Released 09/01/2005

From the Center for

Positive Organizational Scholarship WORKING PAPER SERIES Forthcoming in: A Handbook for Transformative Cooperation: New Designs and Dynamics; Ronald Fry, David Cooperrider and Sandy Piderit (eds). Stanford University Press. Do not cite or copy without permission of the authors. Contact: acaza@umich.edu; requinn@umich.edu

The Essence of Transformation: Entering the Fundamental State of Leadership

=
by

Arran Caza

Ph.D. Student Psychology and Management and Organizations

Robert E. Quinn
M.E. Tracy Collegiate Professor Business Administration; Professor of Management and Organizations

= = = = = = = = = =
LEADING IN THOUGHT AND ACTION

q=~==~=~K=

The Essence of Transformation: Entering the Fundamental State of Leadership

Arran Caza & Robert E. Quinn

Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship Ross School of Business University of Michigan

Working Paper A later version of this paper is forthcoming in: A Handbook for Transformative Cooperation: New Designs and Dynamics; Ronald Fry, David Cooperrider and Sandy Piderit (eds). Stanford University Press. Do not cite or copy without permission of the authors. Contact: acaza@umich.edu; requinn@umich.edu I

The Essence of Transformation: Entering the Fundamental State of Leadership Arran Caza & Robert E. Quinn

Occasionally we find organizations in which people are cooperating at a level beyond normal expectations. We often call these high performance organizations. We begin this paper with an account of several researchers visiting one such organization. The account offers insight into such settings and introduces the topic of this chapter. We went with the director of nursing at a large hospital to visit one of her most outstanding units. As always happens when we visit these kinds of settings, we were inspired by deeply committed human beings performing well beyond normal expectations. We asked some questions about their culture of success and they spent a half hour describing the innovative practices that had developed in the units. These practices were unique and very impressive. It would have been tempting to believe that the practices were the explanation. Eventually the director of nursing shook her head. She said, Dont be fooled by these practices. They are important, but they are a consequence, not the cause. The other people in the room nodded. They all knew what she was talking about. One of them began to speak of the woman who had been running this wonderful unit for over a decade. They spoke of her in reverent tones. We posed probing questions, asking them to describe specific incidents. In doing so, some of the respondents spoke in tears as they shared the ways this woman changed their organization and their lives. Afterwards the director told us that of her 60 managers, she has five or six like the woman we just heard about. No matter where she assigns them, they build units that achieve extraordinary performance. One of my colleagues asked, What do they do? There was a long silence. Finally, the director said, That is the wrong question. It is not what they do, because each one of them is unique in how they pull it off. It is not about what they do; it is about who they are. (Quinn, 2004, pp. 1) Taking an Alternative Perspective In most studies of transformational leadership, researchers focus on people in positions of formal authority and examine the personal traits and behaviors that contribute to improved organizational functioning (e.g., Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Hogg,

2001; Yukl, Gordon & Taber, 2002). However, researchers note that formal positions, traits, and behaviors do a relatively poor job of accounting for organizational success and the effect of leadership, suggesting that something more is required to understand the phenomenon (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). In response, we suggest that a new perspective may be helpful. Instead of taking a static view of the leader and assuming that s/he has a particular set of traits or behaviors that give rise to organizational transformation, we suggest focusing on the observations in the opening description. We suggest that transformational leadership can be best understood by examining an individuals state of being, rather than personality traits or actions. The researchers described above were drawn to the innovative practices that differentiated outstanding hospital units. Researchers often assume that if they can identify such practices, they can transfer them to other organizations. This is the assumption of best practices: organizations need only implement the innovative practices to improve their functioning. However, the director of nursing in the example was suspicious of the best practice logic. She suggested that the key to success lay not in the innovative practices per se, but in the leadership that resulted in the generation of innovative practices appropriate to a particular context. Similarly, when the director indicated that she had a small minority of managers who produce transformational outcomes, the researchers asked the typical follow-up question: What do they do? Again, the assumption was that transformational leaders share some common set of behaviors. If one could identify these behaviors, the nature of transformational leadership would be explained. Most models of transformational leadership share this functional assumption. Moreover, when researchers use this assumption to guide their inquiry, they are very likely to find behaviors that seem important (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). They will tend to identify behaviors shared by leaders, and build these into their models of transformational leadership. The nursing director challenged this traditional view of leadership. It is not about what they do; it is about who they are, she said. Since her transformational managers engaged in a variety of different behavior patterns, she reasoned that looking for behavioral commonalities would miss the important element. We agree with her insight, and argue that the essence of transformation is not to be found in behaviors, but in a state of being shared by transformational leaders. Consistent with this view, Quinn (2004) examines the cases of managers who reported making changes in their organizations by first making changes in their personal state of being. He describes these changes by contrasting two states of being, which he calls the normal state and the fundamental state of leadership. Quinn (2004; 2005) describes the normal state as a reactive one, in which the individual strives to preserve equilibrium and deny change. He suggests that most people are usually in this normal state. Over time, the normal state leads to a loss of alignment with the changing external world. As the gap widens, people lose energy and motivation. Yet, rather than make the changes necessary to realign themselves, they tend to persevere in denial and suffer the consequences of personal decline. This becomes a vicious cycle engendering negative emotions and dysfunctional behaviors. The normal state of slow decline is contrasted with a more extraordinary one that Quinn (2004: 2005) calls the fundamental state of leadership. In this state, the individual

