Document Type
Article
Publication Date
5-1-2004
Abstract
This research explored the ways in which the contemporary notion of transformational leadership might extend the neoinstitutional approach to organizational change and politics. The role of leadership in converting deeply taken-for-granted, change-impeding structures and practices, such as shared governance, into ones that facilitate organizational adaptation in the highly institutionalized field of liberal arts colleges was explored. It was hypothesized that the president’s leadership style would impact institutional outcomes such as financial viability, indices of quality, and curricular innovation by its effect on in-place consensus structures. It was further hypothesized that the effect of leadership on these outcomes would be moderated by the level of organizational trust, the level of job satisfaction, and budget stability. Results indicate that transformational leadership style does mediate change in these highly legitimized institutions, providing the means for converting these taken-for-granted structures into vehicles of change. In addition, presidents and faculty hold notably different views on the role of consensus-making structures in the change process and the impact of leadership on these relationships. Neoinstitutional research has produced a considerable number of studies in response to criticisms regarding its over-emphasis on stability and uniformity in organizations and organizational fields (e.g., Mezias, 1990; Brint & Karabel 1991; DiMaggio, 1991; Oliver 1991, 1992; Borum & Westenholz, 1995; Beckert 1999; Scott et. al., 2000; Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002). These studies constitute a successful effort to integrate into new institutionalism various dynamics that were central to ‘old institutionalism,’ such as interests, power, and politics (Scott 1995, 2001). However, few scholars have considered the implications of the potential disjuncture between the two institutionalisms in terms of level of analysis. Whereas most neoinstitutional studies examine processes at the inter-organizational level (notable exceptions include Ritti & Silver, 1986; Covalevski & Dirsmith, 1988; Goodrick & Salancik, 1996), old institutionalism focused on intra-organizational processes in explaining politics and change. For instance, Selznick’s work on goal displacement and organizational transformation at the Bolshevik party (1952) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (1949) and Barnard’s (1938) work on the societal responsibilities of corporate executives placed specific emphasis on the ways in which power and politics inside the organization mediated the effects of the external environment on these organizations. Distinctively, such studies articulated intra-organizational processes in terms of leadership dynamics. As outlined by Selznick (1957), the common thread was a focus on how leaders aligned internal arrangements with external pressures and opportunities towards their own and/or their organization’s benefit. In the new institutionalism, views on taken-for-granted practices can be paradoxical. While these practices are viewed as sources of organizational legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio & Powell 1983) necessary for survival, they are also considered obstacles to successful adaptation to new pressures and circumstances (e.g., Hinings & Greenwood 1988; D’Aunno, Sutton, & Price, 1991). The notion of transformational leadership may help overcome or perhaps ‘capitalize’ on this paradox. Greenwood and Hinings (1996) explicitly pointed to the need to focus on intra- organizational dynamics as a means to bridge the new and old institutionalisms. Drawing on their earlier work on organizational archetypes (e.g., Greenwood & Hinings, 1993), they proposed a model that accounts for external market factors as well as internal organizational factors, such as values and power relations, to explain organizational change. They argued that profound changes in an organization’s basic archetype result from the interaction between external pressures and internal dynamics. The work of Greenwood and Hinings (1996) provides a partial but useful parallel to this attempt to incorporate the notion of transformational leadership into the institutional approach. As did the adherents to the old institutionalism, this research extends their perspective that leadership may mediate the organization-environment interaction in ways that result in innovation without abandoning the basic organizational archetype. In the face of external pressures, transformational leaders can reformulate organizational value commitments, realign competing interests and power differentials, and build significant capacity, drawing on prevailing structures and practices, to bring about organizational innovations (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). If structures are both enabling and constraining (Giddens, 1979; 1984), their enabling features are likely to be more pronounced under transformational leadership. The way in which transformational leadership (Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987) acts to convert deeply imbedded, taken for granted, change-impeding structures and practices into ones that facilitate organizational adaptation to market forces in the highly institutionalized field of liberal arts colleges is the focus of this study.
Keywords
leadership
Rights
© The Author(s). Kelvin Smith Library provides access for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission is strictly prohibited.
Department/Center
Design & Innovation
Recommended Citation
Drugovich, Margaret L., "Institutionalism and Transformational Leadership: Exploring Linkages Between the Two Perspectives" (2004). Student Scholarship. 258.
https://commons.case.edu/studentworks/258