Leadership: In Pursuit of Purpose

Abstract

Addressing what is perhaps the biggest blind spot in leadership theory and practice, this article sets out to enshrine the pivotal role of purpose. First, it introduces the Telos Leadership Lens (TLL) consisting of the following principles:
1) Leadership is a responsibility of the many, not a privilege of the few
2) Leadership is the collective pursuit of delivering on purpose
3) Leadership purpose is to be guided by internal goods (exemplified by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals).
Second, the article further develops leadership ontology, ‘the theory of entities that are thought to be most basic and essential to any statement about leadership’, by shifting the focus to purpose. Third, emerging from these developments it identifies a new leadership model. Separately or in combination, these contributions can assist organizations in addressing current and future challenges, some of which are existential in nature as evidenced by the climate crisis, and others such as the Covid-19 pandemic potentially changing the way we live our lives and conduct our business. Although challenges of this scope can only be solved in partnership, the very nature of current leadership convention may obstruct or even prevent such partnerships from taking place in any meaningful way.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjcm20
Journal of Change Management
ISSN: 1469-7017 (Print) 1479-1811 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcm20
Organizational Change and Leadership: Out of the
Quagmire
Rune Todnem By
To cite this article: Rune Todnem By (2020): Organizational Change and Leadership: Out of the
Quagmire, Journal of Change Management, DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2020.1716459
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2020.1716459
Published online: 22 Jan 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

EDITORIAL
Organizational Change and Leadership: Out of the Quagmire
Rune Todnem By
University of Stavanger Business School, Norway
MAD statement
The intention of this annual editorial is to Make A Difference (MAD)
through outlining suggestions to where we need to direct future
organizational change and leadership discourse, research and
practitioner efforts. Engaging in immensely important fields of
study and practice, we have a responsibility to assist the
sustainable development of organizations and the wider society.
Much good work is undertaken in support of the further
development of both theory andpractice.However,Ido
observe in my role as editor-in-chief a sustained tendency
amongst both scholars and practitioners of being stuck in a
quagmire peddling a dominant orthodoxy that is somewhat
lacking in progress, initiative and imagination (it still sells
articles, books, courses and seminars though …). Becoming
unstuck through reframing the challenges faced is required for
our work to stay relevant, and it takes real and conscious effort
to make this happen. Or blood, toil, tears and sweat as Churchill
would put it.
KEYWORDS
Organizational change;
leadership; MAD;
anticipation; reframing
Introduction
As always, thanks for your ongoing support of Journal of Change Management. That being
as a submitting author, reviewer, reader, colleague citing our work, editorial board
member, librarian, member of the Routledge family and/or as a practitioner –it is invalu-
able, and the Journal would be nowhere without you.
This year I take the opportunity to first reflectonapersonaljourneythatcameabout
as a direct result of changes in higher education and beyond. Although being a highly
subjective reflection, it is shared by many and is believed to be relevant to our work and
role in society. Second, I address the need to reframe the challenges facing organiz-
ational change and leadership scholars and practitioners. Referring to the current
state of play as a quagmire, I mean no disrespect to anyone undertaking good work
and practice with the best of intention. Rather, I observe and respond to the urgent
need to catalyse a change in direction of our combined efforts for our work to stay rel-
evant. Breaking the mould is tough –and it is those that dare to do so who will truly
make a difference and be remembered beyond the latest change initiative or
publication.
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Rune Todnem By rune.t.by@uis.no University of Stavanger Business School, Norway
JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2020.1716459

A Personal Journey
In 2019, I returned to Norway, my birth country, after 20 years of living, studying and
working in England and Scotland. My experience of the UK and those living together in
this diverse melting pot is overwhelmingly positive and I would never be without it. Bring-
ing people together from all over the world, UK higher education provides opportunities
to learn together and from each other and to co-create new knowledge and innovations. It
creates opportunities to challenge assumptions, broaden horizons, accept and even thrive
on differences. Hence, to me, higher education is in many ways a facilitator for peace and
progress.
However, something happened. First, a politically motivated sneak-privatization of
higher education. Through ever-increasing levels of marketization and subsequent man-
agerialism based on utterly flawed and outdated New Public Management (NPM) prin-
ciples, our purpose of contributing to the betterment of society through the creation
and dissemination of knowledge is undermined. Ongoing developments in support of
this marketization not only stifles academic work and freedom but drives down the
quality of higher education through, for example, increasing levels of unconditional
offers at the recruitment end of the student-journey (BBC, 2019; The Guardian, 2019a)
and fuelling unprecedented levels of first-class degrees at the graduating end (BBC,
2018; The Guardian, 2018a). Some would argue that what we are currently observing in
the UK is the dismantling of the traditional academic role and purpose and an inflation
of marks that will eventually damage the quality and value of higher education and
even undermine the esteemed position of British seats of learning. I happen to agree
with this view, and what sends shivers down my spine is observing how policymakers
focusing on efficiency gains and short-term wins in other countries are looking towards
the UK when wishing to reform their own higher education sector. My prediction is that
those deciding not to follow in the UK higher education footsteps will outperform them
in the future, and my advice is: Let’s take the long-term view for once.
Second, thanks to a poorly executed Brexit process many European contributors to the
British society no longer feel as welcome as we once did. A previous overwhelmingly wel-
coming society is increasingly being perceived as hostile and that has consequences with
regard to who wants to stay or seek opportunities in and contribute to the British society
(The Guardian, 2019b;2018b;2017). What is experienced is a sad and backward process of
well-orchestrated alienation fuelled by cynical rhetoric and grandeur for political gain.
Whilst these political voices are currently representing the British people, they do in no
way, shape or form reflect the countries and people I have come to know and love.
As a direct result of these developments, I found myself in an emotional space with little
choice but to leave the UK to seek opportunities for academic service elsewhere. The sub-
sequent return to Norway reinvigorated my love for academia and reinforced my belief in
what should be at the very core of any [academic] job anywhere in the world: to be MAD –
to make a difference.
Out of the Quagmire
Informing its vision, values and profile my new university –University of Stavanger,
Norway –has a clearly defined community assignment: to challenge the well-known and
2R. T. BY

