a project that just looked like this one, so he knew what he was getting into, he explained: ‘’If you go there you already know how it goes, it is mainly about small differences and points of attention, so you focus on that’’ (03CA03). During a period of analysing and observing the change agent started with talking to all of the recipients. One of the recipients describes this: ‘’When he came he started talking to everyone and asked everyone how they thought about the change project’’ (03RE02). The change agent also tried to talk with all the managers of the recipients to get a more clear picture of their needs, the change agent explains: ‘’I want to know what keeps people busy and where ambitions of them lie, so I made agreements with those people and then you start to go in a development process together’’ (03CA03). Besides this, the change agent clarified multiple times that the process of guiding people is not one that could be managed with a plan.
Another task that the change agent had was to ensure that the basics of the work processes were well organized. He started with analysing and prioritizing what was done and what needed to be done before the deadline of the first of January, 2019, the date that the municipality had to integrate. The change agent explained that he had a global planning with deadlines to make sure they would eventually be ready before the first of January, 2019.
27
easy to measure. Furthermore, this project is focused on efficient delivery of the predetermined solution, and recipients are seen as experts in their field of work. Recipients have clear defined roles when they choose to participate in the so called working groups. The leadership style of this change agent is described as both person-oriented or transformational and task-oriented or transactional. This is the case because the task of the change agent is also twofold: firstly this change agent was asked to ensure that the basics of the work processes were well organized and that some projects were
implemented and secondly, he was asked to guide the employees of the municipality to a new position within the new municipality, or within an organization that would carry out business operations for the municipality. It becomes clear that when the change agent was involved in the implementation of projects, the change agent showed more task-oriented or transactional leadership such as pressuring and instructing behavior. Whereas when the change agent was involved in guiding recipients to a new position, he showed more person-oriented or transformational leadership like coaching or supporting. For both tasks, the change agent also shows two approaches. For the task of guiding recipients to a new position within the new municipality, or within another organization that would carry out
business operations for the new municipality the change agent explains that after a round of getting to know everyone, each recipient has to be coached individually and that this is something which cannot be managed with a plan. The change agent was mostly busy with implementing projects and making sure the basics of the work processes were well organized, the change agent mostly showed task oriented or transactional leadership for this task.
In the next section, the cross-case analysis is described. Cross-case analysis
In this cross-case analysis, patterns across the three cases are described and compared. The first and second change project emerged bottom up out of problems that the recipients
encountered and could not solve by themselves. In both change projects, recipients asked for help, and a change agent was assigned to move recipients towards improvement. In contrary to the third change project, which was decided upon top-down and originated from external political influences.
Moreover, the first and second change project have more soft project characteristics than the third project, which has more hard project characteristics. It becomes clear that bottom-up initiated change projects lead to softer project characteristics than top-down initiated change projects, which lead to more hard project characteristics.
28
second change project only showed person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviour on the intellectual stimulation dimension and the change agent of the third change project only showed person-oriented or transformational leadership on the individual consideration dimension. In the third project, which is the most hard-oriented project, the change agent showed the most task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviour, namely: giving instructions and pressuring recipients to work hard. Whereas the change agent of the first change project only occasionally shows this behaviour and the change agent of the second project only shows pressuring behaviour. It becomes clear that change projects with softer project characteristics lead to more person-oriented or transformational leadership, whereas projects that have more hard project characteristics lead to more task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviours.
When comparing the change activities that these change agents emphasize, it becomes clear that there are also some similarities and differences between the change approaches of these three change agents. The change agent out of the first change project that showed the most person-oriented or
transformational behaviour focused at the beginning of this change project on creating a team to bring about the change project. This originated partially out of necessity because half of the department had resigned. Then the focus of this change agent shifted to coaching the heroes of the team so that they could serve as role models for the rest of the team. The change agent out of the second change project that showed person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviour and task-oriented or
transactional leadership behaviour focused at the beginning of the change project on creating a guiding coalition, which was a cross-functional group of employees to bring different perspectives and
expertise’s together. Then this change agent tried, together with this guiding coalition, to convince and persuade the recipients to change. Furthermore, this change agent was also focused on embedding the changes in the organization and evaluating change activities. The change agent out of the third change project, which showed the most task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviour clearly emphasized that this change project was not one which could be managed with a plan. This change agent started coaching individuals in their ambitions and perspectives to get a clear understanding of their needs and implemented projects that had to be executed. It becomes clear that the change agents out of the first and out of the third change project focus mostly on caching. The change agents out of the first and second change projects, who show more person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviour emphasize at the beginning of the change project on mobilizing activities: creating a new team to bring about the change and creating a guiding coalition. Furthermore, the change agent out of the second change project is the only change agent who also focused on embedding the changes in the
29
When zooming in on the degree of participation within the change projects, more cross-case patterns come to the fore. In all three change projects, active participation was observed, but all for different reasons. In the first change project, the degree of participation of the recipients was the highest. Recipients perceive the change project as their own and try to manage the change project themselves. In the second and third change project, active participation is observed, but also some passive
resistance came to the fore. When comparing this to the leadership behaviour of the change agents, it becomes clear that the change agent out of the first change project, who shows the most person-oriented or transformational leadership has recipients who are most actively participating. Whereas, the change agent out of the second change project who shows person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviour and task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviour and the change agent out of the third project who shows the most task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviour also encounter some passive resistance.
