W11 power point

Please see attached documents.

Change Implementation and Management Plan

It is one of the most cliché of clichés, but it nevertheless rings true: The only constant is change. As a nursing professional, you are no doubt aware that success in the healthcare field requires the ability to adapt to change, as the pace of change in healthcare may be without rival. As a professional, you will be called upon to share expertise, inform, educate, and advocate. Your efforts in these areas can help lead others through change.

In this Assignment, you will propose a change within your organization and present a comprehensive plan to implement the change you propose.

To Prepare:

· Review the Resources and identify one change that you believe is called for in your organization/workplace.

· This may be a change necessary to effectively address one or more of the issues you addressed in the Workplace Environment Assessment you submitted in Module 4.

· It may also be a change in response to something not addressed in your previous efforts. It may be beneficial to discuss your ideas with your organizational leadership and/or colleagues to help identify and vet these ideas.

· Reflect on how you might implement this change and how you might communicate this change to organizational leadership.

The Assignment (5-6-minute narrated PowerPoint presentation):

Change Implementation and Management Plan

Create a narrated PowerPoint presentation of 5 or 6 slides with video that presents a comprehensive plan to implement the change you propose.

Your narrated presentation should be 5–6 minutes in length.

Your Change Implementation and Management Plan should include the following:

· An executive summary of the issues that are currently affecting your organization/workplace (This can include the work you completed in your Workplace Environment Assessment previously submitted, if relevant.)

· A description of the change being proposed

· Justifications for the change, including why addressing it will have a positive impact on your organization/workplace

· Details about the type and scope of the proposed change

· Identification of the stakeholders impacted by the change

· Identification of a change management team (by title/role)

· A plan for communicating the change you propose

· A description of risk mitigation plans you would recommend addressing the risks anticipated by the change you propose

Use the articles attached and these two videos for guidance and add those to the references.

· TEDx(2013).six keys to leading positive change. Rosebeth Moss. Retrieved from

· Review these instructions for guidance in how to create a narrated power point presentation.

· https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/record-a-slide-show-with-narra-tion-and-slide-timings-0b9502c6-5f6c-40ae-b1e47d8741161c.

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Using Kotter’s Eight Stage Process to Manage
an Organisational Change Program: Presentation
and Practice

Julien Pollack • Rachel Pollack

Published online: 23 March 2014
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Kotter’s eight stage process for creating a major change is one of the most widely
recognised models for change management, and yet there are few case studies in the academic

literature that enquire into how this process has been used in practice. This paper describes a

change manager’s action research enquiring into the use of this Process to manage a major

organisational change. The change was initiated in response to the organisation’s ageing

workforce, introducing a knowledge management program focusing on the interpersonal

aspects of knowledge retention. Although Kotter’s process emphasises a top-led model for

change, the change team found it was necessary to engage at many levels of the organisation

to implement the organisational change. The process is typically depicted as a linear sequence

of steps. However, this image of the change process was found to not represent the complexity

of the required action. Managing the change required the change team to facilitate multiple

concurrent instances of Kotter’s process throughout the organisation, to re-create change that

was locally relevant to participants in the change process.

Keywords Change management � Organisational change � Kotter’s eight
stage process � Knowledge management � Aging workforce � Action research

Introduction

This research reports on action research (AR) into an organisational change program in the

Australian Finance and Insurance Sector. The use of Kotter’s eight stage process of cre-

ating a major change (Kotter 1996) is studied in detail, providing insight into the use of this

process that can be of benefit to other change managers seeking to apply it.

J. Pollack (&)
University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box

123

Broadway, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
e-mail: Julien.pollack@uts.edu.au

R. Pollack
Sydney, Australia

123

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66
DOI 10.1007/s11213-014-9317-0

The relevance of this research becomes clear on recognising the significant divide that

has been identified between the academic and practitioner change management commu-

nities. In 1993, it was identified that a boundary existed between theoreticians and prac-

titioners (Buchanan 1993, p .684), with both being dismissive of each others’ work, and

that there was little connection between their contributions (1993, p. 685). More recently,

Saka (2003, p. 481) identified a similar division between how change management is

described and how it is practiced. This situation has apparently not changed, with Ap-

pelbaum et al. (2012), p. 764) calling for a greater emphasis on producing research in a

form that is usable by those who practice change management.

There appears to be little research that enquires into the practicalities of using change

management techniques to effect organizational change, either with regard to their suit-

ability or appropriateness. Although there is a significant body of literature which provides

advice for practitioners, there remains little research on how to actually apply change

management techniques, or critically questions their effectiveness (Raineri 2011, p. 267); a

lack that this research helps to address.

Kotter’s (1996) eight stage process of creating a major change has been recognised as

one of the most well known approaches to organisational transformation (Mento et al.

2002, p .45), as the mainstream wisdom for leading change (Nitta et al. 2009, p .467), and

the most compelling formula for success in change management (Phelan 2005, p .47).

Kotter’s work became highly sought after by leaders of organizations who were planning

on implementing organizational change initiatives (Brisson-Banks 2010, p. 248). The

Process ‘‘…became an instantaneous success at the time it was advocated and it remains a
key reference in the field of change management’’ (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 765).

Given the popularity of Kotter’s eight stage process it may be reasonable to assume that

claims of a divide between research and practice are not relevant in this case. However, a

thorough study of the literature by Appelbaum et al. (2012) has revealed that this is not

necessarily true. Their review of the change management literature revealed that ‘‘…most
of the evidence found during the search points to data that has been compiled by Kotter

himself … In essence Kotter validated Kotter’’ (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 776). Aca-
demics appear to have used Kotter’s findings about change management as if verified and

tested. ‘‘Kotter’s change management model appears to derive its popularity more from its

direct and usable format than from any scientific consensus on the results’’ (Appelbaum

et al. 2012, p. 764).

A variety of reviews of the field of organisational change can be found in the literature

(e.g. Cao and McHugh 2005). Although some authors (e.g. Tsoukas and Papoulias 2005)

refer to an abundance of case studies examining organizational change, there are few case

studies of changes managed using Kotter’s Process (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 776). The

weight of research that references Kotter’s work does not investigate how the process can

be used, but instead either discusses Kotter’s writing in the context of the broader literature

on change management, or uses the process as a framework for conducting a post hoc

analysis of a change (e.g. Yauch and Steudel 2002; Sikorko 2008; Smith 2011; Casey et al.

2012; Nitta et al. 2009; Goede 2011; Gupta 2011).

Studies by Cole et al. (2006, p.363) and Paper et al. (2001), p.85) have found the actual

execution of a change to be one of the key factors in determining success or failure. Of the

various ways in which Kotter’s work has been used in the change management literature, it

is arguably AR, rather than literature reviews or post hoc analyses, that have the greater

potential to contribute to improved execution. Some case studies of changes managed

using Kotter’s process do stand out (e.g. Springer et al. 2012; Lintukangas et al. 2009; Day

and Atkinson 2004; Ansari and Bell 2009; Joffe and Glynn 2002), and it is to this small but

52 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

important literature to which this research contributes. This research critically examines

how Kotter’s (1996) eight stage process of creating a major change has been used to

manage an organisational change; a process that despite its popularity, has rarely been

studied in the academic literature.

The Eight Stage Process of Creating a Major Change

The eight stage process is ‘‘…as a vision for the change process’’ (Mento et al. 2002, p .45)
describing a series of steps to be taken to achieve mandated organisational changes. A wide

variety of models for managing organisational change exist in the literature (Sikorko 2008,

p. 307; Stewart and Kringas 2003, p .676; Buchanan 1993, p. 684; Smith 2011, p. 115;

Pillay et al. 2012, p .59), and is not the place of this research to analyse Kotter’s process in

relation to other models. Readers are instead referred to authors who have already done this

(e.g. Brisson-Banks 2010; Stewart and Kringas 2003). However, it is worthwhile to note

some ways in which the Process has been characterized: as placing a strong emphasis on

leadership (Pillay et al. 2012, p .61; Raineri 2011; Choi et al. 2011, p. 12) and viewing

change as top-led (Abraham et al. 2002, p. 36; Choi et al. 2011, p. 12; Day and Atkinson

2004, p. 258). Kotter’s approach has also been described as focusing on organisational

culture (Casey et al. 2012, p. 112), and of being typical of private sector change models

(Stewart and Kringas 2003). Disagreement also exists, with some (Pillay et al. 2012, p. 60)

describing the process as centrally planned change, while By (2005) has described it as

emphasising an emergent, rather than a planned, approach to change management.

Kotter’s eight stage process of creating a major change as detailed in Leading Change

(1996) and later works can be summarised as follows:

1. Establishing a sense of urgency

2. Creating the guiding coalition

3. Develop a vision and strategy

4. Communicating the change vision

5. Empowering broad-based change

6. Generating short-term wins

7. Consolidating gains and producing more change

8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture

The efficacy of Kotter’s process has been broadly supported in the literature (e.g. Ansari

and Bell 2009, p. 160; Cegielski et al. 2006, p. 311). Despite its popularity, the process has

also been criticised. It has been claimed that this, and other, change management processes

describe what has to be done but provide little detail in how it should be achieved (Pfeifer

et al. 2005, p. 297), and that it is not sufficiently detailed to guide change management in

all situations (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 775). Conversely, the Process has also been

criticised as not general enough for some kinds of change (Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 157),

and of being overly planned, and therefore not representation of the realities of organi-

sational life (Hay et al. 2001, p. 243). However, these criticisms need to be tempered by

Sikorko (2008) observation that ‘‘…no single model can provide a one-size-fits-all solution
to organisational change.’’

Springer et al. (2012)provides a detailed case study which reviews the use of the process

to implement a cultural change at the Boise State University School of Nursing. The case

provides detail about the changes that were implemented within the organisation, but does

not focus on how the process was used to facilitate this change. This case study leaves the

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 53

123

reader with the impression use of Kotter’s Process was uncontentious. Perhaps this was the

case, although without specific comment to this effect it is not possible to say.

The Process was also used to facilitate change in an aerospace industry study presented

by Day and Atkinson (2004). In this case, the process was used as a planning tool and to

communicate the nature of the change to procurement functions in the early stages of the

change program. However, the practitioners in this case study had limited success using the

process as a guide for future action, finding the process to be of ‘‘…limited use over and
above the raising of personal awareness about the range of factors that are to be considered

throughout a change programme…’’ (Day and Atkinson 2004, p. 266).
Kotter’s process was also used in the implementation of a Shell Gabon strategic cost

initiative in the initial planning phases of the change program (Ansari and Bell 2009).

However, the change team found that not all stages of Kotter’s process suited their

environment, needing to add other conceptual frameworks. Joffe and Glynn (2002) also

present a study of the use of Kotter’s process in the pharmaceutical industry, while

Lintukangas et al. (2009) present a case study of a forestry company which aimed to follow

Kotter’s process in implementing an organisational change. However, neither of these

latter two cases provide significant critical reflection on the use of the process, and so are of

limited use in understanding how the process can be applied in practice.

Methodology and Structure of the Paper

This research was conducted at UGF (a pseudonym), an Australian organisation in the

Finance and Insurance Sector with over 10,000 employees and offices worldwide. The

change manager used Kotter’s eight-stage process of creating a major change to guide and

structure change management action, and the use of this process forms the focus for this

research.

This research was managed using AR. There are a wide variety of forms of AR,

although it would be fair to say that most could be described as cyclic and reflective

methodologies (Swepson 2003, p. 102), which are primarily focused on intervention, rather

than observation (Midgley 2003, p. 81). AR is an approach to research which allows a

researcher to engage in an organisation, and simultaneously create knowledge about that

process (Olsen and Myers 1999, p. 323).

AR is particularly appropriate for organisational settings, where the need to produce

organisational outcomes may be more significant in securing ongoing research participa-

tion than the promise of research outcomes. AR requires involvement in problem situations

and a ‘‘… readiness to use the experience itself as a research object about which lessons
can be learned by conscious reflection’’ (Checkland and Scholes 1990, p. 16). AR has also

been identified as appropriate for organisational change research, as it assists in developing

an understanding of the ways that social systems change (Lau 1999, p. 149), and has been

used to study a wide variety of business problems, including: organisational change and

transformation; marketing; product development; manufacturing; engineering; information

systems and e-commerce; accounting; small business; and management development

(Sankaran and Tay 2003, pp. 1–2).

Flood (1999, p. 53) has noted the development of a unique form of AR as one of the key

strands in Checkland’s work. Checkland’s FMA model has been identified as one of the

most widely used forms of AR (Champion 2007, p. 455), and it is this model which has

been followed in this research. The main components of this model are a research

framework (F); a methodology (M); and an area of application (A). Simply, particular ‘‘…

54 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

linked ideas F are used in a methodology M to investigate an area of interest A’’

(Checkland and Howell 1998, p. 13). Being explicit about these three elements may lead to

learning not only about the area of application, but also about the adequacy of the

methodology and the research framework (Checkland and Howell 1998, p. 13). Indeed, the

majority of learning resulting from the research presented in this paper is at the level of

methodology.

Clear distinction between a framework of ideas and a methodology for the organised

application of those ideas differentiates this approach to AR from others (Checkland 2003,

p. 291). Most other AR ‘‘… omits the need for a declared-in-advance intellectual frame-
work of ideas, a framework in terms of which what constitutes ‘knowledge’ about the

situation researched will be defined and expressed’’ (Checkland and Holwell 1998,

pp. 22–3). What constitutes knowledge in a problem situation should not be taken as given.

In defining F, the researcher is in effect defining the epistemology of the research and

defining what will count as knowledge (p. 24). Declaring the intellectual framework for an

AR project can be thought of as a way of contextualising the research in relation to the

range of possible forms of knowledge extant, allowing any research findings to be

appropriately judged and understood.

It is perhaps because of clear identification of the components of research that

Checkland’s FMA model has been found to add rigour (Sarah et al. 2002, p. 537) and

provide clarity (p. 539). The FMA model has been used to study organisational change

(Molineux and Haslett 2002), and readers are referred to West and Stansfield (2001, p. 251)

for an in-depth review of the use of the FMA model.

In terms of the FMA model, this research can be summarised as follows:

• F: Interpretivist epistemology and the academic literature on organizational change
• M: Kotter’s eight stage process of creating a major change
• A: Action taken at UGF

Data for this paper was gathered through semi-structured interviews between the

authors as a way of facilitating reflection, one of whom was the change manager for the

Knowledge Management Program at UGF. At the time of initial submission of this

research for publication, the organisational change had been running for over 2 years.

The remainder of this paper will be structured according to Kotter’s process. Each stage

will be discussed in terms of principles for action as described in the literature, before

actions taken at UGF are examined. Observations and conclusions about the overall use of

the process will then follow.

Stage 1: Establishing a Sense of Urgency

The first stage in Kotter’s eight stage process is to create a sense of urgency; an awareness

of the need for the organisation to change. Kotter notes the failure to create a sense of

urgency to be the single biggest error made when trying to change organisations (Kotter

2008, p. viii), and has written a whole book, A Sense of Urgency, exclusively focusing on

this stage.

Establishing a sense of urgency is crucial to gaining needed cooperation. With

complacency high, transformations usually go nowhere because few people are even

interested in working on the change problem. With urgency low, it’s difficult to put

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 55

123

together a group with enough power and credibility to guide the effort (Kotter 1996,

p. 36).

Complacency, rather than a desire for change, has been identified as more likely to be

the norm in established organisations (Kotter 2008, p. 15). Considerable effort may be

required to motivate organisational personnel to invest their time and effort and to put up

with the inconveniences of change (Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 157).

Although in Australia the Financial and Insurance Services sector has a relatively

younger workforce than many other sectors (Department of Education, Employment and

Workplace Relations 2010, p. 12), the issues that could result from a failure to respond to

their aging workforce were apparent to the senior management team at UGF. It was

identified that aging workforce issues could negatively impact upon core business areas if

left unaddressed. In particular, senior product roles were identified as under threat, due to a

lack of younger personnel able to fill these roles.

