Change Management and Leadership in Higher Education
This paper examines organizational change management within a higher professional education institution using the metaphor of a "headless chicken" to describe an organization lacking strategic direction. Drawing on Kurt Lewin's three-stage change model—unfreezing, movement, and refreezing—the paper reviews key leadership theories including transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles. It further explores the distinctions between leadership, management, and empowerment, and considers the role of organizational culture and socialization in sustaining lasting change. The analysis applies these frameworks to a case study in which a failed first leader gave way to a more proactive administrator, offering practical recommendations for guiding the institution through a complete and stable transformation.
- Introduction: The Headless Chicken Metaphor: Frames organizational drift using headless chicken analogy
- Literature Review: The Change Process: Lewin's change model and organizational culture theory
- Leadership Styles in the Change Process: Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
- Leadership, Management, and Empowerment: Distinctions between leadership styles and employee empowerment
- Organizational Commitment and Socialization: Commitment factors and newcomer socialization dynamics
- Analysis: Applying Change Theory to the Case Study: Case study evaluation using Lewin and leadership theory
- Conclusion: Three-stage change process summary and recommendations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The opening metaphor of the "headless chicken" is sustained throughout the paper, giving abstract organizational concepts a concrete and memorable frame that unifies the argument.
- The literature review is well-sourced, drawing on a wide range of named theorists (Lewin, Bass, Avolio, Schall, Louis) and pairing each concept with specific citations, lending academic credibility.
- The paper moves logically from theory to application, using the case study analysis section to directly connect the reviewed frameworks to real organizational events and decisions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective synthesis of multiple theoretical frameworks—Lewin's force field model, Bass's transactional/transformational leadership typology, and socialization theory—and applies them collectively to a single case. Rather than treating each theory in isolation, the writer shows how they interact and reinforce each other in explaining organizational behavior during a leadership transition.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a conceptual introduction that establishes the central metaphor and research questions. A substantial literature review covers three thematic areas: the change process, leadership styles, and the distinctions among leadership, management, and empowerment. An organizational commitment and socialization section bridges theory and practice. The analysis section applies the literature to the case study, followed by a conclusion that recaps the three stages of change and their implications for the institution.
Introduction: The Headless Chicken Metaphor
The phrase "headless chicken" describes an organization that is alive and able to operate and continue to exist, but has no sense of what it is or where it is going. By applying this label to themselves, the group in the case study of a higher professional education organization correctly identified how it was feeling, and also identified how the organization arrived at that unfortunate position. Once these two factors are known, a path can be charted out of the situation by strategically installing new leadership — by someone who understands the nuances of what it will take to make the process succeed.
The process of change in an organization cannot be initiated by the simple replacement of a leader. The organization also has a culture that has been built over its lifetime. When a new leader is brought in from outside the organization, a change in culture is almost inevitable, and negotiating these issues is much like trying to reattach a chicken's head. The new leader may look the same and hold the same title, just as one chicken head looks like any other. However, without proper preparation, skillful execution, and a clear vision of what the organization will look like after the transition, the organization may emerge from the process with its head pointed in the wrong direction — focused on looking back at where it has been rather than forward to where it is going.
In the college featured in this case study, a new administrator was installed in an attempt to bring change. However, the first new principal, installed in 1996, provided little in the way of solid leadership. His laissez-faire, or possibly management-by-exception, approach gave staff no real foundation on which to build toward the future.
This paper investigates the nature of change within the organization and examines different leadership theories in order to answer the following questions:
What is the change process within an organization, and how can the organization prepare for and transact meaningful, lasting change? What leadership style is most effective for initiating lasting change? What are the differences between leadership, empowerment, and management, and how is the organization served by each?
Bibliography
Ackerman, L. S. (1982). An in-depth look at managing complex change. Organizational Dynamics, 11(1), 46–66.
Angle, H. (1983). Organizational commitment: Individual and organizational influences. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 10, 123–146.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1998). You can drag a horse to water, but you can't make it drink except when it's thirsty. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 1–17.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional/transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, K. E. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827–832.
Bourgeois, L., & Brodwin, D. (1984). Strategy implementation: Five approaches to an elusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 241–264.
Caldwell, D. F., et al. (1980). Building organizational commitment: A multifirm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245–261.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The role of culture compatibility in successful organizational marriage. Academy of Management Executive, 7(2), 57–70.
Camerer, C., & Vespalian, A. (1988). The economic efficiency of corporate culture. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 115–126.
Deal, T. A., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison-Wesley.
DeCotiis, T. A., & Summers, T. E. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40, 464–465.
Dennison, D. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), 5–22.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433–452.
Feldman, D. C. (1980). A socialization process that helps new recruits succeed. Personnel, 57, 11–23.
Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464–474.
Leigh, A. (1988). Effective change: Twenty ways to make it happen. Institute of Personnel Management.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. McGraw-Hill.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Career transitions: Variations and commonalities. Academy of Management Review, 5, 329–340.
Louis, M. R. (1990). Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers as lay ethnographers. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture.
Mowday, R. T., et al. (1982). Employee-organization linkages. Academic Press.
Nelson, D. L. (1987). Organizational socialization: A stress perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8, 311–324.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. Harper & Row.
Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278–287.
Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior. Prentice Hall.
Schall, M. (1983). A communications-rules approach to organizational culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 557–581.
Schein, E. H. (1964). How to break in the college graduate. Harvard Business Review, 42, 68–76.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Addison-Wesley.
Schwartz, R., & Davis, S. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1), 30–48.
Tunstall, W. (1986). The breakup of the Bell System. California Management Review, 28(2), 110–124.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). JAI Press.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Addison-Wesley.
Wilkins, A., & Ouchi, W. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468–481.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.