accepts the need for change and focuses on sincere pursuit of outcomes rather than personal comfort. This state is more proactive and creative. Upon entering it, individuals tend to experience positive emotions and thoughts, to engage in experiential learning, to have creative insights, to engage in new behaviors, and to have more effect on others. This individual transformation may give rise to a contagious collective process, and result in organizational transformation. The purpose of this chapter is to revisit the idea of transformation by embedding Quinns notions in the existing literature, providing a fuller explanation of these two states of being and their influence on behavior. The first section of this chapter is a discussion of routine behavior and the normal state in which most people spend the majority of their lives. This state is shown to be one of gradual decline because of resistance to change. The next section describes the fundamental state of leadership, which is a different state of being, and an alternative to the typical pattern of decline. After considering the transformational potential of this state, and contrasting that transformational potential with traditional theories of leadership, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of this new perspective.

Routine Behavior and the Normal State of Being To respond to a changing environment, individuals and organizations must alter their behavior, and the more dynamic the environment is, the greater the necessary alteration (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Schein, 1980). This suggests a relatively straightforward process for responding to environmental change. As a simple example, imagine an individual walking to work in the winter. She wears a heavy coat because of the cold temperature. When the season changes to spring and the temperature rises, her coat will become too warm. The gap between her behavior and environmental conditions will increase as it gets warmer. The widening gap will signal the need for a change; she will feel hot and uncomfortable, and realize that she needs a lighter coat. Switching coats addresses the gap, eliminating the discomfort that signaled for change. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the process described above, which is a feedback pattern known as a balancing loop (Sterman, 2000). The environment is treated as an exogenous influence, and the individual responds to its demands (e.g., wearing clothes to match the weather). Assuming the system begins at equilibrium, it will continue as it is until a change occurs in the environment (e.g., she will wear the heavy coat as long as it is cold). Environmental change will demand a different response and create a gap between current and optimal behavior (e.g., warmer temperatures make the heavy coat too warm for comfort). As this gap grows, declining performance will signal the need for change. These signals will accumulate over time, ultimately leading to recognition that there is a gap to be addressed. Making the necessary changes will eliminate the behavior gap. This pattern is called a balancing loop because it is equilibrium seeking. It will adjust behavior until it has reached the target set by the exogenous environmental demands, and then continue in that state until another environmental change occurs. Insert Figure 1 here

This simple, idealized model depicts change as a straightforward process. In reality however, experience and research both show that change is often quite hard, and rarely proceeds so smoothly (Dawes, 1998; Miller, 1993). In fact, individuals often resist change. They prefer habit, which leads to inertia. By refusing to respond to change, they fall ever further from alignment with environmental demands. This failing alignment depletes their motivation and energy, further reducing the likelihood of effective change. The result is a downward spiral (Masuch, 1985) that has been referred to as the slow death phenomenon (Quinn, 1996). Quinn (1996) uses slow death to refer to individuals and collectives tendency toward declining motivation and reduced energy. The process of slow death is examined in detail below. By refusing to change, a person gradually falls out of alignment with the dynamic environment. Ongoing change makes old behaviors increasingly less effective, leading to a growing behavior gap. Resistance to change introduces a second loop in the model of change, a loop that is reinforcing rather than balancing (see Figure 2). When the behavior gap signals the need for change, the individual denies those signals. The stronger the signal, the more the individual resists. This resistance is typically faster and stronger than an individuals willingness to recognize his or her own deficient behavior, so that the resistance loop tends to overpower the corrective response loop, leading to a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Insert Figure 2 here The speed and strength of change resistance arises from two powerful and interrelated sources. The first is habit. People are generally risk averse, and seek the familiar (Ellsberg, 1961; Heath & Tversky, 1991), so that much of life is governed by nonconscious, automatic responses that duplicate prior behaviors (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Extensive evidence has shown that individuals are biased in favor of the things they recognize easily and know well (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). All other things being equal, people prefer the familiar (Betsch, Hoffman, Hoffrage & Plessner, 2003). Moreover, studies have shown that the familiarity bias even extends to novel situations; people tend to interpret new situations as variations of familiar ones (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Wiley, 2003). The power of habit and familiarity is further increased by the tendency to adjust goals to match behavior. That is, rather than change behavior as needed to achieve a fixed goal, people are more likely to adjust their aspirations to match what they have done in the past, reinforcing reliance on familiar behaviors (Cyert & March, 1963). The result is a strong preference for familiar responses, a reluctance to try new approaches, and a high probability of failing to recognize that a change is necessary. The second source of resistance to change is the individuals sense of identity and desire for control. One of humanitys most basic needs is to maintain an efficacious self image; people want to feel effective and in control (Baumeister, 1998; Pittman, 1998). As a result, individuals may avoid uncertainty because the lack of predictability threatens their sense of efficacy (Depret & Fiske, 1993). Therefore, when the environment demands a change, individuals are likely to perceive it as a threat to their control. It is very hard to let go of familiar ways of acting and being; in fact, people have gone as far

