Search results

John Antonakis: To SFA, AFA, AFA, BFA, MFA, RFA and the unnamed bunnies.

We follow Dr. Luc Verburgh through his first two years as CEO of Wellant College. He arrived there in the middle of a major strategic change and his mandate was to implement a change away from a traditional learning model to a new one. His first task was to define, with the executive team, the college's overall vision and strategy. Once that was accomplished, he turned his attention to the task of cascading both the vision and the strategy down throughout the organization and quickly implementing them. He achieved this by focusing on four areas: (1) making sure that the right people were on the team; (2) changing Wellant College's organizational structures and processes to promote communication and to manage performance; (3) communicating clearly and transparently throughout the entire process to all of the stakeholders about the changes taking place and the evolution of the strategy, seeking their views when appropriate; and (4) gradually changing from a top-down approach to one that had clearer guidelines and regulations, as well as allowing, even encouraging, more local ownership.

One of the key questions leaders at the top face is how to get their vision for the organization implemented throughout the whole organization. Especially in large, geographically dispersed companies with diverse products and markets, such implementation requires careful consideration and attention as well as considerable local interpretation and adaptation. The challenge of cascading the vision down in a meaningful way while maintaining its intent is the focus of this chapter and the following two specific cases.

A key distinction, mentioned by Dubin (1979, p. 227), is “leadership at a distance.” When Dubin was writing, there was little research on this topic. More recently, however, there has been an upsurge in leadership-at-a-distance work. We see a major review by Antonakis and Atwater (2002), following an earlier one by Napier and Ferris (1993), along with work by authors such as Shamir (1995) and Waldman and Yammarino (1999).

This part aims to push thinking on strategic leadership one step further. In all of the previous parts we follow quite a hierarchical model, in which leaders at the top outline the vision, the strategy, and the key implementation tools. Here, Russ Marion and Mary Uhl-Bien challenge the validity of this view of strategic leadership. They argue that strategic leadership is about interacting effectively within a complex interplay of environmental and organizational forces to enable fit environments and adaptive organizations. For them this means that strategic leaders need to pay significant attention to the interdependence between their organizations and both competitors and other relevant organizations in the niches in which they operate. It also means that they need to develop adaptive leadership capacity far down in the organization and show a willingness to follow those leaders at the lower levels. Marion and Uhl-Bien then argue both that strategic leaders have a more interdependent view of organizations and that they have a greater willingness to act as followers than we see in any of the leadership and/or strategy literature. As this approach to strategic leadership is quite new, we do not have application chapters here.

In this part we focus on the structures, systems, and processes that support and encourage the development of leaders in the organization. David Day introduces the theme, exploring the social architecture most conducive to the development of leadership throughout the organization and the role strategic leaders need to play to create such architecture. The next two chapters show how two large organizations have gone about changing their social architecture in order to develop both a broader and a more engaged leadership cadre. Ellen Van Velsor and Patricia O’Connor show how a large US service organization has started to change its social architecture by creatively combining empowerment, learning and performance orientations. Paul Broeckx and Robert Hooijberg show how Nestlé, the Swiss-based global fast-moving consumer goods company, has started to replace the most limiting aspects of the traditional hierarchy to more fully engage the full human capacity of its workforce.

Organizational structures, systems and processes can and do limit the discretionary decision-making space of all involved in organizational life. However, high up in organizations leaders have significant discretion in making decisions. Robert Kaiser and Robert Hogan explore the dark side of what might happen if strategic leaders use their discretionary freedom for personal rather than organizational benefit. Timo Santalainen and Ram Baliga present a real example of discretionary leadership gone bad in an NGO that looks quite healthy on the outside. They refer to the phenomenon of a financially successful company with a sick leader as the “healthy-sick organization.” We juxtapose this chapter with the one by Corey Billington and Michèle Barnett Berg to show how Duncan Covington at computer products, services, and solutions company IQ used his discretionary freedom for the good of the company. Covington inherited a sick organization and introduced key systems, structures, and processes to bring it back to health.

John Antonakis (PhD, Walden University) is professor of Organizational Behavior at the Faculty of Management and Economics of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. His research is centered on individual-difference antecedents of effective leadership, the measurement of leadership, and the links between context and leadership as applied to neocharismatic and transformational leadership models, and the development of leadership.