All Changes Great and Small: Exploring
Approaches to Change and its
Leadership
MALCOLM HIGGS & DEBORAH ROWLAND
Henley Management College, Human Resource Management, Greenlands, Oxfordshire, UK
ABSTRACT Although the growing need for change in organizations it is widely acknowledged it
is asserted that up to 70% of change initiatives fail. While there have been attempts to
understand the reasons for failure these have been seen as inconclusive, and a need for further
empirical work has been identified. Within the growing literature on change leadership there are
assertions that the root cause of many change problems is leadership behaviour.
This article begins by exploring the change literature and, in particular the broadening of this
literature with the inclusion of complexity and evolutionary theories. From the literature the
authors propose a typology of change approach is proposed. In examining change the authors
also examine emerging thoughts from the change leadership literature. Combining these different
streams of literature leads to three core research questions, which are:
(1) What approach to change management is likely to be most effective in today’s business
environment?
(2) What leadership behaviours tend to be associated with effective change management? And
(3) Are leadership behaviours related to the underlying assumptions within different approaches to
change?
These questions are explored using a case study methodology. The study involved seven
organizations and 40 informants who provided 70 change stories. The data was initially analysed
as qualitative data and subsequently (following participant lines of inquiry) quantitatively.
Both qualitative and quantitative data indicated that change approaches that were based on
assumptions of linearity, were unsuccessful, whereas those built on assumptions of complexity
were more successful. Approaches classified as emergent change were found to be the most
successful. In examining leadership behaviours three broad categories emerged: (1) shaping
behaviour; (2) framing change; and (3) creating capacity. Analyses of the data indicated that
leader-centric behaviours (shaping behaviour) impaired change implementation.
The implications of the findings are discussed together with suggestions for further
research.
Journal of Change Management
Vol. 5, No. 2, 121–151, June 2005
Corresponding Address: Malcolm Higgs, Henley Management College, Human Resource Management,
Greenlands, Oxfordshire, RG9 3AU, UK. E-mail: malcolm.Higgs@henleymc.ac.uk
1469-7017 Print=1479-1811 Online=05=020121–31 # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080=14697010500082902

KEY WORDS: Change, change approaches, leadership, leader behaviours, complexity,
collaborative research
Introduction
According to many authors, up to 70 per cent of change initiatives fail (e.g. Kotter, 1990;
Hammer and Champny, 1993; Higgs and Rowland, 2000). However, there is a growing
need for organizations to implement major changes in order to be able to respond in a
business environment that is becoming increasingly volatile and complex. So what are
the reasons for consistent failure and what leads to success? This article explores these
questions and presents empirical evidence that explores approaches to change, which
appear to be successful. In addition it examines the leadership behaviours, which contrib-
ute to this success. The authors recognize that in exploring the theoretical underpinnings of
change and its leadership that they can only produce a brief overview of a significant and
complex literature. However, this is done in the spirit of encouraging further debate and
inquiry rather than presenting a definitive picture.
The problem of failing to manage change is illustrated by Buchanan et al. (1999). They
report the results of a survey, which showed that mangers have neither the expertise nor
capacity, to implement change successfully and that managing change according to
textbook theory is difficult. Stacey (1996) argues that the prevailing theoretical paradigms
are based on assumptions that: (1) managers can choose successful mutations in advance
of environmental changes; (2) change is a linear process; and (3) organizations are systems
tending to states of stable equilibrium. This paradigm has a long history, perhaps begin-
ning with Lewin (1951) who proposed the classic three-stage model of the change
process that is shown in Figure 1. The centrality of this ‘mental model is illustrated by
Kotter’s (1990) study of the reasons for failure of major transformational initiatives.
The ten causes of failure identified by Kotter can readily be mapped onto Lewin’s
three-stage model.
This view of change encompasses assumptions that change, because of its linearity, is a
relatively straightforward process and that it can (and should) be driven from the top of the
organization and be implemented uniformly according to a detailed change plan (e.g.
Beckhard, 1969; Kotter, 1990; Hammel and Champny, 1999). However, subsequent
interpretation of Lewin’s work challenges this simplistic view (e.g. Elrod and Tippett,
Unfreeze Mobilise Refreeze
Create the case
for change
Dissatisfaction
with the status
quo
Identify and
mobilise the
resources required
to effect the
change
Embed new
ways of
working in the
fabric of the
organisation
Figure 1. The three-phase model of change (adapted from Lewin, 1951)
122 Malcolm Higgs & Deborah Rowland