as risking death to retain a cherished self-concept (Weick, 1993). For this reason, it often seems preferable to deny the need for a change. The cumulative effect of these tendencies is powerful inertia. In a dynamic environment, people typically miss or deny signals for change. Instead, they follow the path of least resistance and do what is familiar (Fritz, 1989). In terms of the model of change, the reinforcing loop of change resistance (R1) will typically overpower the balancing loop, leading to the gradual decline that Quinn (1996) calls slow death. Despite a growing behavior gap, and mounting signals for change, the individual practices denial, perpetuates routine, and falls ever further out of alignment. However, such resistance can rarely continue indefinitely. In extreme cases, resistance may lead to fatal outcomes (e.g., Weick, 1993), but in most situations of significant environmental change, the demand for a response will eventually overwhelm the individuals resistance; the person will be compelled to make some sort of concession. However, given the nature and strength of the forces creating resistance, such changes are likely to be grudging and incomplete. Rather than a sweeping reform, change is likely to be an incremental variation on some familiar response (Cyert & March, 1963). This sort of small, compelled accommodation will slightly reduce the behavior gap, with a concomitant effect on signals for change. This will decrease the pressure for change just enough to allow resistance to resume; having made a small, grudging change, the individual can slip back into habit and routine. Being pushed towards change when the individual feels unprepared to make a change is likely to result in feelings of helplessness and victimization (Depret & Fiske, 1993). The individual will see him- or herself as subject to the demands of the environment, a perception associated with depressive symptoms (Brown, 1986). Moreover, having the demands of the environment overwhelm ones resistance can threaten illusions of control, leading to feelings of powerlessness, lack of motivation, and low energy (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999; Depret & Fiske, 1993; Pittman, 1998). This energy depletion introduces a second reinforcing loop to the change process, a loop resulting from the recognition of a behavioral gap (shown in Figure 3). Confronting the gap between current and optimal behavior has two effects on an individual: it spurs change, but also reduces energy and motivation. When the gap is relatively small, the positive effect is likely to predominate; the individual will see a manageable problem and generate a solution. However, as the gap grows, the negative effect on energy will become more influential; faced with a seemingly insurmountable task, an individual may become defeatist and wonder why s/he should even bother trying. In this way, recognition of the behavioral gap has a nonlinear effect on responsive change, increasing it initially, and then reducing it in response to ever-larger gaps. The smaller the change required, the more likely the individual is to believe s/he can handle it; the lager the change, the more s/he will feel overwhelmed. Insert Figure 3 here The model thus shows the process of slow death (Quinn, 1996). If an individual were to immediately recognize and accept the need for change, the necessary response would likely be relatively small and feasible. However, habit, comfort seeking, and ego defense typically prevent a timely response; the individual denies the need for change.

This denial triggers the first downward spiral of slow death inertia. As the environment continues to change, the unchanging individual falls further and further out of alignment. Eventually, the misalignment will become so severe that the individual can no longer ignore it, but by this time the behavioral gap is likely to be so large that the second downward spiral, felt helplessness, is triggered. Faced with the need for an enormous change, the individual feels unequal to the challenge; the task seems too large. As a result, energy and motivation wane, making change less likely. Left unchecked, the twin spirals of inertia and felt helplessness will produce further dissipation of energy and motivation.

