Over three decades ago, Rost (1993), an education academic, highlighted the existence of a “mythical leadership narrative.” He suggested that while significant progress appears to have been made in leadership study that, in reality, his own attempts to encourage a paradigm shift in understanding leadership were largely ignored. A similar situation might be occurring within the study of change leadership.
In their article, “Change Leadership: Oxymoron and Myths” (2016), By, Hughes & Ford contend that Kotter’s “Leading Change” (1996), while acknowledging that Kotter’s work has been influential, particularly in questioning why transformation efforts fail and offering a prescription for leading change, the authors present the following critical weaknesses in Kotter’s framework:
The authors point out that Kotter’s eight steps appear to have become the orthodoxy for change leadership. In their critical examination of his work, they point out that the revised edition of “Leading Change” in 2012 is “substantially the same book”, leading the authors to argue that “the title might be Leading Change, but this book does not change, another illustration of change leadership as an oxymoron.”
Notwithstanding these shortcomings in Kotter’s popular framework, leadership research has overwhelmingly focused on the individual leader as the primary source of change outcomes. This perspective aligns with a conventional view in leadership research that sees leadership as a personal possession of the leader. In this traditional model, leadership is considered something bestowed upon followers, who are viewed more as recipients rather than active participants in shaping change. Consequently, the effectiveness of the individual leader has been seen as the key determinant of change success.
This traditional research lens has often overlooked the idea that leadership involves multiple functions. These functions, rather than being concentrated in a single individual or position, are more likely to be distributed among various people based on their specific knowledge and expertise. The authors highlight the existence of distributed or shared leadership in various forms, such as leadership partners, teams, and role constellations. Research has even indicated that distributed leadership can be a complement to, and sometimes a more powerful predictor of, change outcomes compared to individual leadership.
Furthermore, the assumption that change outcomes are primarily driven by an individual leader becomes particularly questionable when considering large-scale complex changes. In such scenarios, integrated leadership, a form of distributed leadership, is likely to be more effective.
Therefore, the authors argue that traditional research has maintained a dominant perspective that overemphasizes the role of the individual leader in driving organizational change, often neglecting the significance of distributed leadership and the co-creation of change outcomes with followers. This established view mirrors broader assumptions in leadership studies that leadership resides within the individual leader.
Two well-researched types of leadership are relevant to our discussion here. Assigned Leadership is based on occupying a formal position in an organization. Individuals in roles such as team leaders, plant managers, department heads, directors, and administrators are examples of assigned leaders because their leadership is tied to their title and organizational hierarchy. Position power, which includes legitimate, reward, coercive, and information power, is often associated with assigned leadership as it stems from the leader’s formal office or rank. Assigned leadership is often associated with change sponsorship, stemming primarily from their position and ability to direct resources.
The authors caution against an exclusive focus on assigned leadership, viewing it as a limited and potentially misleading perspective on how change occurs in organizations. They advocate for a broader understanding of leadership as a distributed activity based on influence and action, rather than solely on formal roles and titles. Their highlighting of Rost’s argument about the “mythical leadership narrative” serves to underscore their point that an overemphasis on formal leadership roles might create a false sense of understanding and progress in the field of change leadership.
Emergent Leadership, in contrast, occurs when others perceive an individual as the most influential member of a group or an organization, regardless of their formal title. This type of leadership is not assigned by position but rather emerges over time through communication and the support and acceptance of others in the organization. Positive communication behaviors such as being verbally involved, informed, seeking others’ opinions, initiating new ideas, and being firm but not rigid can contribute to successful leader emergence. Personal power, which includes referent and expert power, is linked to emergent leadership as it comes from followers who see the leader as likable and knowledgeable and value what they offer.
So, what might occur when the two are merged? Combining assigned leadership (based on formal roles and authority) and emergent leadership (based on individual influence and expertise, regardless of formal position) could have significant consequences for organizational change efforts. The limitations of focusing solely on individual, formal leaders suggest the greater potential value of more distributed forms of leadership.
Without question, leadership has the potential to create a more robust and effective approach to organizational change by leveraging both formal authority and distributed influence and expertise. However, careful attention must be paid to coordination, communication, and the need for a cultural shift that recognizes leadership beyond formal roles. Stepping away from the “myth of the individual leader” allows us to recognize and integrate emergent leadership as a necessary step towards a more accurate and effective understanding and practice of change leadership.
Real change leadership doesn’t live in a title — it lives in the everyday actions of people across the organization. By moving beyond the myth of the individual leader and embracing the power of distributed and emergent leadership, organizations can build change efforts that are more resilient, inclusive, and effective. True transformation happens when leadership is not the privilege of a few, but the shared responsibility of many. Are we finally ready to lead change differently?
Sources:
By, R.T., Hughes, M. & Ford, J. (2016), “Change Leadership: Oxymoron and Myths”, Journal of Change Management, 16:1, 8-17.
Rost, J.C. (1993). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport, CT: Praeger.