An aging workforce is typically represented as a threat; as a ‘‘… demographic time
bomb…’’ (Crampton et al. 1996, p. 243), a ‘‘…baby-boom-retirement tsunami…’’
(Leonard and Swap 2004, p. 90), or ‘‘…a threat to sustaining competitive advantage’’
(DeLong 2004, p. 19). However, the risks associated with an aging workforce are typically

faced equally by all companies within that industry sector. Risks can be considered to

include both threat and opportunity (Hillson 2003). There is an opportunity for competitive

advantage for those companies who respond most effectively to these issues.

Senior management at UGF established a Knowledge Management Program to mitigate

retirement knowledge loss. The initial focus in the Knowledge Management Program was

on exploring the risks associated with continuing with business as usual, and why change

was needed. Change management personnel reported that the need for change was easy to

sell as a message, due to widespread awareness of the looming demographic shift, but that

it was important to raise awareness that this was an issue that the company was looking to

do something about.

Stage 2: Creating the Guiding Coalition

The second stage in Kotter’s process involves forming a group who have enough power to

lead the change (Kotter 1996, p. 21). Guiding coalitions for the Knowledge Management

Program were created at multiple levels. Most prominently, the executive management

coalition was championed by the CEO and direct reports, and provided ongoing strategic

direction for the program.

The General Management Advisory Group, the second coalition, was also formed to

provide project governance. It has been identified that it is often problematic to identify

isolated factors that are responsible for the successful implementation of changes in or-

ganisations (Van der Meer 1999). However, Helm and Remington (2005) have identified

that the role of program sponsor is vital. This is particularly true in complex organisational

change programs (Remington and Pollack 2007). The involvement of these groups of

senior personnel met the need for a strong guiding coalition for the program, something

that Kotter (1996) identifies as essential.

A third prominent coalition was formed at a technical level of the organisation. One of

the projects within the program involved the development of a mentoring network, using a

risk based approach to knowledge management consistent with the approach reported on

by Sherman (2008). The change manager put considerable effort into bonding the senior

56 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

personnel invited to be coaches into a group. It was made clear that the success of the

program depended upon their involvement and drive for change. The group received

personalised communication from the sponsor EGM and CEO, and would go on to have

guiding influence beyond the limits of their project.

Stage 3: Develop a Vision and Strategy

UGF was described by the change manager as an organisation that culturally understands

and responds to risk. One of the key strengths of the organisation lay in the knowledge of

talented senior technical personnel. The organisation was already in a strong market

position. However, long-term contextual changes threatened this key strength. Upon

retirement employees take the unique skills, knowledge, experience and relationships that

they embody with them as they walk out the door. This is a commonly acknowledged

threat (e.g. Malone 2002, p. 112; DeLong 2004; Burke and Ng 2006, p. 88). Transfer of

knowledge from an older generation of experienced personnel to the generations following

was considered vital to UGF maintaining performance. This is consistent with the litera-

ture. Burke and Ng (2006) noted that those organisations that effectively transfer knowl-

edge between generations will be the least susceptible to issues associated with retiring

workers (p. 88). Knowledge transfer programs are acknowledged as a significant response

to an aging workforce in a wide variety of research (IAEA 2004, pp. 18–9; Krail 2005,

p. 35; Sherman 2008, p. 45). The vision for the program was to minimise this large risk to

the organisation’s competitive advantage, and was mostly defined in negative terms, as the

need to avoid the consequences of inaction.

The strategy to address this issue involved launching a wide variety of projects,

including: a mentoring project; developing communities of practice; role redefinition to

allow for accelerated specialist development; the introduction of a graduate program;

introduction of software supported discussion forums and analysis tools; development of

seminars focused on knowledge sharing; and a retirement preparation project focusing on

retention and workload issues. It was found that developing a vision and gaining accep-

tance for projects was relatively uncontentious. This can be attributed to broad and

common acceptance of the need to change. Of the four types of organisational change

identified by Cao et al. (2004, p. 105), this program would come to emphasise change of

cultures and values.

Stage 4: Communicating the Change Vision

The fourth Stage in Kotter’s Process is to communicate the vision for change. However,

Kotter notes that managers underestimate the amount of communication required to

develop a consistent understanding, an effort which may be hampered by inconsistent

messages, and lead to a stalled change implementation (1996, p. 85). Other research has

observed that ‘‘…in any company there is twice as much discussion about the weather than
about new strategies’’ (Pfeifer et al. 2005, p. 302). Ansari and Bell (2009, p. 159) have

identified the need to communicate the change as one of the two most important stages in

Kotter’s process.

Kotter identifies the error of ‘‘…under communicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or
100 or even 1,000)…’’ (1996, p. 9). In this organisational change at UGF more time and
effort was devoted to spreading the message and developing the visibility of the program

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 57

123

than any other program activity. However, adequately communicating the program vision

proved to involve more than repetition; something which is consistent with Sikorko (2008)

findings about change communication.

The change team focused on two broad groups of activities in communicating the

vision: visible senior support; and harnessing existing activities. Senior leaders were

regularly enlisted to talk about the need for change, and this was found to be an effective

strategy in developing senior support. For instance, on one occasion it was noted that an

executive appeared bored with the progress reports he had received. However, when he

was given slides and asked to present on the topic he became interested. In front of an

audience, he was animated and engaged, and afterwards requested more material to

present. This approach of engaging senior leaders through presentation to their teams and

to other product areas was reported as effective. It was also reported that the change team

needed to take the initiative to find new forums at which senior leaders could present,

rather than assuming this would happen without prompting. Despite CEO endorsement of

the Program, initiative could not be assumed.

The change team built on already planed activities within the organisation, often taking

senior managers’ presentation slides on other topics to draw out links to the program,

rewriting parts of the presentations to provide examples of the importance of the change,

including for the CEO. One example included the annual CEO and Executive road-show,

which was adapted to feature a strong emphasis on the program. The change team also

approached the EGM of HR and suggested that he may also want to discuss the program at

the road-show. This gave the EGM of HR an opportunity to join a politically expedient

movement, and helped to promote the program in multiple forums; at the road-show itself,

and later again when the EGM of HR reported to his leadership team.

Developing relationships with the organisation’s communications department also

proved significant. Good news articles about the program, such as updates about recent

coaching workshops, would be posted on the intranet. The change team nurtured positive

relationships with the communications department, which helped to keep news about the

Program at the top of the intranet news list for longer and with greater prominence.

Stage 5: Empowering Broad-based Change

The fifth stage in Kotter’s process involves removing obstacles to change, changing

structures or systems that undermine the vision, and encouraging innovative ideas (Kotter

1996, p. 21). As relationships with the communications team helped in the previous stage,

relationships with HR and other business units helped to remove structural barriers to

empowerment. For instance, unit business plans were centrally controlled for some units,

and locally controlled for others. The change team talked to each unit individually and to

the group overseeing central control of business plans to have aspects of the program

included in all business plans. Relationships with key personnel in HR helped to ensure

approval, and when it was approved the relationships with the communications team

helped to ensure that the program priorities featured prominently in unit plan

documentation.

Many of the blocks removed were at the project, rather than the program, level and can

be most clearly illustrated through reference to the mentoring project. To ensure coach

performance, all coaches attended training. The need for coaching training is consistent

with observations in the literature (Lubit 2001 p. 176). It has been identified that many

organisations have lost the ability to coach upcoming generations (Crawford et al. 2006,

58 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

p. 727). Coaches were also provided with a resource to assist with ongoing coaching on

coaching.

The sponsor encouraged coaches, protégés, and participants to experiment, with the

intention of empowering them to take independent action. Coaches were allowed to define

their coaching roles to suit their interests and skills. For instance, at one community of

practice it was revealed that a coach had taken his protégés on a field trip. Another coach

felt that their protégés’ negotiation skills needed to be further developed, and engaged an

external training provider. These actions were neither suggested nor pre-sanctioned, but

when revealed were actively supported.

Emphasis was also placed on ensuring that the coaches knew they had senior man-

agement support. At one point, a coach approached the change team identifying that a

protégé’s manager was making participation in the program difficult. The change manager

didn’t have the line authority to remove the block, but had access to those who could, and

did, resolve such issues.

The existing role design for many protégés also did not align with the program goals,

with many protégé’s in generalist product roles that did not allow for rapid specialist

development. The GM who oversaw many protégés was opposed to changing their role

description, so the change team started talking to everyone they could to garner support.

Coaches were surveyed and approximately 80 % identified specialisation as the better

option. It became clear that public opinion was for role specialisation and so the GM

redefined roles for the protégés.

Stage 6: Generating Short-term Wins

Short-term wins help to demonstrate the viability of change and to build momentum.

Kotter (1996, p. 123) identifies that short-term wins need to be visible; unambiguously

successful; and clearly related to the direction of change. Although not all researchers

consider short-term significant in all change programs (Ansari and Bell 2009, p. 159), they

did play a significant part in the management of the Knowledge Management Program. The

change team’s role involved less of the direct creation of short-term wins than in adver-

tising the successes of those wins.

Survey results were one way that the progress was advertised within UGF. For instance,

although at the time of writing it was too early to prove the impact of the mentoring project

on the speed of development of specialist product knowledge, the project has been lauded

as successes. Survey responses indicated a positive perception of the impact on develop-

ment speed. For instance, 94 % of coaches had noticed a positive change in protégés’

confidence and knowledge. Survey results were also used in the case study documented by

Springer et al. (2012, p. 84), although in that case they were used to develop a sense of

urgency rather than to communicate short-term wins.

Another tactic used to raise awareness of program progress was through storytelling.

Kotter (2008, p. 54) has stated that ‘‘Neurologists say that our brains are programmed

much more for stories than for PowerPoint slides and abstract ideas’’, and has referred to

‘‘…the incredible power of good stories to influence behaviors over time…’’ (Kotter 2005,
p. 142). Indeed, Kotter’s Our Iceberg is Melting (2005) is almost entirely delivered through

story. The significance of using metaphors and compelling stories to develop awareness of

the need for change or to explain a specific initiative has also been identified by Roberto

and Levesque (2005, p. 56).

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 59

123

The change team sought out examples of positive change throughout UGF that illus-

trated the successes of the Program, including structuring stories based on Denning’s

framework for the springboard story (Denning, 2001), a story structure designed to

facilitate and encourage organisational change. Senior leaders were then supplied with a

drip-feed of new scripted stories for upcoming organisational events.

The change team found that some coaches started to comment that change was too hard

to continue; that they didn’t feel they had made progress. Many of the changes that had

already occurred were intangible and easy to forget. Communicating short-term wins were

useful in soothing flagging spirits, but finding ways of communicating intangible and

diffuse wins often required considerable effort.

Stages 7 and 8: Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change, and Anchoring
New Approaches in the Culture

At the time of interview, the Knowledge Management Program was in the seventh stage of

Kotter’s process. The program had gained considerable momentum through the short-term

wins, the involvement of the program’s guiding coalitions of senior personnel, and the

persistent use all possible communication channels to increase the visibility of the

Program.

The change team now had to deal with the consequences of their success. Due to

increased access to senior management and a perception that they were on a fast-tracked

development path, participants in some projects were perceived as members of an

‘exclusive club’. In the early stages of the Program this had contributed to an aura of

success. However, the ‘exclusive club’ approach would not suit the larger and more

inclusive group involved in the next stage of growth. The change team were coming to

terms with the need to change their personal conceptualisation of the Program.

During stage seven other projects that were contributing to aligned goals and relatable

projects that were in the early stages of initiation were brought under the program banner.

It was reported that effort was required to keep the program true to the vision during this

stage of growth and to resist the manoeuvres of other parties from subverting, or changing,

the program approach. For instance, some parties were interested in changing the focus

from developing interpersonal networks of knowledge sharing to an IT-focus on devel-

oping knowledge repositories. However, it has been identified in the literature that tacit

knowledge is not easily codified and that ‘‘While it’s true that merely describing experi-

ences to people (or telling them what to do or giving them rules) may create some mental

receptors upon which to hang experience, the tacit dimensions of an expert’s deep smarts

have to be re-created to take hold’’ (Leonard and Swap 2004, p. 94). At UGF, knowledge

was being re-created through protégés’ vicarious experience of mentors’ stories, and access

to world-views developed over decades in the industry. A move towards a greater emphasis

on IT investment over interpersonal network development was resisted.

Stages seven and eight of this change process were reported as likely to take a long time

to complete. It has been noted that large scale change can take a long time to complete, and

that this is particularly true in larger organisations (Kotter 1996, p. 132). New messages

were being sought to maintain organisational interest in the change. ‘‘Whenever you let up

before the job is done, critical momentum can be lost and regression may follow. Until

changed practices attain a new equilibrium and have been driven into the culture, they can

be very fragile’’ (Kotter 1996, p. 133). As noted by Appelbaum et al. (2012) Stages 7 and 8

are complicated to evaluate. It will likely be many years before definitive statements can be

60 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

made about how well the Knowledge Management Program was embedded in the culture

of UGF.

Discussion of the Use of Kotter’s Process

It is difficult to make categorical statements about the efficacy of an approach to change,

due to the complexity of their use in practice (Appelbaum et al. 2012, p. 776). ‘‘This is one

of the inherent problems with organisational change management; nobody can know what

would have happened if a different course of action (or no action at all) had been taken …’’
(Reissner et al. 2011, p. 427). With regard to evaluating the use of a process, Checkland

and Scholes (1990, p. 299) have noted that ‘‘…there is in principle no way in which it
could be proved or disproved that this was the best way to do it, or that a more competent

use … would have achieved the results more quickly.’’ These statement are generally true
for any assessment of change management involving the implementation of a process by

unique practitioners in a unique context. However, it is possible to make observations of

the interpretation of the approach which may be of benefit to future practitioners.

Kotter’s Process has been described as ‘‘…structured linear steps’’ (Day and Atkinson
2004, p. 257), an ‘‘… ‘n’ step change…’’ process (p. 265), ‘‘…a linear progression…’’
(Nitta et al. 2009, p. 483) or ‘‘…a sequential procedure…’’ (Pfeifer et al. 2005, p. 297).
Indeed, Kotter (1996) identifies the ‘‘…importance of sequence…’’ (p. 23) and that
‘‘…skipping even a single step or getting too far ahead without a solid base almost always
creates problems’’ (p. 23). Other writers have criticised linear approaches as they ‘‘…they
lack flexibility to deal with the vast assortment of problems and issues that may be

experienced during change’’ (Sikorko 2008, p. 308), and that a traditional reading of

Kotter’s work does not account for how democratic organisational change can be (Reissner

et al. 2011, p. 426).

It is clear from the number of authors that have interpreted Kotter’s work in this way,

that his writing gives the impression that organisational change involves one sequence of

movement through the eight Stages. However, Kotter does acknowledge that earlier stages

may have to be revisited, suggesting the possibility of some break to the sequence.

Although this research paper has related the change at UGF in linear fashion, use of the

Process in practice was found to be significantly more complex than a single linear series

of steps. The distinguishing characteristic is not whether the change was linear or cyclic, or

whether it was top-down or bottom-up change. The distinction being made is between

viewing change as one cohesive Process or the sum of many coordinated Processes.

At UGF, there were many different stakeholder groups involved in delivering the

change; from the many guiding coalitions to project teams delivering individual pieces of

work. These different groups started the change process at different times, and multiple

concurrent instances of the Process were needed. To engage with stakeholders it was

necessary to treat them individually, not as part of a one-size-fits-all package. Kotter’s

description of the process does not make explicit allowance for this. Nonetheless, the eight

stage process was found to be an accurate description of the change process at the indi-

vidual group level. This is depicted in Fig. 1.

Different stakeholder groups also moved through the stages at different speeds. For

instance, little effort was needed to develop a sense of urgency in the coalition of EGMs.