The Fundamental State of Leadership Most people spend much of their time in the subtle decline of slow death, clinging to comfortable ways and denying the changes around them (Fritz, 1989). This state produces periods of unthinking routine punctuated by halting, reactive change. Between the constant denial and the compelled change, individuals in a state of slow death feel as though they are constantly struggling, working as hard as possible yet never seeming to make a difference. The phrase fire fighting has been applied to this phenomenon (e.g., Repenning, 2001). A lack of proactive response allows problems to accumulate to the point of being emergencies. The individual is then forced to deal with one emergency after another; a string of fires needs to be put out. The result is to direct all efforts to fire fighting (i.e., denial and reactive change), and none to preparation or development. In considering how to address the problems of inertia, fire fighting, and slow death, an anchor serves as a useful analogy. In nautical terms, an anchor is a heavy object carried on board a ship. It is attached to the ship with heavy rope or cable, and is cast overboard to prevent the ship from moving. In this way, a ship is able to hold itself in place despite having no contact with solid ground. However, the anchor may become a liability, and even a danger, in some situations. The crew of a ship at anchor may have to scramble to cut it away if a sudden and acute storm hits. Familiar self-concepts function like anchors for individuals and collectives; they serve as an important foundation for stability and performance (Weick, 1995). As a result, it may seem impossible, even inconceivable, to embrace a change that challenges ones self-concept (Weick, 1993). Accepting change often requires letting go of familiar routines and roles; it requires relinquishing control and confronting the unknown. To do this, the individual must overcome his or her natural resistance to change. Doing so is a difficult but potentially transformational action, in the same way that sailors must sometimes cut the anchor free from a ship. Referring back to the model of change (Figure 3), with the removal of the resistance to change loop (R1), the individual is able to respond to the environment. The downward spirals are not triggered. In fact, eliminating resistance to change transforms the entire cycle of personal decline. Without the downward spiral of inertia, the behavior gap can be recognized and addressed while it is still manageable. The balancing loop of corrective response will guide behavior. Moreover, with responsive change underway, both of the reinforcing feedback patterns shift from downward spirals to supportive processes; reinforcing loops can move in positive directions as well.

By making a responsive change, the individual reduces the behavior gap. This triggers a sequence of positive effects. Responding proactively and effectively to the demands of the environment displays the individuals efficacy, and strengthens feelings of control (Brown, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Pittman, 1998). In addition, the positive emotions associated with this success will contribute to broadened thinking and greater resources for future action, making further proactive change more likely (Fredrickson, 2003). Moreover, as the changes accumulate and the gap decreases, alignment with the environment will improve and the signals for change will decrease. This reduction will lead to less resistance, consequently reducing the effort needed to overcome it, and further support the process of responsive change; inertia becomes momentum. It should be noted that the underlying processes are the same in both slow death and responsive change. In a static environment, a person will continue as they always have, without difficulty. However, when the environment changes, the individual faces a tipping point. Accepting and acting on the need for change will create momentum and energy through the processes described above. In contrast, denying change and clinging to comfort will drain energy and create inertia through the same processes. The mechanism is identical in both cases; the difference lies in how the individual responds to the change. Making a significant change to realign with a dynamic environment, rather than resisting, has been called deep change (Quinn, 1996). The change is deep because it involves a fundamental shift in attitudes and perceptions. Making the change requires abandoning comfort-seeking habits. The individuals focus must shift from traditional action to value rationality (Weber, 1978). Instead of asking what do I want to do? the individual must ask what result do I need to create? Quinn (2004) discusses a series of behaviors that facilitate this change, but our focus here is on the consequences, rather than the causes, of deep change. As the comparison of the two questions above suggests, the key difference is in the focus of attention. The individual embracing change is no longer concentrating on familiarity and personal comfort. A preoccupation with comfort leads to conservatism, as the means become ends in themselves; the comfort-seeker uses familiar routines because they are predictable, not because they are optimal. In contrast, by accepting change and abandoning the familiar, an individual focuses on achieving the desired outcome; attention shifts from being comfort-centered to being purpose-centered. Rather than thinking about what outcome will be produced by taking an action, the individual considers which action must be taken to achieve the desired result. Making this shift in focus is entering the fundamental state of leadership. By attending to what must be done to achieve outcomes, rather than what can be done to maintain comfort, the individual becomes more internally directed, more results centered, and more open to the environment (Quinn, 2004). In the process, the individual sees him- or herself, and others, more positively and accurately. People who undergo such a personal transformation tend to become more empowered and tend to be more naturally empowering to others (Campbell, 1972). The implications of these changes are considered below. Entering the fundamental state of leadership creates new possibilities for the individual (Quinn, 1996, 2004). The shift in focus provides a different perspective. The