explore the unknown. After a decade in the caretaker role as editor-in-chief of Journal of
Change Management, I know that much great work has been undertaken and published
both here and in other journals. However, I also observe that we as professionals
working in the field of organizational change and leadership are somewhat slow at initiat-
ing and embracing change ourselves. Rather than challenging what is well-known, many
of us keep exploiting it. This is made obvious by the way we frame challenges reported on
hardly having developed over the years. As was the case in my early days as an editor,
much of what is currently submitted for consideration for publication refer to the same
old illusions as if they were unequivocal facts:
Illusion 1) 70% of all change fail
Illusion 2) We exist in a reality of managers versus employees
Illusion 3) Successful organisational change is led by individual change agents –often being
the managers
Illusion 4) Change resistance amongst ‘employees’is the cause of much change failure and as
such must be better managed by managers
Illusion 5) Continuous change is the only option
Illusion 6) Leadership is something [formal] leaders do
These illusions represent rather unimaginative framing and underdeveloped antici-
pation abilities, and to me, they crystallize the quagmire stagnating our work. As a
direct result of this rather unfortunate and self-inflicted situation, we get stuck and
mired in much research and practice of little real value. It takes effort to get out of this
quagmire in order to get ahead, and unless we do so, our contributions will become
less and less relevant –and so will we.
Let’s visit each of these illusions one at a time:
70% of all change fail: Apart from the obvious but more technical questions regarding
how to define change and how to measure success/failure, this illusion has been identified
as unsubstantiated by Hughes (2011). Still, many articles, books, change leadership devel-
opment programmes and sessions, and change initiatives start with this unchallenged
assumption. It is hardly a message of encouragement and acts as an early displacement
of blame often removing responsibility from the decision-makers. However, as a
species, we have been rather successful because of our capability and capacity to
change, evolve and innovate –not because of our resistance to it.
We exist in a reality of managers versus employees: We still receive a surprisingly high
volume of article submissions referring to a conflict between ‘us and them’often
phrased as ‘managers and employees’. However, most managers are hired and can be
fired and are as such employees just as much as non-managers –they simply have
other areas of responsibilities. No matter organizational role we should all be on the
same team pulling in the same direction, and no roles can function nor deliver in isolation.
Framing organizational development, delivery and success as a tension between us and
them –managers and employees –does not encourage a team approach nor a sense
of shared responsibility. What it does encourage is trench-war, a focus on vested interests,
and the inability to deliver on our full potential.
JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 3

Successful organizational change is led by individual change agents often being the
managers: Organizational change and leadership theory and practice have a debilitating
tendency of focusing on nouns rather than verbs (see for example 2001;Crevani,Lindg-
ren, & Packendorff,2010;Barker,1997;Burns,1978;Rost,1993). However, it is not who
that is important, but what. Hence, in order to progress, the focus should shift from
agents (noun) to agency (verb) as the doing is not monopolized by any one organiz-
ational role.
Change resistance amongst ‘employees’is the cause of much change failure and as such
must be better managed by managers: Again, on the technical side, we must define what
constitutes ‘resistance’. Is it questions posed; the proposals of alternatives; the sharing
of past experience; valid challenges to the facts and assumptions, management fads
and fashions many change initiatives are based on; or attempts to hold decision-
makers accountable for what is often change for the sake of change? If so, I believe
organizations and society at large need more resistance and not less. However, the
word resistance has not had positive connotations since the Second World War, and
the less dividing theoretical and practical framework of change readiness is at our dis-
posal (see, for example, Armenakis & Harris, 2009). The option of building and sustaining
high levels of organizational change readiness rather than demolishing ‘resistance’gets
my vote every time.
Continuous change is the only option: This goes too often without saying. However,
change is only required when linked to organizational purpose and in line with organiz-
ational values. Change for the sake of change is harmful and will result in change
fatigue. Not to change can often be the right option, but in a political environment
driven by the increased appetite for change and short term, measurable financial gains
at the cost of long-term financial and human pain is often the harder decision as you
can so easily be branded a change resistor facing a sudden halt in your career.
However, deciding not to change organizational purpose (see By, 2019 for further refer-
ences to purpose) and values should go without saying.
Leadership is something [formal] leaders do: Having previously challenged the illusion
leadership = leaders in our 2016 editorial (By, Hughes, & Ford, 2016), little has changed
in theory and practice. Although there is some movement in peripheral areas of study
such as critical leadership studies and leadership as practise –wherethefocusison
power structures and relationships between the haves and the have nots rather than
the essentials of leadership –the outdated orthodoxy stands as firm as ever. I know
this through reading the most recent articles in both academic and practitioner
outlets specializing on leadership, and from inviting executives, students and col-
leagues to define ‘leadership’.Nineoutof10timestheydefine ‘leaders’rather than ‘lea-
dership’.Theydefine the peripheral who rather than the essential what. Nothing
represents the quagmire we currently find ourselves in as organizational change and
leadership scholars and practitioners more than this. Although most of us claim to
oppose the old Great Man theory, we have only made slight adjustments to the prota-
gonists in practice. Moving forward, a focus on the essentials of leadership (Barker,
1997;Burns,1978;Rost,1993,2001), leadership as purpose (Kempster, Jackson, &
Conroy, 2011), leadership as process (Crevani et al., 2010), and the ethics of leadership
(Burnes & By, 2012) is urgently required in order to help us reframe the challenges faced
now and in the future.
4R. T. BY