By contrast, ten months after the Program had started, the change team met with a group of

managers five levels below the CEO who had not yet had much involvement in the

Program. It was clear that the managers were not engaged. Although the organisation was

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 61

123

celebrating the short term wins from other parts of the Program, this group did not

understand the urgency. In order to engage this group, it was necessary to start the change

process again separately. This involved bringing in senior managers to discuss the need for

change, forming this group into their own coalition to lead their manifestation of the

change, and defining a vision for what the change meant for them. Senior management’s

vision for the change needed to be re-created at a local level for this group to own their part

of the change process.

This can also be seen in discussion of Stage 2. One interpretation of this stage suggests

the need to create a single guiding coalition. Kotter’s work tends to only refer to a guiding

coalition in the singular, and is silent on the possibility of using multiple distributed

guiding coalitions. However, Day and Atkinson criticise the idea of a guiding coalition as

unable to address a ‘‘…multiplicity of agendas…’’ (2004, p. 265), and it is possible that a
single coalition would not have been able to address all agendas in the Program at UGF.

However, in this Program multiple guiding coalitions were created at different organisa-

tional levels and in different areas of the organisation. One executive coalition set the

original strategy, and a second significant coalition addressed governance issues, while a

third took ownership of two prominent projects. In addition, as the Program developed, still

more groups provided leadership for the parts of the Program that were relevant to them,

with the change management team providing a guiding force to maintain alignment

between these different groups. Each coalition was given responsibility for pushing change

at a level that was appropriate to their scope of work. This finding echoes an observation

made by Sikorko (2008).

‘‘…what eventuated was that several ‘‘guiding coalitions’’ were established, not
necessarily at the same time and with different yet complementary charges that were

appropriate to the need at the particular point of time in the change process. Kotter

makes no allowance for such complexities.’’ (Sikorko 2008, p. 310)

Kotter’s work remains ambiguous and relatively silent with respect to the issue of

whether change should be managed as a single instance of his Process or as multiple

instances distributed throughout an organisation. His silence on this issue may be delib-

erate, with the intention of preserving a simple account of the process of organisational

change. While this simplicity may have aided in communicating the change process, it may

also have given the impression that change in a large organisation can, or should, be

Fig. 1 Multiple concurrent change processes through the organisation

62 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

managed as a single iteration through the Process, with all parts of the organisation moving

in unison. Such an approach that would have been problematic at UGF where different

stakeholder groups started the Process at different times, and progressed through it at

different speeds.

At an organisational level, when roughly summing the effort applied by all stakeholder

groups at UGF, each of which were at different stages of progress through the Process, the

organisation could be depicted as moving through the eight stage process in a linear way

(See Fig. 2). This suggests that it is important to think of the change process at both the

organisational level and at the level of separate stakeholder groups. Kotter’s eight stage

process is linear, but for large-scale change that top-level appearance of linear sequence

may be made up of many small stakeholder groups moving in parallel, with the sequence

representing an overlapping change in focus over time. This also suggests that an effective

change team will need the flexibility to be able to work on many stages of change at once,

depending on the stakeholder group they are engaging with at that time.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the case of an organisational change using Kotter’s eight stage

process for creating a major change at UGF, a company in the Australian Finance and

Insurance Sector. Kotter’s process was found to be an effective way of managing the

change, although some adaptation was required to suit the process to the needs of the

organisation. Kotter’s work has been interpreted by other authors as suggesting that the

process should be used as a simple set of linear steps. However, it was found that in

practice the use of the process was significantly more complex.

Although the change started with the UGF leadership team, developing momentum

within the leadership team was not sufficient to create the change. Many other stakeholder

groups needed to be separately engaged by the change team, first through developing a

sense of urgency within these teams, then forming a group to lead the change, and defining

what the change would locally mean to them. The Process of creating change was found to

be linear, but throughout the organisation it was comprised of multiple instances of the

Process, each with overlapping stages, and each moving at their own speed, with the

Fig. 2 Overlapping focus on different stages during the change

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 63

123

change management team providing support to maintain strategic alignment between these

processes.

This research has contributed to a much needed link between change management

theory and practice. It has also contributed to the small literature which enquires how

Kotter’s Process can be applied in practice, providing some validation of one of the more

popular change models; one which has hereto been the subject of little external practice

based research. This research has provided one example, but more are needed to enquire

into how others have applied Kotter’s Process in practice so that practitioners have greater

opportunity to learn from others’ experience in changing their organisations.

References

Abraham M, Sullivan T, Griffin D (2002) Implementing NAGPRA: the effective management of legislated
cange in museums. Manag Decis 40:35–49

Ansari S, Bell J (2009) Five easy pieces: a case study of cost management as organizational change.
J Account Organ Change 5:139–167

Appelbaum S, Habashy S, Malo J, Shafiq H (2012) Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change
model. J Manag Dev 31:764–782

Brisson-Banks C (2010) Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models and their
commonalities. Library Manag 31:241–252

Buchanan D (1993) Review of ‘a strategy of change: concepts and controversies in the management of
change’. J Manag Stud 30:684–686

Burke R, Ng E (2006) The changing nature of work and organizations: implications for human resource
management. Hum Res Manag Rev 16:86–94

By R (2005) Organisational change management: a critical review. J Change Manag 5:369–380
Cao G, McHugh M (2005) A systemic view of change management and its conceptual underpinnings. Syst

Pract Action Res 18:475–490
Cao G, Clarke S, Lehaney B (2004) The need for a systemic approach to change management—a case study.

Syst Pract Action Res 17:103–126
Casey M, Payne W, Eime R (2012) Organisational readiness and capacity building strategies of sporting

organisations to promote health. Sport Manag Rev 15:109–124
Cegielski C, Hall D, Rebman C (2006) Enterprise resource planning systems implementation success. Int J

Inf Syst Change Manag 1:301–317
Champion D (2007) Managing action research: the PEArL framework. Syst Pract Action Res 20:455–465
Checkland P (2003) From optimizing to learning: a development of systems thinking for the 1990s. In:

Midgley G (ed) Systems thinking, Volume III. Sage, London, pp 290–303
Checkland P, Holwell S (1998) Action research: its nature and validity. Syst Pract Action Res 11:9–21
Checkland P, Howell S (1998) Information, systems and information systems—making sense of the field.

Wiley, West Sussex
Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, Chichester
Choi S, Holmberg I, Lowstedt J, Brommels M (2011) Executive management in radical change—the case of

the Karolinska University Hospital merger. Scand J Manag 27:11–23
Cole M, Harris S, Bernerth J (2006) Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of

organizational change. Leadersh Organ Dev J 27:352–367
Crampton S, Hodge J, Mishra J (1996) Transition-ready or not: the ageing of America’s work force. Public

Pers Manag 25:243–256
Crawford L, Morris P, Thomas J, Winter M (2006) Practitioner development: from trained technicians to

reflective practitioners. Int J Project Manag 24:722–733
Day M, Atkinson D (2004) Large-scale transitional procurement change in the aerospace industry. J Purch

Supply Manag 10:257–268
DeLong D (2004) Lost knowledge: confronting the threat of an aging workforce. Oxford University Press,

Cary
Denning S (2001) The springboard. Butterworth-Heinmann, Oxford
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2010) Employment outlook for financial

and insurance services. Australian Government, Canberra
Flood R (1999) Rethinking the fifth discipline: learning within the unknowable. Routledge, London

64 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

Goede M (2011) Globalization of small islands: the role models of Curacao. Int J Commer Manag
21:192–212

Gupta P (2011) Leading innovation change—the Kotter way. Int J Innov Sci 3:141–149
Hay G, Beattie R, Livingstone R, Munro P (2001) Change, HRM and the voluntary sector. Empl Relat

23:240–255
Helm J, Remington K (2005) Effective project sponsorship: an evaluation of the role of the executive

sponsor in complex infrastructure projects by senior project managers. Proj Manag J 36:51–61
Hillson D (2003) Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. Int J Proj Manag 20:235–240
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2004) The nuclear power industry’s ageing workforce:

Transfer of knowledge to the next generation (IAEA-TECDOC-1399). International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna

Joffe M, Glynn S (2002) Facilitating change and empowering employees. J Change Manag 2:369–379
Kotter J (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Kotter J (2005) Our iceberg is melting. St. Martlings Press, New York
Kotter J (2008) A sense of urgency. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Lau F (1999) Toward a framework for action research in information systems studies. Inf Technol People

12:148–175
Leonard D, Swap W (2004) Deep smarts. Harv Bus Rev 82(9):88–97
Lintukangas K, Peltola S, Virolainen V (2009) Some issues of supply management integration. J Purch

Supply Manag 15:240–248
Lubit R (2001) Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: the keys to sustainable competitive advan-

tage. Org Dyn 29:164–178
Malone D (2002) Knowledge management: a model for organizational learning. Int J Account Inf Syst

3:111–123
Mento A, Jones R, Dirndorfer W (2002) A change management process: grounded in both theory and

practice. J Change Manag 3:45–59
Midgley G (2003) Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity

for the philosophy of science. Syst Pract Action Res 16:77–97
Molineux J, Haslett T (2002) Working within organizational cycles—a more suitable way to manage action

research projects in large organizations? Syst Pract Action Res 15:465–484
Nitta K, Wrobel S, Howard J, Jimmerson-Eddings E (2009) Leading change of a school district organi-

zation. Public Perform Manag Rev 32:463–488
Olsen K, Myers M (1999) Trying to improve communication and collaboration with information technol-

ogy: an action research project which failed. Inf Technol People 12:317–332
Paper D, Rodger J, Pendharkar P (2001) A BPR case study at Honeywell. Bus Process Manag J 7:85–99
Pfeifer T, Schnitt R, Voigt T (2005) Managing change: quality-oriented design of strategic change pro-

cesses. The TQM Mag 17:297–308
Phelan M (2005) Cultural revitalization movements in organization change management. J Change Manag

5:47–56
Pillay J, Hackney R, Braganza A (2012) Informing strategic IS change: towards a ‘meta-learning’ frame-

work. J Strateg Inf Syst 21:58–71
Raineri A (2011) Change management practices: impact on perceived change results. J Bus Res 64:266–272
Reissner S, Pagan V, Smith C (2011) ‘Our iceberg is melting’: story, metaphor and the management of

organisational change. Cult Organ 17:417–433
Remington K, Pollack J (2007) Tools for complex projects. Gower, Aldershot
Roberto M, Levesque L (2005) The change art of making initiatives stick. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46:53–60
Saka A (2003) Internal change agents’ view of the management of change problem. J Organ Change Manag

16:480–496
Sankaran S and Tay B (2003) Action research models in business research. ANZSYS Conference. 1–19.

Melbourne, Australia
Sarah R, Haslett T, Molineux J, Olsen J, Stephens J, Tepe S, Walker B (2002) Business action research in

practice—a strategic conversation about conducting action research in business organizations. Syst
Pract Action Res 15:535–546

Sherman R (2008) Lost knowledge: confronting the challenges of an aging nursing workforce. Nurse Lead
6:45–56

Sikorko P (2008) Transforming library and higher education support services: can change models help?
Library Manag 29:307–318

Smith I (2011) Organisational quality and organisational change: interconnecting paths to effectiveness.
Library Manag 32:111–128

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66 65

123

Springer P, Clark C, Strohfus P, Belcheir M (2012) Using transformational change to improve organiza-
tional culture and climate in a school of nursing. J Nurs Educ 51:81–88

Stewart J, Kringas P (2003) Change management—strategy and values in six agencies from the Australian
Public Service. Public Adm Rev 63:675–688

Swepson P (2003) Some common ground that can provide a basis for collaboration between action
researchers and scientists: a philosophical case that works in practice. Syst Pract Action Res 16:99–111

Tsoukas H, Papoulias D (2005) Managing third-order change: the case of the Public Power Corporation in
Greece. Long Range Plan 38:79–95

Van der Meer F (1999) Evaluation and the social construction of impacts. Evaluation 5:387–406
West D, Stansfield M (2001) Structuring action and reflection in information systems action research studies

using checkland’s FMA model. Syst Pract Action Res 14:251–281
Krail K (2005) Retaining the retiring nurse. Nurse lead 3(2):33–36
Yauch C, Steudel H (2002) Cellular manufacturing for small businesses: key cultural factors that impact the

conversion process. J Oper Manag 20:593–617

66 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:51–66

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

• c.11213_2014_Article_9317

Using Kotter’s Eight Stage Process to Manage an Organisational Change Program: Presentation and Practice
Abstract
Introduction
The Eight Stage Process of Creating a Major Change
Methodology and Structure of the Paper
Stage 1: Establishing a Sense of Urgency
Stage 2: Creating the Guiding Coalition
Stage 3: Develop a Vision and Strategy
Stage 4: Communicating the Change Vision
Stage 5: Empowering Broad-based Change
Stage 6: Generating Short-term Wins
Stages 7 and 8: Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change, and Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture
Discussion of the Use of Kotter’s Process
Conclusion
References

Developing Leadership in Managers to Facilitate the

Implementation of National Guideline Recommendations:
A Process Evaluation of Feasibility and Usefulness
Malin Tistad1,2,3*, Susanne Palmcrantz2,4, Lars Wallin1,2,5, Anna Ehrenberg1,6, Christina B. Olsson7,8, Göran
Tomson9, Lotta Widén Holmqvist7,10, Wendy Gifford11, Ann Catrine Eldh1,2

Abstract
Background: Previous research supports the claim that managers are vital players in the implementation of clinical
practice guidelines (CPGs), yet little is known about interventions aiming to develop managers’ leadership in facilitating
implementation. In this pilot study, process evaluation was employed to study the feasibility and usefulness of a
leadership intervention by exploring the intervention’s potential to support managers in the implementation of national
guideline recommendations for stroke care in outpatient rehabilitation.
Methods: Eleven senior and frontline managers from five outpatient stroke rehabilitation centers participated in a four-
month leadership intervention that included workshops, seminars, and teleconferences. The focus was on developing
knowledge and skills to enhance the implementation of CPG recommendations, with a particular focus on leadership
behaviors. Each dyad of managers was assigned to develop a leadership plan with specific goals and leadership behaviors
for implementing three rehabilitation recommendations. Feasibility and usefulness were explored through observations
and interviews with the managers and staff members prior to the intervention, and then one month and one year after
the intervention.
Results: Managers considered the intervention beneficial, particularly the participation of both senior and frontline
managers and the focus on leadership knowledge and skills for implementing CPG recommendations. All the managers
developed a leadership plan, but only two units identified goals specific to implementing the three stroke rehabilitation
recommendations. Of these, only one identified leadership behaviors that support implementation.
Conclusion: Managers found that the intervention was delivered in a feasible way and appreciated the focus on
leadership to facilitate implementation. However, the intervention appeared to have limited impact on managers’
behaviors or clinical practice at the units. Future interventions directed towards managers should have a stronger focus
on developing leadership skills and behaviors to tailor implementation plans and support implementation of CPG
recommendations.
Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), Facilitation, Implementation, Leadership, Management, Stroke
Rehabilitation
Copyright: © 2016 by Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Citation: Tistad M, Palmcrantz S, Wallin L, et al. Developing leadership in managers to facilitate the implementation
of national guideline recommendations: a process evaluation of feasibility and usefulness. Int J Health Policy Manag.
2016;5(8):477–486. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.35

*Correspondence to:
Malin Tistad
Email: mti@du.se

Article History:
Received: 6 July 2015
Accepted: 27 March 2016
ePublished: 11 April 2016

Original Articl

e

Full list of authors’ affiliations is available at the end of the article.

http://ijhpm.com
Int J Health Policy Manag 2016, 5(8), 477–486 doi 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.35

Implications for policy makers
Despite growing evidence that managers have a vital role in implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) in healthcare, there is a need for further
knowledge of how managers can facilitate guideline implementation. Our findings suggest that:
• Managers need support in increasing their understanding and awareness of their vital role in facilitating the implementation of guidelines.
• Leadership interventions should encompass managers at different levels of organisations.
• The Gifford leadership model aids developing interventions that focus on managers’ behaviors.
• Data on the process is needed to capture what works, for whom, and in what context when evaluating feasibility in implementation.
• Pilot studies preceding larger implementation studies are useful to ensure both intervention and data collection feasibility.

