Leading Change: : The Argument for Values‐based Leadership

Citation

Kaufman, M. (1998), "Leading Change: : The Argument for Values‐based Leadership", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 77-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm.1998.11.1.77.3

Looking for a quick fix? A how‐to for leading an organization down the rapids of change? Then James O’Toole’s Leading Change is not the book. In fact, O’Toole makes it clear from the outset that there is no magic bullet for leadership or successful change management. This is a refreshing departure from the numerous books and articles that explain leadership with pseudo‐scientific models. Leading Change uses no flow charts, no diagrams and no models. Instead, the reader is guided through a well‐blended history of political and corporate change agents, resistance to new ideas and moral philosophy. It is argued that leadership styles come and go, but the undercurrents of successful change are the values that guide the leader. These values are unaltered by time, industry and political climate. On the other side of the equation, failed initiatives toward planned change cannot be traced to the method used, but rather to the inappropriate behavior, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions of the leader. As O’Toole states in the introduction, “Leadership, in the final analysis, is not about style but about ideas.” Leading Change picks up where O’Toole’s previous work, The Executive’s Compass, leaves off, taking us further into the moral aspects of leadership and the psychological aspects of resistance.

The nebulous idea of values‐based leadership is quickly elucidated using America’s most visible values‐based leaders, what O’Toole calls, the “Rushmoreans.” Though all four men enshrined on Mount Rushmore used vastly different leadership styles, they held common values. The elements of integrity, trust, listening and respect for followers, comprise the quadrivium of O’Toole’s values‐based leadership. These must be evident always. Any slip in these values violates the trust element and sabotages the leader’s future actions. O’Toole is careful to point out that although Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt are exemplars as leaders, they were not saints. O’Toole resists the temptation to dismiss their leadership qualities in light of their personal lives and makes a strong argument for the distinction between leadership values and personal values: “…a great senator is no less great as a leader if he is occasionally drunk at home over dinner, for that is private matter; a senator who takes the smallest bribe is an unworthy leader regardless of anything else, because that is a public matter.” This runs contrary to our common perceptions but the proof offered by the Rushmoreans is solid. O’Toole is also careful to point out that morals are imperative but lack high impact when not coupled with the more traditional traits of successful leadership.

From the presidential Rushmoreans we are transitioned into the “Corporate Rushmoreans”: executives who are successful as change agents because values‐based leadership underlies their every decision. O’Toole found many worthy leaders but narrowed the field to four: Max De Pree of Herman Miller, James Houghton of Corning, Robert Gavin of Motorola and Jan Carlzon of Scandinavian Airlines. Special mention is also made of Frances Hesselbein’s leadership of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America. The comparison between these business leaders and the Rushmorean presidents is particularly useful in bridging the gap between the political and corporate world. We find that the hallmarks of inclusive leadership ‐ listening, information sharing and a commitment to institutionalized continuous change, renewal, innovation and learning ‐ are present in all successful leaders of change. These examples of values‐based leaders are as close as O’Toole comes to creating a “how‐to” for the reader. We can see what to do from the examples, but how to carry it out is left up to the reader. It is consistent with the philosophy of the book that the creation of values rests with the individual.

The one area where O’Toole does draw the line between the right way and the wrong way is in his criticism of the “it all depends” attitude behind contingency theory. This portion is exceptionally well thought out, drawing from thinkers as varied as Plato, Lao‐tzu, Warren Bennis and W. Edward Deming. According to O’Toole, contingency theory lends itself to dictatorial leadership, especially in times of change or crisis when it would appear most justified. This is exactly why it fails as a long‐term leadership strategy. When a leader resorts to imposing his or her will on followers just once, the transformation into a values‐based, inclusionary leader becomes especially difficult. O’Toole is also deft at negating the strongest argument for contingency theory and against his values‐based leadership; namely, that in moments of crisis there just isn’t time to include followers and be the listening leader. These are times for quick action. But using the crisis management studies conducted by Blake and Mouton (1985) with NASA pilots, O’Toole finds ample support that even in the most dire of circumstances, values‐based leadership pays off.

The remainder of the book is devoted to resistance to change. Again, O’Toole breaks from tradition a bit. Whereas volumes have been written to assist the leader in overcoming resistance in followers, little focus has been given to leaders resisting the ideas that would help them overcome resistance. Another welcome departure is O’Toole’s recognition of the impossibility of offering a conclusive model to overcoming resistance. Instead of creating a model that theorists will find valid, he opts for an explanation that practitioners will find useful. “Because the roots of collective behavior may be too deep for us to uncover, our goal cannot be to find an explanation that clears the high hurdle of ‘scientific proof’. Instead, we search for an explanation of the resistance to change that meets a lower, more practical standard: is it useful to practitioners of change? For our purposes, that will be good enough.” Shades of William James!

As with the exemplary values‐based leaders, O’Toole guides us through some of the classic cases of resistance: General Motors blind denial of Peter Drucker’s findings in Concept of the Corporation, American industry’s rejection of J. Edwards Deming and the case of Robert Owen, the early nineteenth century entrepreneur who predated “new management” by nearly 150 years. Although fascinating histories in their own right, O’Toole uses these cases to illuminate the multitude of reasons why we resist change. Three are discussed at length: organizational culture, values of western society and “the despotism of custom”. Organizational culture creates an interesting paradox. Bureaucratic sloth and centralized authority are the mechanisms that prevent destructive change, but they also prevent constructive change. Another aspect of organizational culture, particularly relevant to the General Motors case, is the stifling impact of success. Success often breeds complacency. Though the view is a bit myopic, the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” philosophy is very tempting to leaders of successful organizations. On the issue of the values of western society O’Toole adds our collective psyche into the equation. The corporation is the closest embodiment of Plato’s well ordered state that humankind have yet to create. Plato, Thomas Hobbes, and even Confucius preached the benefits of being ruled by a worthy few. It is no coincidence, however, that each also considered himself a part of that idyllic oligarchy. According to O’Toole, this ruling class is resistant to change because it has no obvious payoff for them. This approach is also flawed in that it conflicts with the inclusionary principles of values‐based leadership.

“The despotism of custom” was a term coined by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty in 1859. The thought here is that society (O’Toole extrapolates to organizations from this) errs too much on the side of conformity. Change and conformity cannot peacefully co‐exist and something has to give. Custom and conformity are known and comfortable, which often leads to a despotic resistance to change.

In all fairness, none of the sources of resistance is new or even insufficiently studied by theorists and practitioners. The difference in Leading Change is that O’Toole refuses to fully support any of them. Instead, he concedes a “good enough” explanation for resistance. Of all people, Lee Iacocca seems to have put forth the best words for resistance to change. Says Iacocca: “From Wall Street to Washington, from boardrooms to union halls, what anybody with power is most scared of is change. Any kind of change. Especially change that’s forced on them.” O’Toole is especially fond of the wide applicability of this statement to the potential change agent, his intended audience.

Leading change requires not only a knowledge of the sources of resistance but also an underlying set of strong consistent values that elicit trust among followers. The idea is that the effective leader of change is an inclusive leader of leaders ‐ with vision and values in common. O’Toole makes his point effectively with numerous examples that border on proof while refraining from dogmatism. Leading Change is constructed with the mind of a scientist and the heart of a sociologist. A true accomplishment. Then again, as O’Toole himself summarizes, “At its core, the process of values‐based leadership is the creation of moral symmetry among those with competing values. Significantly, that entails something far more difficult than compromise.”