individual will see things s/he could not before, and attempt that which s/he would not before. This happens because accepting change requires ceding control. As the sailors cut away the anchor and accept being blown to unknown destinations by storm winds, the individual in the fundamental state of leadership has abandoned the anchor of familiarity. The person explores, learns, and changes. Like the ship running before the storm, individuals in the fundamental state of leadership open themselves to the changing environment, creating actions as they take them instead of following routines. Being willing to do what one has never done before requires not knowing in advance what one will be doing. Action and understanding will no longer be distinct; the knowing will be in the doing (Chaiklin & Lave, 1996; Orlikowski, 2000). Paradoxically, entering the fundamental state of leadership involves simultaneously taking control of ones life and letting control slip away. It is a state of leadership because the person has taken responsibility for his or her life, and for creating a desired result rather than reacting to the buffets of a changing environment. At the same time, because the environment is changing and the individual is engaging in new behaviors, the person does not have control in the sense of predictability. The individual has initiated self-change, but cannot know in advance what that change will entail. The person is creating their life in interaction with the environment, shaping but not wholly determining the outcome. The result will be a joint creation of the individual and the environment. Such emergent co-creation means that the result can be more than the individual is capable of alone; the individuals abilities combine with the force of environmental change. In the fundamental state of leadership, the individual can literally do more than otherwise possible, because the individual is open to the resources of the dynamic environment, rather than remaining trapped in familiar responses.

Leadership and Interaction Resistance to change is automatic and natural. Overcoming it is difficult, which makes the fundamental state of leadership relatively rare. As a result, social systems tend to recapitulate the inertia and slow death of individuals (Quinn, 1996). Like the people that comprise them, organizations of all kinds are inclined to repeat past performances, and thereby to resist change (Cyert & March, 1963; Miller, 1993). Moreover, society expects reliable performances and products from organizations (Baum, 1996; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), leading them to focus on routines and standardized processes (Crossan, Lane & White, 1999). Organizations favor stability (Baum, 1996; Hannan & Freeman, 1977), and thereby reinforce their individual members inclination toward denial and inertia. The organizational tendency toward inertia highlights the potential impact of the fundamental state of leadership. Beyond the personal leadership inherent in the change, the shift in focus and possibility also holds the potential to change those around the individual. In the fundamental state of leadership, the individual sees and behaves differently. Rather than being another contributor to slow death in the organization, the person becomes a challenge to the routine, potentially enabling others to change as well. The individuals new behaviors and expanded possibilities can alter relationships, and transform the social systems in which they are embedded.

This potential for change emphasizes the difference between conceptualizations of managers and leaders, and suggests the importance of a state-based perspective on leadership. Managers are concerned with stability and the preservation of predictability, while leaders challenge the status quo and create change (Zaleznik, 1970). As a result, it is hardly surprising that positional authority is a poor predictor of leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). From our perspective, leadership should not be understood as a function of position or authority. Rather, it is more likely to come from those who enter the fundamental state of leadership, regardless of their formal role. A person in this state abandons the familiar in pursuit of a desired outcome; the person becomes a leader in the practical sense of getting done what is needed but not occurring (Hackman & Walton, 1986). At a minimum, this behavioral change will affect the way that others are acting and the resources with which they act. The individual in the fundamental state of leadership will likely challenge norms, which may lead others to question them as well, and ultimately create change in the organization (Nemeth & Staw, 1989; Worline & R. W. Quinn, 2003). By escaping the routine and questioning what is usually taken for granted, the individual in the fundamental state of leadership can set an example. The person may inspire others to follow suit. The expanded possibilities recognized by an individual in the fundamental state of leadership foster vision of broadened scope. Creating a vision for others, setting inspiring goals, is one of the key functions associated with leadership (Cameron & Caza, 2002; Yukl et al., 2002). In fact, some have gone so far as to suggest that conveying a vision is what leadership actually is: A leader is one who alters or guides the manner in which his followers mind the world . . . A leader at work is one who gives others a sense of the meaning of that which they do by recreating it in a different form . . . gives those who follow him a different way of seeing and therefore saying and doing and knowing in the world. A leader does not tell it as it is; he tells it as it might be . . . The leader always embodies the possibilities of escape from what might otherwise appear to us to be a chaotic, indifferent, or incorrigible world one over which we have no ultimate control (Thayer, 1988, pp. 250). The individual in the fundamental state of leadership embodies the escape from an uncontrolled world by having made the shift from reactive to proactive living, by joining in dynamic co-creation with the environment. S/he has a different way of knowing and doing, and the new vision that comes with it. This is the vision that marks a leader. In addition to having such a vision, individuals in the fundamental state of leadership are also more likely to be able to communicate it to others. Because they have shifted their focus beyond narrow self-interest and personal comfort, they are open to their environment, and therefore to the people in it. Typical organizational practices pay little attention to the demands of relationships (Fletcher, 1999), in part because of the fearful denial of the environment that is part of the normal state. In contrast, an individual in the fundamental state of leadership is not in denial, and therefore not closed to others. The individuals proactive stance, willingness to take risks, and externally