Implications for the public
To this day, changes in healthcare are a major challenge; many of today’s errors and adverse events could be prevented by using evidence-based
practice (EBP). However, implementing EBP is easier said than done, and a complete picture as to what facilitates this process is yet to come. One
aspect considered vital is the behavior of managers to facilitate guideline implementation. In this study, we piloted a leadership intervention based
on a particular theoretical model to support managers in developing implementation plans. We found that the managers appreciated the model,
and found it relevant to their practice. However, few implementation plans reflected their own role in facilitating the implementation of stroke
rehabilitation guidelines. Further studies should provide supplementary support to managers, in order to facilitate their guideline implementation.

Key Messages

http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.35

http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.35

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.15171/ijhpm.2016.35&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-04-11

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486478

Background
Leadership has been suggested as critical in the
implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) among
health professionals.1-4 EBP involves the ethically sound
application of research-based knowledge and includes the
use of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) in clinical and
organizational decision-making. In this study, leadership is
conceptualized as “a multidimensional process of influence
to enable staff members to use research evidence in clinical
practice, and includes behaviors and activities of managers
that exert direct or indirect influence on individuals, their
environment, and organizational infrastructure” (p 128).2
Distinctions between leadership and management imply
that management focuses more on planning, organizing,
and controlling whereas leadership focuses on innovation
and change. However, distinctions are often blurred and
effective managers apply functions of both leadership and
management when implementing change.2,5 Consistently,
leadership activities suggested to support EBP involve
managerial support, policy revision, and auditing.2 A
recent theory on middle managers’ role in implementation
suggests that activities considered important in influencing
effectiveness involve how managers diffuse and synthesize
information about the innovation, mediate between the
implementation strategy and day-to-day activities, and
promote the innovation.6 Still, there is limited knowledge on
how managers facilitate effective implementation and even
less is known about the function and impact of interventions
in the development of leadership in front line management
regarding the promotion and support of the implementation
of CPGs.
CPGs provide recommendations for clinical practice, and
are established means to inform EBP.7,8 However, access to
CPGs alone does not ensure EBP9,10 and health professionals’
adherence to guidelines varies greatly.8 In Sweden, for example,
only 6%-20% of the stroke victims received home-based
rehabilitation in 2011,11 despite home-based rehabilitation
being a top priority in the national stroke guidelines.12
Adherence to both acute care and post-stroke guidelines has
been associated with improved patient outcome, including
improved physical function.13 Thus, there is a need for
effective strategies to facilitate the implementation of CPGs in
stroke rehabilitation.14
Previous trials directed towards managers, evaluating
interventions for influencing staff members’ use of CPG
recommendations, indicate a complex undertaking; however,
to date, the knowledge is scarce, providing for no certain
conclusions.2,15 Whereas Hodnett et al16 found no difference
between intervention and control sites in a study that
included managers and opinion leaders to implement EBP
change, Gifford et al15 found significant changes in nurses’ use
of CPG recommendations in an intervention study directed
at clinical and management leadership teams. Gifford et al15
applied a leadership model, “the Gifford model,” that focuses
specifically on leadership behaviors and activities to support
the implementation of CPGs.15,17,18 The model includes a
taxonomy of leadership behaviors categorized as relation-,
change-, and task-oriented behaviors.19 More specifically,
relation-oriented behaviors include concerns for the provision
of support, recognition, and encouragement of mutual trust

and cooperation among team members. Change-oriented
behaviors, on the other hand, focus on envisioning change,
understanding the need for change, and encouraging efforts
to implement change. Lastly, task-oriented behaviors involve
organizing and planning work activities, clarifying roles and
responsibilities, and following up on performance.19,20 The
use of all three types of behaviors contributes to effective
leadership2,15,17,19 for implementing CPGs.15,18 Inspired by the
study by Gifford et al and the model proposed, we developed
a leadership intervention to support managers to implement
national guidelines for stroke care in outpatient rehabilitation.
An intervention aiming to support managers in the
implementation of CPG recommendations is supposedly
complex, due to its potential influence on and interaction
with the local context, and the behaviors required from both
those who deliver and those who receive the intervention.21
Conducting a pilot and/or feasibility study, including a process
evaluation, is a principal step in the development of a complex
intervention, and should preferably be performed prior to
studies in which the effectiveness of a complex intervention is
evaluated.21 A pilot study designed as a process evaluation can
help to understand aspects of the feasibility (such as barriers
to participation) and the mechanisms of impact. Furthermore,
it can improve the design of the intervention and evaluation,
and indicate the influence of the context.22 As feasibility of
evaluation procedures has been described elsewhere,23 the aim
of this study, designed as a process evaluation, was to explore
the feasibility and usefulness of a leadership intervention to
support managers’ implementation of CPG recommendations
for stroke care in outpatient rehabilitation, considering the
influence of the context.

Methods
Design
An exploratory design was used for this process evaluation
pilot study, applying qualitative methods before, during,
and after the intervention. A process evaluation framework
suggested by Moore et al,22 depicted in Table 1, was applied
throughout the study.

Settings
The study was conducted in two regions in Sweden: an urban
area with about 225 000 inhabitants, and a rural area with
nearly 10 000 inhabitants. All five units providing outpatient
rehabilitation to people who had suffered a stroke in these
areas participated: two in the urban area and three in the
rural area. As with healthcare services in Sweden in general,
the units were publicly funded and the senior managers were
responsible for the quality of care and delivery of safe, cost
effective healthcare services. Due to regional autonomy,
the financial conditions and the organization of stroke care
differed:
• In the urban area, outpatient rehabilitation units had

separate agreements with the regional authority to
provide rehabilitation to stroke victims in the patients’
homes. A financial reimbursement system was in
place and, as a result, the units were reimbursed for
each rehabilitation session. Thus, the allied health
professionals were expected to provide a certain number
of rehabilitation sessions each month to meet budget

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486 479

targets for their unit.
• In the rural area, all units had annual, fixed budgets and

separate agreements with the regional authority regarding
rehabilitation services. Significant changes had recently
been carried out in the region: the municipal healthcare
unit had been assigned to provide rehabilitation in
patients’ homes, whereas the primary care centre now
only provided rehabilitation to patients at the center. At
the time of the study, the hospital outreach team had just
started to operate in the area and was responsible for
follow-ups and home-based rehabilitation for all stroke
patients within the catchment area.

Sample
Senior and front line managers from each healthcare unit
as well as the Community Chief Nurse responsible for
healthcare quality in one of the units participated in the
intervention and were thus subjected to the data collection.
Both front line and senior managers were included, as they all
have managerial roles including the operational responsibility
for daily practice and the overall responsibility for resources
and quality, respectively, and thus, a potential to influence the
implementation of CPG recommendations. The Community
Chief Nurse will henceforth be included in the term “front
line managers.” In addition, one physiotherapist and one
occupational therapist at each unit (hereafter referred to as
“staff members”) were targeted in the data collection. As
shown in Table 2 participants had been in their positions
for varying lengths of time and both men and women were
represented. Prior to the study, approval was granted by
the regional ethical review board in Stockholm, Sweden.
Informed consent was given individually by all participants.

Description of the Leadership Intervention and its Causal
Assumptions
The intervention focused on managers’ knowledge and
skills in effective leadership for implementing CPG
recommendations. It was organised as a four-month

program including two workshops (of one day each) and two
teleconferences between the workshops (of 90 minutes each,
after three and six weeks), delivered to the management teams
in the urban (n = 4) and the rural (n = 7) areas. Workshops
were held in venues away from participants’ work settings, by
external facilitator teams including experts in (1) knowledge
implementation, (2) healthcare improvement, and (3) stroke
rehabilitation. The content and structure were based on the
following assumptions:
• The intervention applied a mix of didactic and interactive

workshop sessions24 originating from critical social
science concepts such as consciousness-raising and self-
reflection,25 presuming that sharing experiences in teams
would enhance the learning opportunities.

• For leaders to recognise and manage the complexity and
interplay between the factors influencing the uptake of
evidence into practice, they need both understanding
and templates for action. Building on the Promoting
Action on Research Implementation in Health Services
framework, PARIHS, we introduced and reflected on the
elements evidence, context, and facilitation as significant
components for successful implementation,26-28 including
leadership as a context subelement.

• Furthermore, for the leadership component, we
added the Gifford model.15 In addition to leadership
behaviors, the model proposes an overall structure for
implementation, illustrated in Figure 1. The structure has
strong resemblance with, for example, the Knowledge-
To-Action cycle29 and other healthcare improvement
tools available.

• A core element of the intervention was for the managers
to develop a leadership implementation plan, preferably
based on the Gifford model for implementing the three
specific recommendations from the Swedish national
CPGs for stroke care12 (Table 3) in their units. While
the Gifford model focuses leadership behaviors in
the implementation process of CPGs, the managers
were particularly encouraged to consider their role
and opportunities to adapt their behaviors in order to
facilitate CPG implementation. We assumed this would
provide for enhanced understanding of the function of the
evidence, the context and facilitation in implementation
processes, and particularly the function of leadership in
facilitating uptake of evidence in their contexts.

The detailed content of the different parts of the interventions
is presented in Table 4. The Gifford model was translated
into Swedish and suggested as a template for outlining the
implementation plans.

Table 1. Components of the Process Evaluation Framework and Data Sources

Key Component Description (Adopted From Moore 2015) Data Source

Context
Contextual factors which affect (and may be affected by)
implementation, intervention mechanisms, and outcome

Pre-intervention interviews with managers and staff members
Post-intervention interviews with managers
Observations of interactions between managers and staff
members

Implementation How intervention delivery is achieved and what is delivered Observations during the intervention

Mechanism of impact
Participants’ responses to and interactions with the
intervention

Managers’ implementation plans
Post-intervention interviews with managers
Observations during the intervention
12-month follow-up with managers

Table 2. Managers’ and Staff Members’ Characteristics

n
Years in Position

< 5/≥ 5/>10
Women/Men

Managers 8/3
Senior managers 5 2/1/2
Frontline managers 6 1/4/1

Staff members 8/4
Occupational therapists 5 3/0/2
Physiotherapists 7 1/0/6

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486480

Procedures for Data Collection
Data were collected in semi-structured interviews and
overt non-participant observations with managers and staff
members, at time points depicted in Figure 2. For managers,
interviews focused on factors known to be important for the
process of implementing research evidence30 (first interview)
and aspects of the intervention including the process of
developing a leadership plan for implementation (second
interview). Interviews with staff members had additional
questions on how daily work was performed (first interview)
and staff members’ involvement in activities related to the
development of the leadership plan (second interview). In
addition, a long-term follow-up telephone interview was
performed with the frontline managers 9-12 months after the
completion of the intervention, focusing on the process of
realizing their plans for implementation. While one manager
did not want to be audio-recorded but preferred notes to be
taken instead, the remaining interviews were audio-recorded
and transcribed verbatim.
Observations of interactions between managers and staff
members included (1) interactions between front line
managers and senior managers; and/or (2) interactions
between front line managers and staff members. To ensure
that interpersonal interactions were captured, observations

were performed during events such as workplace meetings.
To capture the intervention process, observations were
performed during the workshops and teleconferences.
Observations were captured in concurrent field notes.31

Data Analysis
Transcribed interviews and observation texts were analysed
using qualitative content analysis.32 All transcripts were
initially read to obtain “a sense of whole” (p 109),32 and
thereafter inductively coded by two researchers who had not
been engaged in generating or delivering the intervention.
The codes were used to identify potential subcategories, which
were subsequently abstracted into categories. The categories
(with corresponding codes and subcategories) were then
deductively analysed considering the key process evaluation
components ‘context,’ ‘implementation,’ and ‘mechanisms of
impact.’22 To complete the analysis, the emerging findings
were collated at a conceptual level, illustrating the process
evaluation components in relation to outcomes (that is,
feasibility and usefulness of the intervention). Trustworthiness
was established by recurrent dialogues within the research
team regarding the most valid understanding of the data and
the rigor of the analysis.33

Table 3. The Three Recommendations From the Swedish National Guidelines for Stroke Care13

Recommendation and Priority Specification

1) “Training in ADL in the home setting after discharge,”
priority 1

Training in ADL in the home setting after discharge, in case of limitations in ADL post stroke. This
limits the risk of unfavorable outcome and improves the ability to perform ADL.

2) “Training with physiotherapist,” priority 2
Rehabilitation interventions aiming to improve motor function, balance, walking ability, and
ADL.

3) “Task specific training,” priority 3
Task specific training aiming to increase activity performance in specified activities among
individuals with impaired movement related function.

Abbreviation: ADL, activities of daily living.

Figure 1. The Gifford Model (Reprinted with permission).
EN

G
AG

E

Staff, M
anagers &

Clinical Leaders

ID
EN

TI
FY

T
ar

ge
t G

oa
ls

fo
r C

ha
ng

e

ACTION
PLAN

CORE ELEMENTS

DATA
on current prac�ces

VISION
for change

KNOWLEDGE
of barriers &

supports

GUIDELINE USE: Assess, Plan, Implement, or Refer Care

(+) IMPACTS & OUTCOMES: Pa�ent, Provider, System

Proposed Model of Unit-Level Team Leadership to Influence Guideline Use in Nursing

LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOURS
to influence individuals & create an environment that supports guideline use

Task-Oriented

Conduct regular leadership mee�ngs

Clarify roles & responsibili�es

Monitor performance & outcomes

Modify care-plans & documenta�on

Procure resources, educa�on, training
& policies to reflect change

Demonstrate commitment to change

Reinforce vision & goals of change

Understand difficul�es with change

Advocate for change internally &
externally

Advocate for addi�onal resources
internally & externally

Change-Oriented

Communicate with staff about clinical
prac�ce issues

Recognize efforts to change

Provide reminders

Encourage & support collabora�on
with specialists and inter-professionals

Support change visibly & symbolically

Rela�ons-Oriented

Accountability to
corporate direc�ves

Monitoring of new
evidence

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486 481

Results
Context
Aspects of the context may influence the implementation of
the intervention and the mechanisms of impact and hence
the feasibility and usefulness of the intervention. Four
categories depicted the context of the study units: Provision of
rehabilitation; Follow-ups and feedback; Access to evidence and
education; and The managers’ role.
The provision of rehabilitation was formed by the agreements
between the units and the regional authorities. The
reimbursement system in the urban area created a time pressure
that was perceived to affect the quality and development of
rehabilitation negatively, a condition that did not affect the
rural units because of their fixed budgets. Moreover, the
urban units’ staff members and managers depicted limited
opportunities to perform tasks beyond what was reimbursed.
Rehabilitation itself (ie, the patient-staff interaction) was,
to a large extent, shaped by each staff member’s knowledge
and experience, and staff members’ awareness of the national
guidelines varied. Meanwhile, managers assumed that staff
members’ practices were consistent with recommendations
of the national guidelines. One unit had an operational
management system that involved the systematic development
of diagnosis-specific evidence-based protocols and they were
about to develop a protocol for rehabilitation after stroke at
the time of the study.
Follow-ups and feedback existed to a limited extent; feedback
to staff members was primarily focused on the number of
rehabilitation sessions carried out. Follow-ups of patient
outcomes were performed on an individual level only where
the staff member involved ‘knew’ if a patient had reached his/
her goals for the rehabilitation. Standardized assessment tools

were used inconsistently and sporadically.
All units had access to evidence through, for example, the
Internet, professional journals, professional networks,
students, in-house lectures, and external education. Both
managers and staff members considered the recommendations
in the national guidelines for stroke relevant and beneficial,
but in need of adaptation to the local context before
implementation.
Creating beneficial conditions for change was considered
part of the managers’ role. The frontline managers carried out
minor changes in their units but needed senior management’s
approval for greater modifications. To a large extent, both
frontline managers and staff members were autonomous in
terms of how they performed tasks. Yet, staff members did not
consider managers to be knowledgeable or able to influence
the delivery of the rehabilitation.

