In the article Leaders Who Create Change and Those Who Manage It, John G Bruhn aims to reveal how leaders set the parameters of success in their organizations by how they accomplish change. In today’s society, many deem leaders as role models who keep their eye on their organizations’ operations while they acclimate their products and services to changing market demands and sustain forward momentum. Throughout the article, Bruhn highlights how “proactive leaders have the ability to lead change, manage its effects, and anticipate and plan for the opportunities, and constraints of new waves of change” (Bruhn 132). Bruhn believes that leaders of change create more successful change than managers of change, and attempts to prove this idea by identifying “characteristics that differentiate change leaders from change managers” (Bruhn 132). Essentially, Bruhn believes “leaders who lead change those who manage it have the same objective” (Bruhn 132), however they contrast in their methods to reaching these goals in a number of ways.
Bruhn begins highlighting the difference between change leaders and change managers, by commenting on the dissimilar views organizations share regarding the people involved in change. Bruhn mentions how “mangers of change tend to see people on the organization as obstacles to change, while creative leaders see tradition and bureaucracy as the biggest obstacles” (Bruhn 133). The idea is rooted in the belief that members are the “organizations greatest asset” (Bruhn 133), and are vital component for an organization to overcome change. Often times personnel of a corporation are measured as liabilities, and are not perceived as resourceful entities who can assist in reaching a solution. However, Bruhn stresses that “change leaders value each employee, and show how each individual person is just as important as the leader in conquering change” (Bruhn 133). The idea for successful change leadership is to join the satisfaction of all associates of the organization to the anticipated goals. Strebel notes, “senior managers consistently misjudge the effect of this gap on their relationship with subordinates and on the effort required to win acceptance of change” (Strebel 86). According to Bruhn, when peoples’ values get attention, “they are more likely to listen; if their knowledge and skills are sought out and used, and if they can reconcile any imbalance between costs and benefits of change for themselves, they are more likely to support it” (Bruhn 134). Kim and Maubornge stress that leaders need to “jump the motivational hurdle” as well (Kim 65), and argue “if a new strategy is to become a movement, employees must not only recognize what needs to be done, they must also want to do it” (Kim 65). Runde and Flanagan conclude the idea of individual importance in change by commenting how “changing established beliefs and patterns of behavior is difficult, and unless people see value in doing so, it won’t happen” (Runde 8).
Bruhn continues stressing the difference from change leaders and change managers by examining how each of the two handle visionary change. Bruhn explains how change managers view organizational problems as obstacles to change, and take on problems only as they present themselves. Managers of change are usually more protective of information, and are not upfront about their desired goals or how they will be implemented. However, change leaders “implement change incrementally” (Bruhn 134), but also present a complete truthful vision “up-front to the total organization” (Bruhn 134). According to Kotter, “a vision says something that clarifies the direction in which an organization needs to move” (Kotter 59). Leaders of creative change establish trust inside the organization, and remain truthful throughout the entire change process. Kotter notes “that the change process goes through a series of phases that, in total, usually require a considerable length of time” (Kotter 59), which a change leader needs to remain credible throughout. Each individual may not necessarily agree with the leader’s plan, but a change leader needs to be transparent with the change vision, and communicate the goal as well as possible to all involving members. Bruhn realizes the uncomfortable nature of being transparent and agrees “sometimes, […] exiting an organization is the best option for members who perceive that personal risks and penalties outweigh their job security and rewards” (Bruhn 134). The change leader has a moral obligation to the organization, which is to expresses the positive and negative effects up front with the company in its entirety. The overall concept of this idea is that the change leader will be able sustain the momentum of the desired change with minimal loss to the organization.
The article continues to stress the difference of change and managerial leadership by examining the role the individual needs to fill during organizational change. Bruhn stresses that change leaders must “assume responsibility for the organization’s plan of change and nurture and guide its implementation but delegate the details” (Bruhn 134). Strebel agrees with this idea and states, “in one way or another, leaders must take charge of the process and address each dimension” (Strebel 92). It takes a poised leader to share a vision of change and delegate its implementation to others, yet no leader alone can make an organization successful— “it takes an entire organization to make a plan a reality” (Bruhn 135). The article mentions how “leaders of change limit their involvement in implementing change to that of the overseer, ensuring fairness, integrity, and focus” (Bruhn 135). On the other hand, change managers “want to remove barriers to change before a long-term plan is implemented” (Bruhn 135). Solving problems and getting the organization prepared for change is usually time-consuming so that managers of change neglect to consider long-term goals. Change managers may respond to their leader’s plan for change as they are expected to do so, but do not intend in helping strengthen the long term vision- rather they focus on short term success.
The total success of a corporation contains more than the ability to respond to interruptions caused by change. Success in organizations relies heavily on the attitude of the leader concerning transformation, the organization’s “history of response to change” (Bruhn 136), and the eagerness of its affiliates to participate in an organization that believes in change. The article sums that generating change is about “overcoming limits” (Bruhn 132), while managing change is about “containment and control” (Bruhn 132). Change leaders generate concepts of maximum potential for an organization, yet sometimes leaders are not successful in their attempt to motivate change within in an organization. However, when change leaders are successful, and the organization in its entirety participate in making the change vision happen, “the organization experiences high morale, greater productivity, lower turnover, and less job dissatisfaction” (Bruhn 140). True, there is not a set procedure for either leading or managing change- every organization and leader is unique in their own way. However, one must understand that leading change is more of an “art than science” (Bruhn 132), and managing change is the opposite. The change leader needs to be able to creatively engage with its counterparts in order to spark change within the organization. Great leaders will understand that change is not to be prevented, and understands that change is a forever ongoing process that is never quite completed.