Leadership of Organizational Change

Leadership Oforganizational Change

Leadership Change

One of the most well documented efforts towards change in the United States is the transition from the original 13 colonies to the current inception of the United States of America. What is highly significant about this effort towards transformation is the fact that it adhered to a number of principles delineated in Hickman Robinson's text, Leading Changes in Multiple Contexts. In fact, this particular example is preeminent among others for the simple fact that it is simultaneously demonstrative of the five contextual influences on leading change: organizational, community, political, social and global. Although formal leadership of this effort would not fully emerge until the transformation was complete and George Washington was appointed President, his involvement with the other Founding Fathers in the First and Second Continental Congresses and the efforts of other revolutionary groups such as the Sons of Liberty provided the essential leadership necessary to effect such a change. An analysis of Robinson's text and the various factors leading to the establishment of the United States elucidate many of the central tenets necessary to produce change.

The degree of transformation actuated by the Founding Fathers in their alteration of the British North American colonies into an autonomous nation represented a collective effort of immense proportions with an impact on each of the aforementioned contextual influences. What fueled this change, however, was the overall context affecting the 13 colonies in the late 18th century. Robinson defines context as "the setting or environments in which change takes place," in addition to "larger contextual elements of history, culture, and society" (p. xiv). Before identifying the purpose, participants, authority source and affected groups involved in the change from the colonies to the founding of the U.S., it is necessary to analyze the past and contemporary history in which this change was manifest.

The environment that helped to facilitate the change in the 13 colonies was largely attributed to current financial practices, which themselves were directly related to the political climate at the time. England's pecuniary prowess was running low by the end of the century, due to prolonged competition among other European imperialists such as France and Spain. Its efforts in the French and Indian War (which concluded in 1763) were particularly debilitating for its economic reserves, which is why it implemented a number of systematic taxes of its colonies in North America to replenish its funds. The political nature of these measures helped to reinforce the notion that the colonies rightfully belonged to England, regardless of their distance from the United Kingdom. These taxes, which included the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act, were immensely unpopular with the colonies particularly since they had little political authority or representation with the King of England's rule.

Additionally, the history of England itself contained a lengthy chronicle of social and political turmoil. Many of the colonists came directly from England, and considered the sedition that would eventually result in the emergence of the U.S. As part of their rights as heirs to the legacy of England. These long-term forces, coupled with the immediate ones of the time regarding the unhappiness of taxation, combined with cultural forces regarding the distinction of the colonists from their British government, helped to foment the sort of unrest that initially manifested itself in the form of independent resistance among the North Americans.

In addressing the contemporary and historical issues in which the transformation from the colonies to the U.S. took place, it is necessary to discuss the form of leadership used and the different arenas in which change was evoked. The overarching purpose for this change was organizational, communal, political, and social. The colonists were ultimately looking to restructure the organization of the political system that governed them, going from one of dependents on the British government to an independently formed nation. This sort of transformation would address the underlying social issues, which revolved around the lack of governmental representation under the British system of authority, and the disliked taxes which emphasized the former problem. As such, the colonists believed that they were protecting and empowering their own community, by allowing its member to form the government of the fledgling U.S.

The interaction of these various contexts, of course, was integrated via a form of leadership that actually grew in authority, organization, and formality, as the new nation emerged. Members of the collective that is known as the Founding Fathers operated with varying degrees of autonomy in protestation of varying royal acts preceding the colonial war, yet displayed a propensity for the democratic form of leadership, America would be known for relatively early on. The "vitality of a democratic civil society" is "the purpose of community leadership for change" (Robinson, 2010, p. 121). The Stamp Act Collective, which involved representatives from nine of the colonies met in the 1760's, and the efforts of the Continental Congresses were influential in accounting for the forces leading to the Revolutionary War. What was important about this diverse yet eventually unified form of leadership that resulted in the engendering of the U.S. is that it allowed for a variety of leadership styles and concepts to be used, which had varying degrees of success. There is no denying the employment of charismatic leadership in individual cases of members of the Founding Fathers, such as Patrick Henry's impassioned speeches regarding the dispute over the Stamp Act or Samuel Adams' eloquent oration regarding Parliament's lack of legality over the Colonists. Yet the most efficacious leadership was that fostered by the collective Continental Congresses, which were directly responsible for the actions that led to the raising of armed forces that would triumph in the Colonial War.