Implementation
The component implementation illuminates feasibility and
usefulness by describing how the intervention was delivered
and what was delivered. The managers’ attendance in
workshops and teleconferences is displayed in Table 5.
Furthermore, the two categories Limited focus on leadership
behaviors, and Adaptations of the intervention time plan
illustrate the fidelity of the intervention.
Observations during the intervention revealed that there was
a limited focus on leadership behaviors among the managers.
Discussions about evidence and contextual factors including
barriers to implementation were greater priorities for the
managers. In one of the teleconferences, managers concluded
that they were not yet ready to focus on leadership strategies,
a finding confirmed by the lack of outline of leadership

Table 4. Content of the Intervention

Part of Intervention Content
Contributing Frameworks

The PARIHS
Framework

The Gifford
Model

Introduction via
email to each
individual

Two weeks prior to the first workshop, the managers received the three recommendations for
stroke rehabilitation, based on the national guidelines for stroke care. They were further asked to
reflect on:
• Their experiences of facilitating change; X

X

• Their unit and status of staff members’ use of the three recommendations and the need for

change;

X X

• Potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the three recommendations in their units. X

Workshop 1

Seminars on:
• Knowledge implementation;

X

• Evidence on stroke care;
• Leadership and its potential effect on facilitating the implementation of CPGs into practice. X X
The assignment (to develop a leadership plan for the implementation of the three stroke
rehabilitation recommendations) was introduced along with a template of the Gifford leadership
model, suggested as a tool for the assignment.

X X

Teleconference 1
Dialogue, providing opportunities to share experiences of working with the plan/facilitating
implementation of the stroke evidence, and to raise questions and issues regarding the
assignment.

X X

Teleconference 2
Dialogue, providing opportunities to share experiences of working with the plan/facilitating
implementation of the stroke evidence, and to raise questions and issues regarding the
assignment.

X X

Workshop 2

Follow-up on the assignment: the managers shared their leadership plans for implementing the
three recommendations in their units.

X X

A presentation on the model was given via video link by its originator Dr. W. Gifford, including
experiences of projects in Canada and reflection with the participants on their leadership
experiences.

X

The managers also shared their experiences of the study intervention.
Abbreviation: PARIHS, Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services; CPG, clinical practice guideline.

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486482

behaviors in their plans. Rather, the managers focused on
factors such as: the need for local protocols, collaboration, and
time to secure rehabilitation sessions among staff members,
as well as for themselves to execute implementation.
Due to external aspects, the delivery of the intervention
required Adaptations in terms of the time plan. One
teleconference in the urban area was shortened to 60 minutes
(rather than 90 minutes), and in the rural area, the second
workshop was postponed due to critical management issues
in a number of the units. Because of this and summer
holidays, the second workshop was delivered six months after
the initial workshop (rather than three months, as planned in
the program).

Mechanism of Impact: Participants’ Response to and Interaction
With the Intervention
Six categories were distinguished that related to how
the participants responded to and interacted with the
intervention: Content of the intervention; Structure of the
intervention; Development of leadership implementation plan;
Applicability beyond stroke rehabilitation; Staff involvement;
and Leadership for change.
The content of the intervention was perceived to be useful,
interesting, and stimulating, and its focus on leadership
for facilitating use of CPGs was considered innovative
and important. Components that were highly appreciated
included the clinical application of theory, for example
how national guidelines could be adapted to local clinical
conditions, and the translation of the Gifford model into
clinical practice. How to operationalize the model, which was
described by Gifford during the intervention, was considered
to be a core component of the intervention that contributed
to participants’ understanding of how the model applied to
leadership practice.
The structure of the intervention was acceptable to the
managers, with an appropriate number of participants
and a suitable time frame. The combination of face-to-face
workshops and teleconferences worked well but participants

thought that the teleconferences should place more focus on
how to proceed and develop the leadership implementation
plans. The participation of dyads of senior and front line
managers from each unit was important: senior managers’
attendance provided legitimacy among staff members for the
changes that were to be implemented, and was a prerequisite
to support frontline managers in their work. Senior managers’
participation further meant that they had important insights
into the daily work of frontline managers and staff members.
All the managers used the Gifford model in the development
of their leadership implementation plans, but in different ways:
• The managers of the two urban units identified

goals related to the implementation of the target
recommendations, ie, standardized assessment tools for
stroke patients or development of a local stroke protocol,
respectively.

• The three rural units developed a mutual plan that
focused on collaboration between them, and identified
a general goal phrased as “stroke patients to receive
rehabilitation in coherence with the recommendations.”

In all units, barriers and facilitators were outlined, and a
number of activities to address them were included in the
plans. However, plans mainly focused on activities to prepare
for implementation (for example identifying stroke assessment
tools, developing local protocols, or improving collaboration
between the units engaged in stroke rehabilitation), rather
than actual implementation. Leadership behaviors to support
implementation were only outlined in one unit. Frontline
managers had the responsibility for developing the plans,
while the support of their senior managers varied. In some
units, managers interviewed staff members about daily
rehabilitation practice and learned that stroke rehabilitation
was not carried out as they had anticipated or expected,
illustrating an evidence-practice gap.
All managers except one considered the Gifford model had
applicability beyond stroke rehabilitation, and that it was a
novel structure for supporting implementation.
Although proposed in the intervention, staff involvement in

Figure 2. Time Points for the Intervention and Data Collection.

Jan 2013 Mars 2013 Apr 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 Aug 2013 Feb 2013 Sep 2013 May 2014

Baseline
interviews
with senior
and frontline
managers

Follow-up
interviews (1)
with senior and
frontline
managers and
staff

Follow-up
telephone
interviews (2)
with frontline
managers

Baseline
interviews
with staff

Observations
of frontline
and senior
managers and
staff

Workshop 1 Workshop 2

Observation
workshop 2

Tele-
conference 1

Tele-
conference 2

Observation
teleconference 1

Observation
teleconference 2

The intervention

Data collection:
interviews and
observations

Observation
workshop 1

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486 483

developing the implementation plan was limited, with only
one out of the 10 staff members interviewed sharing a sense
of participation. In one unit, the intervention inspired staff
members to reflect on their professional practice, and staff
members expressed a desire to discuss this with their managers
and colleagues in relation to the stroke recommendations.
With regards to leadership for change, front line managers
considered having reached their implementation goals as
listed in their plan a year after the intervention; one unit
had completed the development of a local protocol for
rehabilitation after stroke, while managers in another unit
had introduced a patient assessment tool, and measures to
improve external collaboration had been taken in the three
rural units. None of the units made follow-ups to assess the
perceived changes, and no further use of the Gifford model
was described.

Outcomes, That Is Feasibility and Usefulness, Considering
Context and Mechanisms
Illuminating the mechanisms triggered by the intervention,
the way it was implemented and the contexts, we propose four
key components illustrating the feasibility and usefulness of
the leadership intervention:
• The operational management system. The presence

of an operational management system that involved
a structured process for developing evidence-based
protocols for specific diagnosis appeared to be
advantageous. The unit using such a system identified
leadership behaviors for supporting change in their
leadership implementation plan and achieved the
implementation goals in the leadership plan.

• The current stroke rehabilitation practice. Implementation
of the national guidelines was perceived to have
little relevance if: (1) stroke rehabilitation in peoples’
homes was not in the unit’s assignment, (2) stroke
rehabilitation was a small part of the types of healthcare
services delivered, or (3) managers considered current
rehabilitation practices were already consistent with
the recommendations in the national guidelines. Under
any of these conditions, managers developed a plan
but did not have a clear focus on implementing the
recommendations.

• The level of consolidation of the stroke rehabilitation
process. In the rural area, the new organization for
provision of rehabilitation created an urgent need to
establish collaboration between the units, which was
reflected in the managers’ goals. In the urban area,
more stable conditions enabled further development of
professional practice by implementing assessment tools
and developing a local protocol.

• The timing of the intervention. Most units had other
on-going projects or reorganizations taking place at the
same time as this project that procured significant time
and efforts, thus impacting managers’ engagement. Yet,

for the unit that was going to develop a clinical protocol
for rehabilitation after stroke, timing of the intervention
was perceived as highly advantageous and beneficial.

Discussion
Whereas many studies on implementation of CPGs focus
on clinical staff, this study contributes to the understanding
of how to support managers in implementation enterprises.
The findings of the process evaluation show that although the
influence of the leadership intervention on implementation
and rehabilitation practice appeared to be limited, the
managers appreciated the intervention’s intention to support
them in the implementation of stroke rehabilitation CPG
recommendations. Furthermore, due to its focus on the
feasibility of developing managers’ leadership behaviors to
support implementation, the study suggests that mobilizing
knowledge into clinical practices is a complex undertaking.34
The frontline managers had a key role and position,
situated between senior managers and staff members. These
individuals are suggested to be in a central and potentially
vital position for facilitating quality improvement and
change initiatives, yet they require authority and resources
to proceed.6,35,36 However, while the senior managers also
have a responsibility for the quality of care, they have an
important role in facilitating the implementation of CPGs. In
this study, the participation of both front line managers and
senior managers in the intervention enabled senior managers
to support the frontline managers in their implementation
efforts. Support from senior managers, including help in
prioritizing35,36 and the opportunity to discuss problems or
successes,37 has been reported to be important for front line
managers’ commitment to implementation. Conversely, a lack
of senior managers’ support has a direct negative effect.18,37,38
Moreover, it is essential that senior managers give continuous
encouragement, pay attention to organizational priorities, and
make resources available.35-37,39 The benefits of including dyads
of front line and senior managers in leadership interventions,
while explicating their roles within the Gifford model, need
further development and emphasis in future studies. Rather,
the findings indicate a need for a stronger focus on developing
particular leadership behaviors, both in operationalizing the
implementation plans, and in supporting managers in applying
the behaviors in their management practices. One suggestion
is for managers to operationalize the relations, change, and
task-oriented leadership behaviors within their work setting
as part of the intervention. Significant improvements can be
made in leadership knowledge and skills by incorporating
formal training interventions into work settings.40 Mentoring
managers on how to tailor implementation strategies to
barriers identified within each unit’s specific contexts might
also develop specific leadership behaviors for successful
implementation.8,29
Particular context aspects were found to have a negative
influence on managers’ commitment to the intervention

Table 5. The Managers’ Attendance in Workshops and Teleconferences

Workshop 1 Teleconference 1 Teleconference 2 Workshop 2
Frontline managers; attendance in the parts of the intervention (n) 6 6 5 5.5a

Senior managers attendance in the parts of the intervention (n) 3.5a 3 4 3
a One participant attended half the day.

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486484

assignment, such as if the guideline recommendations
corresponded with a unit’s mission, and additional major
changes were simultaneously taking place. Previous research
has shown that the perceived fit between the object of
implementation and the units’ needs and priorities is
of great importance for frontline managers to support
implementation,35 while additional organizational change
impedes implementation,41 as does a lack of time.27,36,42
Thus, recruitment of units with concurrent involvement in
major organizational changes should probably be avoided in
implementation studies.41 In contrast, a context aspect in the
study that seemed to promote the achievement of the goals in
the intervention assignment was the presence of a supportive
operational management system. In line with this, a previous
study has suggested that the presence of a purposeful and
active management system supports planning, performing,
and follow-up and thus contributes to continuous quality
improvements.43 Thus, future studies should attend to
and explore how the leadership model fits with present
management systems, or identify and attend to needs for
adjustments.
The insufficient routines for evaluation and feedback to
staff members about their clinical performance in some
of the participating units could have contributed to the
discrepancy in views between managers and staff members
regarding guideline recommendations and actual clinical
practice. Furthermore, limited knowledge about staff
members’ adherence to the recommendations and the
need for improvement in this may have influenced the
managers’ engagement in the intervention.35 Monitoring
staff performance is an essential component of effective
leadership,20 and can assist with understanding the need
for education, training, coaching, and for detecting quality
issues. Accordingly, monitoring performances and outcomes
has been found to positively influence the use of CPGs.2
Consequently, identifying indicators for change that are
relevant to each unit’s context and developing a strategy
to assess these indicators could be part of an intervention
to promote leadership engagement. Such performance
evaluation could be assigned to managers in collaboration
with staff members, to promote evaluation of rehabilitation
practices, enable feed-back and enhance staff members’
involvement in the implementation process.36,38,39,44
Strengths and limitations of the present study should be
considered when interpreting the findings. Despite the
relatively small number of units included in this pilot study, the
sample represents a variety of geographical locations, financial
conditions, and ways of organizing outpatient rehabilitation
after stroke. Thus, we suggest that the participating units
accurately reflect the complexity of today’s healthcare
system. In the present study, the CPG recommendations
were for stroke rehabilitation while the Gifford model was
previously tested for the implementation of diabetes CPG
recommendations.15 Thus, future leadership interventions
for implementation using this model should target additional
health issues and the guidelines accompanying these issues.
Furthermore, while we suggest the process evaluation design
and the extensive amount of qualitative data collected
provides an understanding of how the intervention was
perceived by the managers and the significant contextual

influences, quantitative measures on the managers’ leadership
behaviors alongside the qualitative data would have been a
valuable contribution to the understanding of the impact of
the intervention.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we found that the leadership intervention
for implementing guideline recommendations, in this
case stroke rehabilitation, was delivered in a feasible way
(Figure 3). The intervention’s focus on leadership for
facilitating implementation of CPG recommendations was
appreciated by the managers, indicating that this type of
intervention has a potential to develop knowledge on change
management among healthcare managers. However, the
influence of the intervention in this pilot study appeared to
be limited on guideline implementation and staff members’
rehabilitation practice. Thus, we suggest that a future full-scale
trial should incorporate an intervention with a stronger focus
on supporting managers to tailor implementation plans to the
present context and to apply relevant leadership behaviors to
address barriers and support implementation. Evaluation and
feedback of staff members’ performance and the rehabilitation
provided should be considered, and indicators for change
relevant to each unit’s contextual conditions identified.

Figure 3. Summary of Conclusions.

C o n t e x t

The intervention was appreciated…
 when theory was translated into something clinically applicable
 due to the focus on leadership in facilitating EBP
 due to the participation of dyads of managers from each unit

Feasibility and usefulness (outcomes)

 The structure of the intervention was appropriate

 Need of more support during the workshop to:
– operationalize leadership behaviors
– tailor implementation strategies to barriers
– define target indicators
– apply operationalized leadership behaviors and im-

plementation strategies in everyday work
 The units agreement should correspond to the

recommendations
 The target for the interventions should be in line

with the organizations strategy and priorities
 No major on-going re-organisations

Limited impact of the intervention at the units and no
follow-up of possible changes

The implementation plans showed…
 limited focus on implementation of the recommendations
 limited development of implementation strategies
 limited operationalization of leadership behaviors
 limited involvement of staff members

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486 485

Acknowledgements
Financial support was provided by the Vårdal Foundation,
Borås, Sweden and the Swedish Stroke Association,
Skärholmen, Sweden (Stroke-Riksförbundet). We are thankful
to Disa Sommerfeld who contributed with her extensive
knowledge on stroke rehabilitation during the intervention.

Ethical issues
The study was approved by the regional ethical review board in Stockholm,
Sweden.

Competing interests
Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions
ACE, LW, GT, AE, and LWH conceived and designed the study. MT and SP
acquired the data. MT, SP, and ACE analyzed and interpreted the data. MT,
AE, and LW drafted the manuscript. ACE, LW, GT, AE, LWH, CO, WG, MT, and
SP contributed with critical revisions of the manuscript for important intellectual
content.