10

focused attention will produce a different style of interacting. Instead of being narrowly concerned with his or her own comfort, the individual is engaged with the environment, and can see what others need and offer. These differences can contribute to improved interpersonal connections (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). Individuals in the fundamental state of leadership are in a better position to influence the environment because they are open and attending to it. Further enhancing this influence is the potential to share the fundamental state of leadership, to help others to join in it. Emotions are contagious among group members (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000), so that the high energy and motivation of the fundamental state of leadership may be transmitted to others. Moreover, the individuals willingness to risk and sacrifice for the achievement of an important outcome may also spread, acting as an inspiration to others (Cameron & Caza, 2002). Having accepted the change in the environment, and thereby seen new possibilities, the individual in the fundamental state of leadership challenges others to do the same. S/he will see their potential even if they do not, and may motivate them to its realization. As a result, the differences of attitude and perception involved in the fundamental state of leadership involve leading in all senses of the word. The individual has taken proactive charge of his or her own life, leading it rather than reacting to imposed demands. In addition, the person has the potential, through example, vision, connection, and inspiration, to affect others, leading them to new possibilities. The result is transformation on several levels. The person transforms perspective, action, interaction, and relations. As theses changes spread, the organizations and social systems they comprise can also be transformed. For this reason, leadership is best understood as a state, a way of being in the world, rather than as a product of position, behavior, or personality. Clearly, position does not provide leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). While organizations may aspire to promote leaders, receiving a promotion will hardly make a person into a leader. Leadership may predict hierarchical position, but the position is not the source of the leadership. Similarly, behavior does not define leadership. Research has recognized the contingent nature of leadership behavior for decades (see Schein, 1980 for a useful review). While leaders are distinguished by their willingness to take the action that is necessary, it is recognizing the action and having the initiative to take it, not the acting itself, that marks effective leadership (Hackman & Walton, 1986). Leadership is also not solely a product of fixed personality traits. Because the specific leadership required at any given time depends on the combination of context, task, and followers involved (Hackman & Walton, 1986; Schein, 1980), any fixed trait cannot always be right; a constant trait will be useful in some situations and not in others. Moreover, leadership is necessarily intermittent; it is not possible to be continuously leading. Challenging and transforming at all times will eventually lead to burnout (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; Spreitzer & Caza, 2002), and benefiting from a transformation depends upon a period of consolidation in which new capabilities can be refined and developed (March, 1991). Since leadership is a consequence of entering the fundamental state of leadership, there is no leadership personality. Certain traits may make achieving the fundamental state more or less likely (e.g., Neuberg & Newsom, 1993), but the outcome-focused value rationality of leadership is potentially available to anyone.

11

Implications and Conclusion In this chapter, we have outlined a different way of understanding leadership. While traditional descriptions locate leadership in positions, behaviors, or traits, we have suggested that leadership is best understood as a state of being. This fundamental state of leadership is a repudiation of resistance to change. A leader is able to lead because s/he recognizes the need for change, eschews comfort in favor of purpose, and is proactively open to the environment. The traditional functions of leadership, vision, connection, and inspiration, follow from the fundamental state of leadership. As such, it seems most useful to understand leadership as a way of being. Leading involves overt actions that have been extensively documented (Yukl et al., 2002), but each of these behaviors depends on an internal change to make them possible. That is, the behaviors and outcomes traditionally called leadership are consequences of entering the fundamental state of leadership. By entering this state, an individual gains the capability to lead, and to transform the systems of which s/he is a part. Seeing leadership as a state has three important implications for the study and practice of leadership. The most basic of these is that anyone may be a leader. Authority does not predict leadership; the fundamental state of leadership is not a product of tangible resources or titles. By accepting change, by focusing on outcomes rather than comfort, and by attempting the unknown, any individual can enter the fundamental state of leadership. This realization has clear implications for future research. Resistance to change is well documented, but the conditions that lead to the embrace of change are less well understood. Future work should explore the organizational and contextual conditions that make entrance to the fundamental state of leadership more or less likely. For practice, the realization that anyone may be a leader stresses the need for communication and empowerment. Leadership may emerge at unexpected times and places. Anyone, at any level of authority, could enter the fundamental state of leadership and thereby be poised to advance the organization. Organizational systems should be open and flexible enough to support, or at least not prevent, such sudden inspiration. One persons entrance to the fundamental state of leadership can spread to others and transform an organization if it is enabled to flourish. The second implication of a state-based view of leadership is the crucial need to balance the competing demands of creativity and control. As the anchor analogy highlights, habit and predictability have advantages as well as drawbacks. The art of effectiveness lies in balancing these. In most cases, balance is likely to require an emphasis on creativity and change. The powerful forces fueling resistance to change are natural and automatic, so that personal and organizational systems are probably needed to counterbalance them by supporting the recognition and acceptance of change. These supports would be of two general sorts, corresponding to the two basic sources of resistance to change. The first would involve intentionally embracing change to avoid denial and conscious resistance. The second would need to offset the nonconscious tendency to overlook change and see the familiar. Counterfactual audits, where individuals intentionally consider how things might be different, would be useful in this

