Open AccessLeading Changes: Why Transformation Explanation Fails
Author(s) -
Raed Awashreh
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
mağallaẗ kulliyyaẗ al-maʿrīf al-ğāmiʿaẗ/maǧallaẗ kulliyyaẗ al-maʻārif al-ǧāmiʻaẗ
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2709-1155
pISSN - 1815-3364
DOI - 10.51345/.v32i1.200.g203
Subject(s) - organizational change , change management (itsm) , sociology , power (physics) , perspective (graphical) , public relations , identification (biology) , political science , epistemology , computer science , operations management , engineering , philosophy , physics , botany , quantum mechanics , lean manufacturing , artificial intelligence , biology
This critique is for the article entitled of “Leading changes: why transformation explanation fails” written by Dr. Mark Hughes, who constructs it to illustrate why identification of leadership errors in Kotter’s model fails to explain the failure in transformation efforts. Kotter’s model of change has developed from a business perspective, for this, the power is concentrated in the top management hands, so it forces people to follow the change or leave the organization. Unlike Kotter, Hughes was able to recognize the changeable world when he looks for organization and leadership changes. Also, Hughes concludes that the Kotter’s model does not encourage change rather calls for improvement and has suggested evaluating of his eight-step model especially he does not share his work methods. On the relationship side, Kotter was able to understand the map of relationships inside organizations and how to use it. Change is about influence and both leadership and change is about relationships. Hughes focuses on the reasons behind the change “why” and the goal of change “target”, while Kotter emphasizes on how the top management should carry the change. Hughes is more a scientist, but Kotter is more practical.