Authors’ affiliations
1School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun,
Sweden. 2Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and
Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. 3Department of Community
Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy, Umeå University, Umeå,
Sweden. 4Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 5Department of Health and Care Sciences,
The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
6School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University,
Örebro, Sweden. 7Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurobiology,
Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. 8Mörby
Academic Primary Healthcare Center, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm,
Sweden. 9International Health Systems Research, Departments of Learning,
Informatics, Management, Ethics and Public Health Sciences, Karolinska
Institutet, Solna, Sweden. 10Department of Physiotherapy, Karolinska University
Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 11Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing,
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

References
1. Cummings GG, Estabrooks CA, Midodzi WK, Wallin L,

Hayduk L. Influence of organizational characteristics and
context on research utilization. Nurs Res. 2007;56:S24-S39.
doi:10.1097/01.NNR.0000280629.63654.95

2. Gifford W, Davies B, Edwards N, Griffin P, Lybanon V.
Managerial Leadership for Nurses’ Use of Research Evidence:
An Integrative Review of the Literature. Worldviews on
Evidence‐Based Nursing. 2007;4:126-145. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
6787.2007.00095.x

3. Dannapfel P, Peolsson A, Nilsen P. What supports
physiotherapists’ use of research in clinical practice? A qualitative
study in Sweden. Implement Sci. 2013;8:31. doi:10.1186/1748-
5908-8-31

4. Kristensen HK, Borg T, Hounsgaard L. Aspects affecting
occupational therapists’ reasoning when implementing research-
based evidence in stroke rehabilitation. Scand J Occup Ther.
2012;19:118-131. doi:10.3109/11038128.2011.556197

5. Jennings BM, Scalzi CC, Rodgers JD 3rd, Keane A. Differentiating
nursing leadership and management competencies. Nurs
Outlook. 2007;55:169-175.

6. Birken SA, Lee SY, Weiner BJ. Uncovering middle managers’
role in healthcare innovation implementation. Implement Sci.
2012;7:28. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-28

7. Davies BL. Sources and models for moving research evidence
into clinical practice. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs.
2002;31:558-562.

8. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE.

Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci.
2012;7:50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-50

9. Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Tetroe J. Implementing clinical guidelines:
current evidence and future implications. J Contin Educ Health
Prof. 2004;24 Suppl 1:S31-S37. doi:10.1002/chp.1340240506

10. Prior M, Guerin M, Grimmer-Somers K. The effectiveness of
clinical guideline implementation strategies–a synthesis of
systematic review findings. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:888-897.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01014.x

11. Socialstyrelsen. Nationell utvärdering 2011 – Strokevård –
Delrapport: Landstingens insatser. (National Assessment
2011 – Stroke Care – County Council Assessment).
h t t p : / / w w w. s o c i a l s t y r e l s e n . s e / L i s t s / A r t i k e l k a t a l o g /
Attachments/18350/2011-6-3 . Accessed October 11, 2015.
Published 2011.

12. Socialstyrelsen. Nationella riktlinjer för Strokesjukvård (National
Guidelines for Stroke Care). http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/
Artikelkatalog/Attachments/17790/2009-11-4 . Accessed
October 11, 2015. Published 2009.

13. Donnellan C, Sweetman S, Shelley E. Implementing clinical
guidelines in stroke: a qualitative study of perceived facilitators
and barriers. Health Policy. 2013;111:234-244. doi:10.1016/j.
healthpol.2013.04.002

14. Walker MF, Fisher RJ, Korner-Bitensky N, McCluskey A, Carey
LM. From what we know to what we do: translating stroke
rehabilitation research into practice. Int J Stroke. 2013;8:11-17.
doi:10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00974.x

15. Gifford WA, Davies BL, Graham ID, Tourangeau A, Woodend
AK, Lefebre N. Developing leadership capacity for guideline use:
a pilot cluster randomized control trial. Worldviews Evid Based
Nurs. 2013;10:51-65. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00254.x

16. Hodnett ED, Kaufman K, O’Brien-Pallas L, Chipman M,
Watson-MacDonell J, Hunsburger W. A strategy to promote
research-based nursing care: effects on childbirth outcomes.
Res Nurs Health. 1996;19:13-20. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-
240X(199602)19:1<13::AID-NUR2>3.0.CO;2-O

17. Gifford W, Davies B, Tourangeau A, Lefebre N. Developing
team leadership to facilitate guideline utilization: planning and
evaluating a 3-month intervention strategy. J Nurs Manag.
2011;19:121-132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01140.x

18. Gifford WA, Davies B, Edwards N, Graham ID. Leadership
strategies to influence the use of clinical practice guidelines.
Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2006;19:72-88.

19. Yukl G, Gordon A, Taber T. A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership
behavior: integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 2002;9:15.

20. Yukl G. Leadership in Organizations. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson;
2013.

21. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating
complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council
guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655

22. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of
complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance.
BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.

23. Palmcrantz S, Tistad M, Eldh AC, et al. Assessing feasibility
and acceptability of study procedures: getting ready for
implementation of national stroke guidelines in out-patient health
care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:517.

24. Forsetlund L, Bjorndal A, Rashidian A, et al. Continuing
education meetings and workshops: effects on professional
practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2009;15:CD003030. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003030.
pub2

25. Manley K, McCormack B. Practice development: purpose,
methodology, facilitation and evaluation. Nurs Crit Care.
2003;8:22-9.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.NNR.0000280629.63654.95

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00095.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00095.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-31

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-31

http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2011.556197

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-28

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-50

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chp.1340240506

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01014.x

http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/18350/2011-6-3

http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/18350/2011-6-3

http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/17790/2009-11-4

http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/17790/2009-11-4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00974.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00254.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199602)19:1%3c13::AID-NUR2%3e3.0.CO;2-O

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199602)19:1%3c13::AID-NUR2%3e3.0.CO;2-O

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01140.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003030.pub2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003030.pub2

Tistad et al

International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2016, 5(8), 477–486486

26. Kitson AL, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K,
Titchen A. Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence
into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and
practical challenges. Implement Sci. 2008;3:1. doi:10.1186/1748-
5908-3-1

27. Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, Seers K, Kitson A, McCormack
B, Titchen A. An exploration of the factors that influence
the implementation of evidence into practice. J Clin Nurs.
2004;13:913-924. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.01007.x

28. Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, et al. Ingredients for
change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Quality & Safety in
Health Care. 2002;11:174-180. doi:10.1136/qhc.11.2.174

29. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge
translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof.
2006;26:13-24. doi:10.1002/chp.47

30. Seers K, Linck P, McCarthy G, McCormack B, et al. FIRE
(Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence): a study
protocol. Implement Sci. 2012;7:25. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-
25

31. Spradley J P. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston; 1980.

32. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv
Nurs. 2008;62:107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

33. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in
nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to
achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24:105-112.
doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

34. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker
A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence
based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care.
2005;14:26-33. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155

35. Chuang E, Jason K, Morgan JC. Implementing complex
innovations: factors influencing middle manager support.
Health Care Manage Rev. 2011;36:369-379. doi:10.1097/
HMR.0b013e3182100cc2

36. Kirchner JE, Parker LE, Bonner LM, Fickel JJ, Yano EM, Ritchie

MJ. Roles of managers, frontline staff and local champions, in
implementing quality improvement: stakeholders’ perspectives.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:63-69. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2753.2010.01518.x

37. Birken SA, Lee SY, Weiner BJ, Chin MH, Chiu M, Schaefer CT.
From strategy to action: how top managers’ support increases
middle managers’ commitment to innovation implementation
in health care organizations. Health Care Manage Rev.
2015;40:159-168. doi:10.1097/HMR.0000000000000018

38. Ovretveit J. Leading improvement. J Health Organ Manag.
2005;19:413-430. doi:10.1108/14777260510629661

39. Morrow E, Robert G, Maben J. Exploring the nature and impact
of leadership on the local implementation of the Productive Ward
Releasing Time to Care. J Health Organ Manag. 2014;28:154-
176. doi:10.1108/JHOM-01-2013-0001

40. Collins DB, Holton EF. The effectiveness of managerial
leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies
from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly.
2004;15:217-48. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1099

41. Carlfjord S, Lindberg M, Bendtsen P, Nilsen P, Andersson A. Key
factors influencing adoption of an innovation in primary health
care: a qualitative study based on implementation theory. BMC
Fam Pract. 2010;11:60. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-11-60

42. Ploeg J, Davies B, Edwards N, Gifford W, Miller PE. Factors
influencing best-practice guideline implementation: lessons
learned from administrators, nursing staff, and project leaders.
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4:210-219. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-6787.2007.00106.x

43. Eldh AC, Fredriksson M, Halford C, et al. Facilitators and barriers
to applying a national quality registry for quality improvement
in stroke care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:354.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-354

44. Kristensen HK, Hounsgaard L. Implementation of coherent,
evidence-based pathways in Danish rehabilitation practice.
Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35:2021-2028. doi:10.3109/09638288.20
13.768301

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.01007.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.2.174

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chp.47

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-25

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-25

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182100cc2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182100cc2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01518.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01518.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000018

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777260510629661

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-01-2013-0001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1099

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-60

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00106.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00106.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-354

http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.768301

http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.768301

Transformational change and leader
character

Gerard H. Seijts *, Jeffrey Gandz

Ivey Business School, Western University, 1255 Western Road, London, Ontario N6G 0N1, Canada

Business Horizons (2018) 61, 239—249

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

KEYWORDS
Leadership;
Leader character;
Transformational
change;
Performance;
Leadership qualities

Abstract Leader character is foundational to good leadership. We define character
as an amalgam of virtues, values, and personality traits that influence how leaders
behave in various contexts. Our research identified 11 dimensions of leader character
and 60-plus character elements that are illustrative of those dimensions. We inte-
grate two frameworks: John Kotter’s eight-step model of leading change and our
framework of leader character dimensions and associated elements. Specifically, the
objective of this article is to illustrate which dimensions of leader character come
into play at various points in the organizational change process and how their
presence or absence affects the outcomes of the change process. Beyond that,
we draw inferences about how organizations might develop character among all
leaders but especially those younger, less experienced leaders who will become
tomorrow’s leaders of change projects.
# 2017 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.

1. Transformational change

As educators, researchers, and consultants, we
have worked with many organizations–—some suc-
cessful, some not–—engaged in transformational
change. We have been brought in at various junc-
tures: the very earliest stages of change, after
things started to go wrong and, occasionally, at
the salvage stage when it was clear the desired
change was not going to happen.

* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: gseijts@ivey.ca (G.H. Seijts),

jgandz@icloud.com (J. Gandz)

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2017 Kelley School of Business, I
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.11.005

Throughout, our ideas about leadership have
evolved and we have begun to place a strong em-
phasis on leader character in our research, student
programming, and outreach activities. Our interest
in leader character emerged from the 2008—2009
financial crisis and a qualitative study we conducted
that focused on why some organizations in the
financial sector failed or had near-death experien-
ces while others prospered, avoiding risks that they
did not understand or could not manage (Gandz,
Crossan, Seijts, & Stephenson, 2010). In the course
of this study, leader character was a recurring
theme in our conversations with leaders in the
public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. Based
on both qualitative and quantitative research since

ndiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.bushor.2017.11.005&domain=pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.11.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00076813

mailto:gseijts@ivey.ca

mailto:jgandz@icloud.com

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.11.005

240 G.H. Seijts, J. Gandz

that time, we have defined leader character as an
amalgam of virtues, values, and personality traits
that strongly influence how leaders behave in vari-
ous contexts (e.g., Crossan et al., 2017; Crossan,
Seijts, & Gandz, 2016).

Most recently, we have been thinking and writing
about the connection between success in leading
deep and comprehensive change and the character
of those who succeed in change leadership roles. In
this article, we integrate two frameworks. The first
framework is John Kotter’s (1996) eight-step model
of leading comprehensive change that, in one form
or another, is the starting place for most executives,
directors, entrepreneurs, consultants, or others
charged with leading change or helping others to
do so. The second framework (see Figure 1) is based

Figure 1. Character dimensions and associated elements

on our own research on leader character and is
designed to give executives an accessible language
as well as a set of relevant behaviors associated
with character in the context of business organiza-
tions (Crossan et al., 2017; Crossan et al., 2016).

The leader character framework is based on
research with over 2,500 leaders from North Amer-
ica, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. The frame-
work postulates that there are 11 dimensions of
leader character that influence individual and or-
ganizational outcomes independently and interac-
tively. For example, effective coaching and
development requires the leader to act with integ-
rity, courage, temperance, and humanity to get
meaningful results; successful team decision
making requires the leader to demonstrate collab-

Transformational change and leader character

241

oration, humility, accountability, and judgment;
and delivering a compelling presentation requires
the leader to display transcendence, drive, and
integrity. Our research also identified a set of 60-
plus behaviors or character elements, which help
individuals unpack character in a way that makes
character-related leadership behaviors observable,
measurable, and actionable. We have been working
with organizations that have built explicit recogni-
tion of character in their leadership development
processes and are taking actions to enhance and
build stronger character in their leaders.

The objective of this article is to illustrate which
dimensions of leader character come into play at
various points in the organizational change process
and how their presence or absence affects the
outcomes of the change process. Beyond that, we
draw some inferences about how organizations
might develop character among younger, less expe-
rienced leaders who will become tomorrow’s lead-
ers of change projects.

2. Leading change

Kotter identified eight steps in leading successful
organizational change. They are (Kotter, 1996):

1. Establish a sense of urgency; without this, the
momentum for change will die far short of the
finish line.

2. Create a guiding coalition–—a group of people with
a shared objective, the credibility to guide the
change process, and power. This is essential since
no leader can lead the change process alone.

3. Develop a vision and strategy, helping to break
through the myriad of internal and external
forces that support the status quo and encourage
individuals to initiate coordinated actions that
are necessary to move in the desired direction
for change.

4. Communicate the change vision, ensuring that
people in the organization both understand and
eventually accept the vision.

5. Empower employees for broad-based action.
This is intended to remove barriers to implemen-
tation of the change as well as build their en-
gagement and commitment to seeing the process
through. These barriers may include structural
barriers, the lack of needed skills, and personnel
and information systems as well as managers
who discourage actions aimed at implementing
specific initiatives.

6. Generate short-term wins to help build the cred-
ibility needed to sustain the efforts to bring
change to the organization. Visible, unambigu-
ous wins create the necessary momentum that
propels the change forward.

7. Consolidate gains and produce more change to
prevent leaders from declaring victory too soon
and moving on. For example, deep and compre-
hensive change often involves multiple change
projects–—HR systems, reporting structures, in-
tegration of systems, and so forth.

8. Anchor new approaches in the culture so that
new practices can grow deep roots, including
newly desired behaviors. Absent deep roots,
these practices will be fragile and people may
revert to their old routines.

3. Leader character

Recent studies have shown that character is foun-
dational to the quality of decision making and hence
an avenue through which organizations can enhance
performance (e.g., Bright, Cameron, & Caza, 2006;
Crossan et al., 2017; Sosik, Gentry, & Chun, 2012).
As we look back on major transformative changes,
we can see clearly the character dimensions iden-
tified in Figure 1 and how they played out in the
actions of those who led these changes. Below, we
describe the 11 dimensions of leader character and
their importance for change.

3.1. Drive

The leader strives for excellence, has a strong
desire to succeed, tackles problems with a sense
of urgency, and approaches challenges with energy
and passion. Without drive, leaders would not even
tackle change since, as Machiavelli said in The
Prince more than 500 years ago: “There is nothing
more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to
conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to
take the lead in the introduction of a new order of
things.” This certainly is what large-scale, transfor-
mative change is all about.

3.2. Collaboration

The leader values and actively supports the devel-
opment and maintenance of positive relationships
among people, encourages open dialogue and does
not react defensively when challenged, and is able
to connect with others in a way that fosters the
productive sharing of ideas. While there are exam-
ples of change that are driven by individual leaders

242 G.H. Seijts, J. Gandz

who act alone, most complex organizational change
requires teamwork, the formation of coalitions, and
acceptance of change by those affected by it. Real
collaboration is a prerequisite for acceptance.

3.3. Humanity

The leader demonstrates genuine concern and care
for others; appreciates and identifies with others’
values, feelings, and beliefs; and understands that
people are fallible and offers opportunities for
individuals to learn from their mistakes. Inhumane
change such as ‘slash-and-burn’ tactics may be
powered through and may even be effective in
the short-term. However, it leaves a toxic and
corrosive culture that makes it more difficult to
generate and implement subsequent change ef-
forts.