12

regard, helping individuals to overcome their automatic responses and accustomed perspectives. The final, and perhaps least intuitive implication of a state theory of leadership is that leadership must be intermittent. It is not possible to be perpetually in the fundamental state of leadership. The dynamism of the fundamental state of leadership needs to be followed by a period of consolidation. New possibilities are realized and enabled in the fundamental state of leadership, but a time of management must follow so that those possibilities can be regularized and refined. An individual, or an organization, will thus advance through a series of plateaus; entering the fundamental state of leadership will expand behaviors and create new resources, and then be followed by a stable period in which those resources are utilized. No one can lead, in the true sense of the word, all the time, nor should they be expected to. This clearly has implications for the assessment and evaluation of leaders, as well as performance planning. As this discussion suggests, understanding leadership as a state has significant implications. In particular, it calls into question the traditional approaches to instilling leadership by emphasizing tactics and methods for influencing others. Changing others is a consequence of leadership, but it is not the source of it. Leadership truly begins with self-change. Leadership is a change in the individuals perspective and attention. It involves a shift from habit and routine to value-guided action, a shift to focusing on outcomes rather than comfort. While such shifts may not be as easy to teach as the tools of influence, they are a source of leadership that is potentially available to everyone, since transformational leadership is a way of being.

13

REFERENCES Bargh, J. A. & T. L. Chartrand (1999), 'The unbearable automaticity of being', American Psychologist, 54(7), 462-479. Bartel, C. A. & R. Saavedra (2000), 'The collective construction of work group moods', Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 197-231. Baum, J. A. C. (1996), 'Organizational ecology', in S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 77-114. Baumeister, R. F. (1998), 'The self', in D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, pp. 680-740. Betsch, T., K. Hoffman, U. Hoffrage & H. Plessner (2003), 'Intuition beyond recognition: When less familiar events are liked more', Experimental Psychology, 50(1), 49-54. Brown, R. (1986), 'Attribution theory', Social Psychology, New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 131-194. Cameron, K. S. & A. Caza (2002), 'Organizational and leadership virtues and the role of forgiveness', Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 33-48. Campbell, J. (1972), The hero with a thousand faces, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chaiklin, S. & J. Lave (eds). (1996). Understanding Practice: Perspectives on activity and context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Crossan, M. M., H. W. Lane & R. E. White (1999), 'An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution', Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537. Cyert, R. M. & J. G. March (1963), A behavioral theory of the firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Dawes, R. M. (1998), 'Behavioral decision making and judgment', in D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Boston, MA: McGrawHill, pp. 497-548. Deci, E. L., R. Koestner & R. M. Ryan (1999), 'A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation', Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668. Depret, E. & S. T. Fiske (1993), 'Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation', in G. Weary, F. Oleicher & R. Marsh (eds), Control Motivation and Social Cognition, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. 176-202. Dreyfus, H. L. & S. E. Dreyfus (1986), Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer, New York, NY: Free Press. Dutton, J. E. & E. D. Heaphy (2003), 'The power of high-quality connections', in K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, San Francisco, CA: Berret-Kohler Publishers Inc., pp. 263-278. Dweck, C. S. & E. L. Leggett (1988), 'A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality', Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. Eagly, A. H. & B. T. Johnson (1990), 'Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis', Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256. Ellsberg, D. (1961), 'Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643-669.