Conclusion
If we decide to stay the course we are currently on as organizational change and leader-
ship scholars and practitioners, much of our work will quickly become obsolete and irre-
levant. Consequently, we will become obsolete and irrelevant. In order to stay relevant and
make a true difference we must work our way out of the current quagmire of illusions in
which we are stuck. Through actively enabling change within our midst and rejecting illu-
sions that have been allowed to fester for far too long we can reframe organizational
change and leadership challenges in order to anticipate new imaginative and progressive
ways forward. For those interested in this calling, my advice is fivefold: (1) stop referring to
change as something we fail at –history suggest otherwise; (2) cease referring to ‘us and
them’–often through the reference to ‘management and employees’–as this approach
only fuels division, trench wars and a focus on vested interests; (3) further explore how we
can build and sustain high levels of change readiness rather than how we can demolish
change ‘resistance’; (4) prioritize, enable and support only change in support of defined
organizational purpose and in line with organizational values; and (5) facilitate a better
understanding of the essentials of agency and leadership rather than the characteristics,
skills and traits of formal agents and leaders.
Notes on contributor
Rune Todnem By returned to his local University of Stavanger Business School, Norway in the role as
Professor of Change Leadership in August 2019 after having served at universities in England and
Scotland since 2005. Being an internationally acknowledged organizational change and leadership
expert, he is currently dedicating himself to the development and introduction of a new theoretical
leadership lens with a focus on purpose, and to working with students, practitioners and academic
colleagues on his EPICally MAD leadership framework (By, 2019; please also see 2019 TEDx contri-
bution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nno1faLhoWk). Email: rune.t.by@uis.no
ORCID
Rune Todnem By http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3817-049X
References
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and
practice. Journal of Change Management,9(2), 127–142.
Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not know what leadership is? Human Relations,
50(4), 343–362.
Barker, R. A. (2001). The nature of leadership. Human Relations,54(4), 469–494.
BBC. (2018). University ‘grade inflation’to be tackled as first-class degrees rise. Retrieved from https://
www.bbc.com/news/uk-45935193
BBC. (2019). ‘Conditional unconditional’offers on the rise. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/
education-50813746
Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity. Journal of
Business Ethics,108(2), 239–252.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper Row Publishers.
By, R. T. (2019). New year’s resolution. Journal of Change Management,19(1), 1–5.
By, R. T., Hughes, M., & Ford, J. (2016). Change leadership: Oxymoron and Myths. Journal of Change
Management,16(1), 8–17.
JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT 5

Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff,J.(2010). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership
as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management,26,77–86.
The Guardian. (2017). Fear of Brexit brain drain as EU nationals leave British universities. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/03/brexit-universities-academics-eu-rights
The Guardian. (2018a). UK university figures show up to fivefold rise in first-class degrees. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/13/uk-university-figures-show-up-to-fivefold-
rise-in-first-class-degrees
The Guardian. (2018b). Brexit brain drain: elite universities say they are losing future research stars.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/mar/06/brexit-brain-drain-russell-
group-universities-research
The Guardian. (2019a). UK universities make record number of unconditional offers. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/dec/17/uk-universities-make-record-number-of-
unconditional-offers
The Guardian. (2019b). EU migration to UK at lowest level since 2013, disputed data shows. Retrieved
from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/26/figures-show-rise-in-eu-nationals-exiting-
public-sector-after-brexit-vote
Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change
Management,11(4), 451–464.
Kempster, S., Jackson, B., & Conroy, M. (2011). Leadership as purpose: Exploring the role of purpose in
leadership practice. Leadership,7(3), 317–334.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger.
6R. T. BY