3.4. Humility

The leader understands the importance of thought-
ful examination of one’s own opinions and ideas;
does not consider oneself to be more important or
special than others; is respectful of others; and
appreciates others’ strengths and contributions.
Even the best change plans encounter problems
in their execution. Leaders who do not have the
humility to recognize their own errors and omissions
will not make the necessary course corrections to
ensure success.

3.5. Integrity

The leader holds oneself to a high moral standard and
behaves consistently with ethical standards even in
difficult situations, is seen by others as behaving in a
way that is consistent with their personal values and
beliefs, and behaves consistently with organizational
policies and practices. When people feel misled,
manipulated, or sandbagged into accepting changes,
they will be lukewarm in their support or could turn
from supporters to resistors of the current and future
change efforts.

3.6. Temperance

The leader conducts oneself in a calm and com-
posed manner, maintains the ability to think clearly
and responds reasonably in tense situations, com-
pletes work and solves problems in a thoughtful
manner, and stays grounded. Seldom does every-
thing planned meticulously in a complex change
effort actually happen. Change sometimes requires
more patience, calmness, and preparedness to

adjust to myriad actions and schedules . . . all of
which require a degree of temperance.

3.7. Justice

The leader ensures that individuals are treated
fairly and that consequences are commensurate
with contributions, provides others with the oppor-
tunity to voice their opinions on processes, provides
timely and candid explanations for decisions, and
seeks to redress wrongdoings inside and outside the
organization. When change is viewed as unjust by
those affected by it, their support may turn into
overt or covert resistance.

3.8. Accountability

The leader willingly accepts responsibility for de-
cisions and actions, is willing to step up and take
ownership of challenging issues, reliably delivers on
expectations, and can be counted upon in tough
situations. Promoters of change must be prepared
to bear the consequences–—good or bad–—if they are
to be viewed as effective leaders.

3.9. Courage

The leader does the right thing even though it may
be unpopular or actively discouraged, or even result
in a negative outcome for him or her personally;
shows determination in confronting difficult situa-
tions; and rebounds quickly from setbacks. Not all
resistance can be turned into support and not ev-
eryone will be happy with the change. Hence, it
takes courage to lead change.

3.10. Transcendence

The leader is generally appreciative of excellence,
whether in design or implementation, in a variety of
areas: the arts, literature, sports, public policy, or
business. Striving for excellence in both the sub-
stance and process of change means setting sights
high and taking the risk that the result may fall
somewhat short of the aspiration.

3.11. Judgment

The leader makes sound decisions in a timely man-
ner based on relevant information and a critical
analysis of facts, appreciates the broader context
when reaching decisions, shows flexibility when
confronted with new information or situations,
and reasons effectively in uncertain or ambiguous
situations. Judgment is required in every stage of

Transformational change and leader character 243

the change leadership process, from envisioning the
change to celebrating its achievement.

4. Leader character and leading
change

More than one of these character dimensions may
be involved in each phase of the change process. In
the following examples, we have picked out those
dimensions that–—in our own experience and pub-
lished reports and studies of change–—appear to
have been most important at each of the eight
stages of Kotter’s change model. Figure 2 summa-
rizes the relative importance of each character
dim

ension in the change process

.

4.1. Establishing a sense of urgency

Drive is essential to tackle challenges with a sense
of urgency. Leaders with drive approach challenges
with energy and passion and display a strong desire
to succeed. For example, Bill Gates has argued
repeatedly that the world needs a better warning
and response system for infectious diseases. His
calls for such a system intensified after the Ebola
epidemic that ravaged the lives of thousands of
people in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. He
firmly believes that a major outbreak of an infec-
tious disease, taking the lives of more than 10 mil-
lion people per year, has a 50% chance of happening
in his lifetime. In a 2015 TED Talk, he demonstrated
such forward thinking–—transcendence–—and argued

Figure 2. The relative importance of each character dim

that time is not on our side and that we have to get
ready for the next epidemic that lies ahead.

Creating a sense of urgency also requires the
leader to be truthful and straightforward and to
be transparent even in the most challenging
situations–—to demonstrate integrity. For example,
in 1992, Arthur Martinez joined Sears as head of the
merchandising group. The company had lost billions
of dollars the year prior. He made dramatic changes
within the first few months in his new position as
incremental improvements were going to be insuffi-
cient. For example, among his first decisions was to
terminate the Sears catalog, which had been in exis-
tence for over 100 years. Martinez was quickly nick-
named “the man who killed the catalog” and “the Ax
from Saks” because of the deep cuts he made in store
operations (Martinez, 2001). Few employees truly
understood the dire situationthe company was facing
in part because of poor communication–—lack of
candor–—from the prior leadership. The many
misconceptions that employees held were addressed
through candor in communications in town halls
and other forums that created a sense of reality
and urgency for change throughout the company.

4.2. Creating a guiding coalition

Collaboration is an essential ingredient to make the
guiding coalition work. Those involved need to be
open-minded, flexible, and collegial in their inter-
actions. Antoni Cimolino is the artistic director of
the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Stratford,
Ontario. One of his main objectives is to define a

ension in the change process

244 G.H. Seijts, J. Gandz

compelling vision for the play he directs. He insists
that theatre is a collaborative art form. He tells his
colleagues what kind of world he wants to create on
the stage. He then invites everybody into the con-
versation. In his words (Seijts, 2014, p. 282):

We want to be stars of our own movies. The
great gift for me was to realize there are many
people here, each carrying a different piece of
the jigsaw puzzle to the table and, if you really
want to make it work, each person plays a
part . . . I then realized that by enlisting peo-
ple’s support and getting them to really want to
come to the table, we would ultimately have a
much better product—a better play.

However, recognizing that you can benefit from other
people’s insights is not enough. Many individuals
simply will not risk disagreeing with the leader in
high-stake situations. The leader needs to create
channels for feedback and keep them open. As Nar-
ayana Murthy, co-founder of Infosys, said: “The day a
leader closes those feedback channels . . . is the day
when a leader’s power starts diminishing and he or
she starts doing things that are completely wrong”
(Seijts, 2014, p. 36). Leaders have to be reflective
and respectful as well as demonstrate an interest in
continuous learning (i.e., remain humble). Every
night when Murthy goes home, he makes a point of
helping to clean the bathrooms at his home. Why does
he pick up a toilet brush? Taking a lesson from Gandhi,
he tries to perform tasks that might be considered
beneath his elevated station in life as a reminder that
all contributions to the organization and society
should be valued.

Leaders also need to demonstrate temperance
when the guiding coalition is dealing with the myri-
ad of challenges at hand. They remain disciplined
and stay on track in defining the shared objective
and the ways in which it can be achieved. They
control strong emotions like anger or disappoint-
ment, especially when obstacles and setbacks are
encountered. For example, Germany’s Chancellor
Angela Merkel has been in charge of Europe’s big-
gest economy since 2000 and sets the political tone
on the continent. She led Germany and Europe
through a succession of daunting political, financial,
economic and, most recently, human crises and
throughout the years has been the epitome of calm-
ness and self-control.

4.3. Developing a vision

Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, was widely seen as
one of the greatest visionaries and innovators in our
lifetime. Minda Zetlin (2015) wrote that “while
everyone else was living in the present, he had

uncanny insight into how market forces and social
trends were changing the world around him. That
vision made Jobs, and Apple, virtually future-
proof.” Jobs explained that vision is often the
product of a broad education (Wolf, 1996):

Creativity is just connecting things . . . When
you ask creative people how they did some-
thing, they feel a little guilty because they
didn’t really do it, they just saw something.
It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s
because they were able to connect experiences
they’ve had and synthesize new things. And the
reason they were able to do that was that
they’ve had more experiences or they have
thought more about their experiences than
other people.

This observation speaks to the dimension of tran-
scendence and the elements of creativity and ap-
preciation for experiences that are outside one’s
own area of expertise, as well as the dimension of
humility and the element of reflection.

A key requirement of any vision is that it reflects
a purpose that inspires employees on a personal
level. Daniel Akerson, former CEO of General Mo-
tors, led the company through dramatic change
after the automotive bailout. Employees were shak-
en when the company came out of bankruptcy. Many
feared for the long-term viability of the company
and hence their jobs. Akerson explained (Seijts,
2014, p. 57):

We lost our way and strove to ‘meet the mar-
ket’ . . . That’s a flawed strategy, a poor vision.
Employees see that; they are not inspired by
‘average’ and start to disengage. Today’s Gen-
eral Motors exhibits greater energy and enthusi-
asm because they see the efforts, and initial
success, to take our game to greater heights.

Good leaders have figured out that determination is
the fuel that makes success happen. It takes tran-
scendence, drive, humility, and courage to formu-
late, communicate, and execute a bold vision for
change. Our own experience suggests that visions
proclaimed from on high are less effective than
those that are developed with the engagement of
those who will be affected by them, thus placing
great value on leaders who are willing to collabo-
rate in the process of creating and promulgating
compelling visions (Gandz, 2009).

4.4. Communicating the vision

Communication is essential in any leadership role
and its importance is elevated during organizational
change and crises (e.g., Gilley, Gilley, & McMillan,

Transformational change and leader character 245

2009; Kotter, 1996). For example, leaders have to
keep employees informed in order to get their views
and input in developing specific ideas as to what
needs to be done further. Leaders also need to
communicate progress and the positive steps taken,
both to employees and external stakeholders. Any
leader who has difficulty in being truthful and
straightforward with others in trying situations is
at a disadvantage. Employees and the public expect
their leaders to be open and honest in relationships
and communications.

In 2010, Steinthor Palsson became the CEO of
Landsbankinn in Iceland. He left a senior position
with the pharmaceutical company Actavis and
signed on to build a bank worthy of respect out
of the ashes of Iceland’s oldest full-service financial
institution. Among his first priorities was to build
trust outside the bank by holding public meetings.
He did so despite the anger over what had happened
in the community, which posed a real threat to the
safety of bank employees. Many citizens had lost
their homes, their jobs, and all of their life savings.
This led them to vent their frustration at any banker
they encountered. Palsson explained that the
bank’s new management team had to show the
public that it was strong and ready to do what
was needed to regain trust. Hiding in the office
would not have accomplished this. The media cov-
ered the meetings; the end result of the broad
consultation was that Palsson and his colleagues
gained credit from the public (Watson, 2014).

Furthermore, after numerous meetings with em-
ployees of the bank and citizens, Palsson and his
management team took out a two-page ad in Ice-
land’s newspapers listing 28 promises they were
making to their customers and the country. The
objective of the ad was to be transparent and to
hold the bank accountable for its actions over the
coming months. Palsson showed integrity, account-
ability, and courage.

4.5. Empowering others for broad-based
action

Change is greatly enabled when those who will be
affected by it are involved, engaged, and empow-
ered to determine both the content and the process
of that change (e.g., Seijts & Roberts, 2011). Lead-
ers need to have the courage to relinquish power to
others while retaining accountability for the out-
comes of the change. A fire at the head office of
MDPSI, the financial services arm of the Canadian
Medical Association with more than $30 billion of
physician’s investments under administration,
forced an evacuation. Within a couple of days,
the people who normally worked in the head office

had either been relocated to other offices in
Ottawa, its parent organization’s office building
across the street, or–—in the case of more than
400 people–—had been asked to work from their
homes, often in less-than-ideal circumstances.

When it became obvious that the organization
would not be able to rebuild, renovate, and move
back into the head office, the CEO and other
members of the executive team decided on a bold
move–—to give employees the option of not having
offices but, rather, working from home and using a
variety of meeting rooms equipped with the very
latest in technology for tele- and videoconferenc-
ing. Each employee could make this decision as well
as decisions about working hours, breaks, vacation
schedules, and time off from work. When they
worked in teams, either within their function or
cross-functionally, the teams themselves had to
ratify any proposed working arrangement. Further-
more, employees could change the amount of fixed
versus flex time provided they could organize their
work properly and get the approval of their teams.

The decision to empower employees to make the
fixed or flex decision was made following numerous
employee interviews, focus groups, and surveys in
which employees at all levels–—from first-line work-
ers to senior executives–—were engaged and re-
quested to give their views about the fixed-
versus-flex system as well as indicate their personal
preferences.

Based on these inputs, the company pushed
ahead with designing a refurbished building with
work spaces, lounges, mini-dining areas, advanced
telecommunications systems, and shared document
management systems. Because employees knew
that they would have choices about where, when,
and how to work, they threw themselves fully into
the task of designing their own workplace of the
future. It took just over a year for the new facilities
to be built and equipped.

Two years after the fire, employee engagement
scores had surpassed the very high levels they were
at prior to the event and approximately 40% of the
employees had elected a flex arrangement. While
productivity was very difficult to measure, the CEO
believes it had gone up and felt that it was easier to
recruit new people to the organization. Most impor-
tantly, the elimination of physical zones based on
departments or functions had produced the kind of
cross-functional collaboration that was spawning
client-focused innovation and creativity.

4.6. Generating short-term wins

Our experience has shown that failure of a change
initiative can often be attributed to the lack of early

246 G.H. Seijts, J. Gandz

wins despite significant efforts of those tasked with
implementing the change. Employees would like to
see unambiguous improvements as a result of the
change if they are to remain engaged. The setting of
short-term goals and the associated wins are the
rallying points that the leader and the guiding
coalition should focus on. For example, Meg Whit-
man, who served as President and CEO of eBay,
strongly believes in metrics: “If it moves, measure
it” (Galbraith, 2011). For such measurement to
happen, the leader needs to demonstrate the char-
acter dimensions of drive, integrity, and account-
ability. That is, the leader needs to communicate
the goals and progress in an open and honest man-
ner as well as take accountability for the execution
of the plan and the outcomes.

Of course, the leader also has to demonstrate
humility and be prepared to change the game plan if
the results prove to be disappointing. Last, the
leader has to show temperance. Wins should be
celebrated. However, one of the pitfalls of leading
change is to declare victory too soon. For example,
in an interview, former U.S. president George W.
Bush reflected on his speech aboard the USS Abra-
ham Lincoln in which he announced an end to major
combat operations in Iraq (Mooney, 2008):

They had a sign that said ‘Mission Accom-
plished.’ It was a sign aimed at the sailors on
the ship, but it conveyed a broader knowledge.
To some it said, well, Bush thinks the war in Iraq
is over, when I didn’t think that. But nonethe-
less, it conveyed the wrong message.

The message that was sent to moms and dads was
that their sons and daughters stationed in Iraq
would be home soon. This did not prove to be the
case for many families as the vast majority of deaths
of U.S. military personnel occurred after the speech
during the Iraqi insurgency. To many people, it
appeared that Bush and his administration had been
overconfident about the situation in Iraq. The mes-
sage for organizational leaders is that they need to
be aggressive in the objectives they set for the
transformation yet demonstrate patience because
it typically takes years before the new practices are
firmly grounded in the organizational culture that is
envisioned.

4.7. Consolidating gains and producing
more change

Leaders accelerate the change plan to further in-
crease momentum because doing so counters any
continuing resistance to change by employees. The
search for continuous improvement tackles the
structure, systems, and people that obstruct the

full implementation of the change initiative. Leaders
bring not only drive to consolidating gains and pro-
ducing more change, but also transcendence. For
example, Ted Rogers was the founder, president,
and CEO of Rogers Communications Inc. He engaged
in numerous initiatives to improve the company’s
reputation for customer service. Rogers held the
belief that every day you wake up, you have to
improve, because “if we don’t change . . . [and]
improve . . . [and] fix things, we’re going to be
killed” (Avery, 2009). Leaders must launch multiple
projects that help to drive the change deep in the
organization.

4.8. Anchoring new approaches in the
culture

The new values and the associated behavioral prac-
tices must grow deep roots so that the change is
sustainable. Change initiatives often fail because
leaders underestimate the challenges of changing
an organization’s culture to support the change.
The culture, therefore, must be aligned with the
change that is envisioned.