14

Fletcher, J. (1999), Disappearing acts, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fredrickson, B. L. (2003), Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations, in K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship, San Francisco, CA: Berret-Kohler Publishers, Inc, pp. 163-175. Fritz, R. (1989), The path of least resistance: Learning to become the creative force in your own life, New York, NY: Fawcett Columbine. Hackman, J. R. & R. E. Walton (1986), 'Leading groups in organizations', in P. S. Goodman (ed), Designing Effective Work Groups, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 72-119. Hannan, M. T. & J. Freeman (1977), 'The population ecology of organizations', American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964. Hargadon, A. B. & R. I. Sutton (1997), 'Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm', Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716-749. Heath, C. & A. Tversky (1991), 'Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty', Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 5-28. Hogg, M. A. (2001), 'Social identification, group prototypicality, and emergent leadership', in M. A. Hogg, & D. J. Terry (eds), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press, pp. 197-212. Kerr, S. & J. M. Jermier (1978), 'Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403. March, J. G. (1991), 'Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning', Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. Masuch, M. (1985), 'Viscous circles in organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 14-33. Miller, D. (1993), 'The architecture of simplicity', Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 116-138. Nelson, R. R. & S. G. Winter (1982), An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Nemeth, C. J. & B. M. Staw (1989), 'The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations', Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 175-210. Neuberg, S. L. & J. T. Newsom (1993), 'Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 113-131. Nisbett, R. & L. Ross (1980), Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment, Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000), 'Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations', Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428. Pfeffer, J. & G. R. Salancik (1978), The external control of organizations, New York, NY: Harper & Row. Pittman, T. S. (1998), 'Motivation', in D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, pp. 549-590. Quinn, R. E. (1996), Deep change: Discovering the leader within, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R. E. (2004), Building the bridge as you walk on it: A guide to leading change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

15

Quinn, R. E. (Forthcoming) Moments of Greatness: Entering the Fundamental State of Leadership. Harvard Business Review; July-August, 2005.

Repenning, N. P. (2001), 'Understanding fire fighting in new product development', Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 285-300. Schein, E. H. (1980), Organizational psychology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Spreitzer, G. M. & A. Caza. (2002). Energizing action in crisis. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. Sterman, J. D. (2000), Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world, Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Thayer, L. (1988), 'Leadership/communication: A critical review and a modest proposal', in G. M. Goldhaber, & G. A. Barnett (eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 231-263. Tversky, A. & D. Kahneman (1974), 'Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases', Science, 185(September), 1124-1131. Weber, M. (1978), Economy and society, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Weick, K. E. (1993), 'The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster', Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628-652. Weick, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wiley, J. (2003). Expertise out of context: Getting experts out of mental ruts. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making, Pensacola Beach, FL. Worline, M. C. & R. W. Quinn (2003), 'Courageous principled action', in K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, San Francisco, CA: Berret-Kohler Publishers Inc., pp. 138-157. Yukl, G., A. Gordon & T. Taber (2002), 'A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research', Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-31. Zaleznik, A. (1970), 'Managers and leaders: Are they different?' Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 67-78.

16

Figure 1. Simplified dynamic model of responsive change. *

environmental change

behavior gap signals for change delay gap recognized

responsive change

* Solid lines indicate a positive or same direction relationship (e.g., as the magnitude of the behavior gap increases, the strength and frequency of signals for change also increase), while broken lines indicate a negative, opposite direction relationship (e.g., a greater responsive change leads to a smaller behavior gap). The B in the center of the figure is a loop identifier, and indicates that this is a balancing loop. The feedback inherent in this loop will produce equilibrium-seeking dynamics; the levels of all variables will adjust to a goal level set by the degree of environmental change (Sterman, 2000).

17

Figure 2. Dynamic model of responsive change, with resistance to change. *

environmental change

behavior gap signals for change delay

responsive change

R1
resistance to change

gap recognized

* R1 indicates a reinforcing feedback loop. A reinforcing loop builds upon itself, leading to escalating behavior or outcomes (Sterman, 2000).
Solid lines indicate a positive or same direction relationship (e.g., as the magnitude of the behavior gap increases, the strength and frequency of signals for change also increase), while broken lines indicate a negative, opposite direction relationship (e.g., a greater responsive change leads to a smaller behavior gap).

18

Figure 3. Dynamic model of responsive change.

environmental change

behavior gap signals for change delay

responsive change

R1
resistance to change

gap recognized

R2
energy

Solid lines indicate a positive or same direction relationship (e.g., as the magnitude of the behavior gap increases, the strength and frequency of signals for change also increase), while broken lines indicate a negative, opposite direction relationship (e.g., a greater responsive change leads to a smaller behavior gap).

19