Next to leadership behaviour, the degree of participation can also be linked to the change activities. It then shows that the change agent out of the first change project, who shows the most person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviour is focused mostly on the activities mobilizing and coaching and that this leads in turn to the highest degree of participation out of the three change projects. Whereas the second change agent both shows person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviour and also focuses on mobilizing and in addition on persuading behaviour also encounters some passive resistance. This was also the case in the third change project with the change agent who showed most task-oriented or transactional behaviour and focused on coaching and implementation activities.
Moreover, it was extraordinary that the recipients out of the first change project al described their relationship with the change agent as one that consists of a high degree of mutual trust. This seems to be due to the change agent’s long tenure in the organization. This change agent has a lot of
30
Discussion and conclusion
Higgs & Rowland (2011) implied that leadership influences change approaches and asserted that the role of leadership in a change context is an area that is lacking empirical research (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Furthermore, Crawford & Pollack (2004) called for a need to develop approaches which bring together the success rates and factors of both hard and soft change projects (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). The purpose of this research was to extend the existing literature by exploring the interaction of project characteristics and leadership style in creating change approaches. This research has led to the (dis)confirmation of existing theories and has also led to some new insights which are described next. The first cross-case pattern that was found concerned the relationship between how a change project was initiated, the degree of hardness and softness of project characteristics and which leadership behaviour this evokes. The first and second change project emerged bottom-up, in contrary to the third change project which was decided upon top-down. Moreover, the first and second change project have more soft project characteristics than the third project, which has more hard project characteristics. It becomes clear that bottom-up initiated change projects lead to softer project characteristics than top-down initiated change projects, which lead to more hard project characteristics. Moreover, it became clear that in the first change project, that showed more soft project characteristics, the change agent showed the most person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviour. Whereas, in the third change project, that showed more hard project characteristics, the change agent showed the most task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviour. It thus becomes clear that change projects with more soft project characteristics generally evoke more person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviours, whereas projects that have more hard project characteristics generally evoke more task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviours. Crawford & Pollack (2004) have already noted that hard and soft change projects require different management approaches and skill sets and have stated that a management style based on command and control is mostly associated with the hard paradigm, whereas a management style based on people, who are understood to be part of complex cultures, with individual expectations, desires, values, roles, and norms of action, is mostly associated with the soft paradigm. (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). This statement is confirmed in practice and can be extended with the finding that bottom-up initiated change projects lead to softer project characteristics than top-down initiated change projects, which lead to more hard project characteristics These findings have led to the following propositions:
Proposition 1a: Bottom-up initiated change projects generally lead to more soft project characteristics which evoke more person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviour.
31
The second cross-case pattern that emerged is between project characteristics, leadership style, and the type of change activities that were emphasized. Results show that the change agent out of the first change project with most soft project characteristics showed the most person-oriented or
transformational leadership behavior and emphasized most on mobilizing and coaching activities. The change agent out of the second change project with also most soft project characteristics that showed both person-oriented or transformational leadership and task-oriented or transactional leadership also emphasized on mobilizing activities, but in addition also focused on persuading, or convincing and on evaluating change activities. The change agent out of the third change project showed the most task-oriented or transactional leadership and emphasized most on implementing and coaching activities. None of these three change agents emphasized communicating activities. This does not align with findings of Battilana et al. (2010) who have found that leaders who are more effective at task-oriented or transactional leadership behavior are more likely to focus on both mobilizing and evaluating activities, and leaders who are more effective at person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviours are more likely to be effective in communicating activities. It might be that change agents out of the first and second change project do not focus on communicating the need for change because soft projects are usually more subjective and ambiguous and this makes it, therefore, more difficult to communicate about soft change projects (Durão, et al., 2017). Moreover, it was found that the change agent out of the second change project focused on persuading/convincing activities. This can be linked with the findings of Müller and Turner (2009) who have set out a leadership development
questionnaire to profile the leaders of successful projects (Müller & Turner, 2009). Their research indicates that successful project leaders have four types of competencies that are needed in projects, among which influencing (leader can persuade others to change their viewpoint and can provide a rationale for change), is an important competency (Müller & Turner, 2009). These two findings have led to the following two propositions:
Proposition 2a: change agents who operate in projects with more soft project characteristics and additionally show more person-oriented or transformational leadership behaviours are more likely to focus on mobilizing activities, instead of communication activities.
Proposition 2b: change agents who operate in projects with more soft project characteristics and additionally show person-oriented or transformational and task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviours are more likely to engage in persuading or convincing behavior which increases the probability of being a successful project leader.