In 2007, Michael McCain, the CEO of Maple Leaf
Foods, a Canadian food processing company, real-
ized that the whole of his business needed a funda-
mental restructuring if it was to be cost-
competitive with U.S. competitors going forward.
This meant closing low-volume, technically obso-
lete plants; reorganizing distribution networks;
closing or selling off business units that could never
be turned into profitable and world-class opera-
tions; and making many other tough decisions af-
fecting employees, customers, shareholders, and
other stakeholders.

To lead the change successfully required McCain
to draw upon every one of the 11 dimensions of
character:

1. Integrity to recognize what needed to be done
and to report candidly on the progress to stake-
holders through the long transformation peri-
od;

2. Transcendence to visualize the end goal;

3. Drive to make it happen despite objections
from a major shareholder;

4. Courage to pull the plug on business units that
couldn’t be turned around and to invest virtu-
ally all of his net worth in the transformation;

5. Humanity to do this while caring about, and
taking steps to assist, the many employees who

Transformational change and leader character 247

would be losing their jobs as a result of the
transformation;

6. Justice to recognize their claims on the organi-
zation for past service and success;

7. Humility to go seek the very best business
practices for leading a deep and comprehensive
transformation;

8. Temperance to understand and accept that the
transformation would take 5—7 years to com-
plete;

9. Accountability to the shareholders for the re-
sults of a long-term investment;

10. Collaboration with a large and diverse group of
people and parties too numerous to list; and

11. Judgment to bring all these dimensions togeth-
er into an effective, efficient, and principled
change process.

In May 2016, McCain (2016) was finally able to declare
that “our transformation, one of the largest in the
North American food industry, is delivering the finan-
cialgoalsthat wesetbackin 2010.”Arguably,without
the breadth and depth of character displayed by
McCain and his leadership team, the successful trans-
formation would never have happened.

5. Judgment rules

We positioned judgment in the center of our frame-
work because it plays a critical role in leader char-
acter (Crossan et al., 2017; Crossan et al., 2016).
Judgment is the character dimension that channels
and melds the other dimensions into contextually
informed behaviors. We need leaders with strong
judgment that enables them to consciously or un-
consciously activate each dimension of character at
the right time and in the right amount, as well as to
bring forth the right behaviors in the right situation
at the right time. For example, leaders should not
empower everyone–—there are many things to con-
sider. They have to assess whether that power will
be used in the furtherance of change or to subvert
it; patience cannot be inexhaustible in the pursuit
of change and hence sometimes bold action is
required; it may not be possible to be fair and
equitable to everyone in all changes; sometimes
collegiality, open-mindedness, and striving for co-
operation will hamper the change effort, especially
when time is tight; and so forth. Leaders cannot

simply pick and choose which dimensions they want
to embrace and which ones they want to ignore
because each of the dimensions is essential to lead
change effectively.

Kotter (1996) does not explicitly identify judg-
ment but it permeates throughout his model. Suc-
cessful transformational change requires real-time
judgement. The leadership of the late Robert Ben-
mosche is a good example (see Crossan et al. (2016)
and Norton (2012)). Benmosche came out of retire-
ment in August 2009 to head a company that was on
the brink of disaster: American International Group
(AIG). AIG, a globally entrenched business, was one
of the ‘too-big-to-fail’ companies. Failure, many
people thought, would bring the global financial
system to its knees. The U.S. government approved
a $182 billion bailout for AIG, in return for a 92%
stake in the company.

Benmosche agreed to take the job, but only on
his own terms. He was a man who had a roll-up-your-
sleeves ethos. He was known for his willingness to
say what was on his mind. He let it be known that if
he encountered any obstacles from government
officials, he would quit, and state publicly where
the obstacles had arisen. He also made it clear that
he was no diplomat. People observed that he
“makes more enemies than friends because he does
what needs to be done” (Norton, 2012). Yet, Jim
Milstein, the former Chief Restructuring Officer of
the U.S. Treasury department, opined that “Bob’s
emotional intelligence is unrivaled. He is by no
means short on analytical strengths, but he’s a very
shrewd evaluator of people” (Norton, 2012, p. 15).

Benmosche’s first line of defense was to go on the
offense, rallying the demoralized employees to
once again take pride in the company. This was a
risky tactic because, most likely, Washington ex-
pected the new CEO of the humiliated company to
be humble. But Benmosche knew that as long as
people had their tails between their legs, AIG
could not rebound. Thus, having made certain that
he had a board chair who could be the resident
diplomat–—Harvey Golub–—Benmosche was able to
defend his company and his workforce aggressively.

Even as he was rebuilding morale, he was cutting
costs dramatically. The payroll shrank from 97,000
to 57,000 employees. At Benmosche’s urging, his
managers backed off the credit-default swaps that
had caused the trainwreck and, drawing on the
company’s enormous database and analytical skills,
began designing new products that were profitable
and sustainable. At the same time, AIG was under
enormous pressure to liquidate holdings, the big-
gest and most valuable of which was the Asia Life
business. Golub was an advocate of hurrying divest-
itures. Benmosche disagreed with this strategy. He

248 G.H. Seijts, J. Gandz

decided that an auction environment would reduce
the liquidation values, and that the company had to
demonstrate that it was in control and in no hurry. This
visible point of conflict was a clear line in the sand:
someone had to go. Golub resigned just a year into his
chairmanship. Benmosche was firmly in control. The
bottom line? By 2012, AIG had not only repaid the
entire $182 billion in bailout money, but had also given
the U.S. taxpayers a $22 billion profit on their loan to
AIG. Benmosche stepped down in September 2014,
and succumbed to cancer 4 months later.

Benmosche clearly had drive, humanity, integri-
ty, justice, accountability, courage, and transcen-
dence. For example, his candor was unparalleled
even if, at times, he was exceptionally blunt. He
fought for the employees and showed understand-
ing and compassion for their struggles–—humanity.
And in the realm of judgment, he showed incredible
situational awareness and insight. He had strong
powers of analysis, and was comfortable with com-
plex cognitive issues. He was decisive yet showed
temperance–—he made sound decisions in a timely
manner. He had to show confidence yet remained
humble throughout the transformation. In sum,
Benmosche exercised effective judgment near the
very heart of the catastrophe that threatened the
global financial system.

6. Measuring and promoting leader
character

How do leaders ensure not only that a specific
change project is implemented but that the residual
impact on the organization is a culture in which
further changes are expected and widely wel-
comed? In this respect, the character of change
leaders is critical. Where leaders are perceived as
having integrity, humility, humanity, temperance,
justice, and collaboration, the chances are that
those who might resist change will be encouraged
to support the current change and will feel good
about the change process in ways that will open
themselves up to further change initiatives. If, on
the other hand, leaders appear to be deceptive,
unfair, inequitable, arrogant, disrespectful, and
lacking in empathy or compassion to those for whom
change is painful, they will raise the bar of hostility
toward future change even if the current one is
successful. In an era in which change is the new
normal, it is the character of leaders that will
create a supportive change culture that will con-
tribute to organizational success and sustainability.

Beyond that, however, we think there is a gath-
ering body of evidence to suggest that leader char-

acter is something that can be assessed and
evaluated in current and potential leaders and
hence should be taken into account in decisions
about how organizations develop and deploy lead-
ership talent. For example, the senior leaders in an
organization play a critical role in promoting the
development of leader character in next generation
leaders. They should actively model those charac-
ter dimensions and elements they want to see more
of throughout the organization. Any character-
associated behaviors enacted by the senior leaders
tend to be perceived by others as the behaviors
that are valued in the organization. This may, in
particular, be applicable to those individuals early
in their careers (Seijts, 2014). Bandura’s (1997)
social cognitive theory explains that behavior is
learned from the environment through the process-
es of observation and imitation. For example,
George Cope, president and CEO of Bell Canada
Enterprises stated (Seijts, 2014, p. 351):

I was 25 years old then and overnight became
president of a subsidiary of Bell. I learned how
boards operate and closely watched the behav-
ior of people in leadership roles. I gained valu-
able insights into the business world and
leadership concepts at a really young age. This
was an important learning experience.

Senior leaders can also coach and mentor individu-
als on the leader character dimensions and ele-
ments. For example, they ought to coach
individuals when they encounter teachable mo-
ments or crucible experiences so that the lessons
embedded in these experiences are not lost on
individuals. A character dimension that is challeng-
ing for many leaders is temperance. Individuals
have to be able to demonstrate self-control, pa-
tience, and restraint. They need to learn that every
decision has a clock on it–—5 seconds or 1 day or
6 months. Senior leaders can teach individuals that
at times, it is more effective to pull people into a
conversation rather than to push the change on
them. Such coaching and mentoring requires signif-
icant dedication–—for example, time and financial
resources to send individuals to leadership devel-
opment–—on the part of senior leaders.

Furthermore, senior leaders can assign individu-
als challenges that require them to display one or
more leader character dimensions to successfully
complete the assignment. For example, putting
individuals in charge of leading the implementation
of an organization-wide information technology sys-
tem or leading a departmental turnaround provides
significant opportunities for them to develop the
requisite competencies and character-related be-
haviors. The development of character dimensions

Transformational change and leader character 249

such as drive, collaboration, humanity, temper-
ance, courage, and accountability may be crucial
to the effectiveness of the leader and the success of
the change initiative.

Most importantly, senior leaders can make ex-
plicit in the role-requirements for leadership posi-
tions the character dimensions they want leaders to
demonstrate (e.g., through the development of
leadership profiles) and actually hire and promote
individuals who demonstrate the leader character
dimensions and elements associated with leading
deep and comprehensive change (e.g., Seijts,
Crossan, & Carleton, 2017). Part of this process is
to discuss with the candidates the character-
associated behaviors leaders expect to see in the
role. This requires senior leaders to elevate char-
acter in importance alongside competencies. In our
experience, it is relatively rare for senior leaders
to discuss character dimensions and supporting
elements they expect to see in the successful can-
didate as well as to focus on character deficiencies
when reviewing on-the-job performance. There
are many potential explanations for the absence
of such character-related conversations in the
workplace. Leaders may feel they lack the vocabu-
lary to have constructive discussions. The research
we conducted offers a specific vocabulary that
allows leaders to have developmental leadership
conversations in the workplace and to infuse leader
character into HR systems and processes to enable
excellence in the workplace.

References

Avery, S. (2009, May 29). For Rogers’ CEO, happy customers top of
list. Globe and Mail. Available at http://www.
theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/
for-rogers-ceo-happy-customers-top-of-list/article1202176/

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York, NY: Freeman.

Bright, D. S., Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2006). The amplifying
and buffering effects of virtuousness in downsized organiza-
tions. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3), 249—269.

Crossan, M., Byrne, A., Seijts, G., Reno, M., Monzani, L., &
Gandz, J. (2017). Toward a framework of leader character
in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(7),
986—1018.

Crossan, M., Seijts, G., & Gandz, J. (2016). Developing leader-
ship character. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing.

Galbraith, S. (2011, October 24). Meg Whitman takes charge to
help HP find its way. Fortune. Available at http://www.
forbes.com/sites/sashagalbraith/2011/10/24/
meg-whitman-takes-charge-to-help-hp-find-its-way/
#3077db841897

Gandz, J. (2009). Compelling visions: Content, context, credi-
bility, and collaboration. Ivey Business Journal. Available at
http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/
compelling-visions-content-context-credibility-
and-collaboration/

Gandz, J., Crossan, M., Seijts, G., & Stephenson, C. (2010).
Leadership on trial: A manifesto for leadership develop-
ment. London, ON: The Richard Ivey School of Business.

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational
change: Motivation, communication, and leadership effective-
ness. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 75—94.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi-
ness Review Press.

Martinez, A. C. (2001). The hard road to the softer side: Lessons
from the transformation of Sears. New York, NY: Crown
Business.

McCain, M. H. (2016, May 6). Building a sustainable
future. Available at http://www.mapleleaffoods.com/
mapleleafview/112431/

Mooney, A. (2008). Bush: ‘Mission accomplished’ a mistake.
CNN. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/
11/12/bush.regrets/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS

Norton, L. P. (2012, August 11). The man who saved AIG. Bar-
ron’s. Available at http://www.barrons.com/articles/
SB50001424053111904239304577575214205090528

Seijts, G. (2014). Good leaders learn: Lessons from lifetimes of
leadership. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing.

Seijts, G., Crossan, M., & Carleton, E. (2017). Embedding leader
character into HR practices to achieve sustained excellence.
Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 30—39.

Seijts, G., & Roberts, M. (2011). The impact of employee per-
ceptions on change in a municipal government. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 32(2), 190—213.

Sosik, J. J., Gentry, W. A., & Chun, J. U. (2012). The value of
virtue in the upper echelons: A multisource examination of
executive character strengths and performance. Leadership
Quarterly, 23(3), 367—382.

Watson, T. (2014). The Ivey interview: Steintho’r Pa’lsson. Ivey
Business Journal. Available at http://iveybusinessjournal.
com/publication/the-ivey-interview-steinthor-palsson/

Wolf, G. (1996). Steve Jobs: The next insanely great thing.
Wired. Available at https://www.wired.com/1996/02/
jobs-2/

Zetlin, M. (2015). Steve Jobs was a master at looking into the
future: You can be too. Inc. Available at http://www.inc.
com/minda-zetlin/steve-jobs-was-a-master-at-looking-
into-the-future-you-can-be-too.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/for-rogers-ceo-happy-customers-top-of-list/article1202176/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/for-rogers-ceo-happy-customers-top-of-list/article1202176/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/for-rogers-ceo-happy-customers-top-of-list/article1202176/

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0010

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0010

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0015

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0015

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0015

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0020

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0020

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0020

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sashagalbraith/2011/10/24/meg-whitman-takes-charge-to-help-hp-find-its-way/#3077db841897

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sashagalbraith/2011/10/24/meg-whitman-takes-charge-to-help-hp-find-its-way/#3077db841897

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sashagalbraith/2011/10/24/meg-whitman-takes-charge-to-help-hp-find-its-way/#3077db841897

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sashagalbraith/2011/10/24/meg-whitman-takes-charge-to-help-hp-find-its-way/#3077db841897

COMPELLING VISIONS: CONTENT, CONTEXT, CREDIBILITY AND COLLABORATION

COMPELLING VISIONS: CONTENT, CONTEXT, CREDIBILITY AND COLLABORATION

COMPELLING VISIONS: CONTENT, CONTEXT, CREDIBILITY AND COLLABORATION

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0040

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0040

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0045

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0045

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0045

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0050

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0050

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0055

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0055

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0055

http://www.mapleleaffoods.com/mapleleafview/112431/

http://www.mapleleaffoods.com/mapleleafview/112431/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/12/bush.regrets/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/12/bush.regrets/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904239304577575214205090528

http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904239304577575214205090528

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0075

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0075

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0080

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0080

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0080

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0085

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0085

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0085

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0090

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0090

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0090

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0007-6813(17)30160-X/sbref0090

The Ivey Interview: Steinthór Pálsson

The Ivey Interview: Steinthór Pálsson

https://www.wired.com/1996/02/jobs-2/

https://www.wired.com/1996/02/jobs-2/

http://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/steve-jobs-was-a-master-at-looking-into-the-future-you-can-be-too.html

http://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/steve-jobs-was-a-master-at-looking-into-the-future-you-can-be-too.html

http://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/steve-jobs-was-a-master-at-looking-into-the-future-you-can-be-too.html

Transformational change and leader character
1 Transformational change
2 Leading change
3 Leader character
3.1 Drive
3.2 Collaboration
3.3 Humanity
3.4 Humility
3.5 Integrity
3.6 Temperance
3.7 Justice
3.8 Accountability
3.9 Courage
3.10 Transcendence
3.11 Judgment
4 Leader character and leading change
4.1 Establishing a sense of urgency
4.2 Creating a guiding coalition
4.3 Developing a vision
4.4 Communicating the vision
4.5 Empowering others for broad-based action
4.6 Generating short-term wins
4.7 Consolidating gains and producing more change
4.8 Anchoring new approaches in the culture
5 Judgment rules
6 Measuring and promoting leader character
References