Self‐regulation, strategic leadership and paradox in organizational change

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present a dispositional model using self‐regulation as a foundation for the strategic leadership of organizational change.Design/methodology/approachThis paper reviews the self‐regulation literature and regulatory‐focus theory in particular, and integrates this literature within the strategic leadership and organizational change literatures to present a dispositional model with propositions about the relationships between these literatures.FindingsStrategic leadership of organizational change should allow for co‐existent states of both continuity and change. Leadership teams should include a mix of individuals with promotion and prevention foci of self‐regulation and should provide for a regulatory fit that cascades throughout the organization.Practical implicationsLeaders should increase their self‐awareness of promotion and prevention styles of self‐regulation and rely on a mix of individuals that increase the chances of valuing and enhancing both continuity and change in their organizations.Originality/valueThis paper integrates the self‐regulation literature and concepts into discussion and theoretical development in the area of leadership and organizational change.

When fit matters more: The effect of regulatory fit on adaptation to change

“…Taken together, our findings confirm propositions about the beneficial character of regulatory fit during organizational change (Taylor-Bianco & Schermerhorn, 2006;Van den Heuvel et al, 2010). Furthermore, they refine these propositions by illustrating the differential role of regulatory fit for prevention-focused individuals, for whom more is at stake, and for promotion-focused individuals, for whom fit will not play such a crucial role.…”

“…It has been argued that during organizational change employees are more likely to perform at their maximum potential when their environment addresses adequately their regulatory orientation (Taylor-Bianco & Schermerhorn, 2006). However, accumulated evidence indicates that promotion-and prevention-focused individuals do not always rely to the same extent on their environment in order to guide and regulate their behaviour.…”

“…Second, it has been proposed that a state of regulatory fit maximizes the chances of employees to be successful during organizational change (Taylor-Bianco & Schermerhorn, 2006). To the best of our knowledge, however, this possibility has not been examined empirically.…”

Strategic Leadership and Its Application in Egyptian Universities

“…There are several requirements for the application of strategic leadership at Egyptian universities, including : anticipate, envision, maintain flexibility, and empower others to create strategic change as necessary, understanding and cope with change that seems to be increasing exponentially in today's globalized world and the ability to accommodate and integrate both external and internal conditions, and to manage and engage in complex information processing abdul, 1999: Hagen et al,1998: Ahmed haji,2001 power to influence people's thoughts and actions (Rowe, 2001), understanding changes and how such changes can be manage, (Adel andAbdulhadi 2007: Taylor-Bianco andSchermerhorn, 2006), face and manage of pressures within the university system quickly prompt a return to the status quo (Adel andAbdulhadi ,2007:Daniel andIris, 2005). for Sarah the most important requirements for strategic leadership at the university is the ability to select talent and encourage university employees in their teams to learn and grow each year through developing strategic skills (such as implement of challenging tasks) in line with the university strategy (Sarah, 2014).…”

To Change or Not To Change: How Regulatory Focus Affects Change in Dyadic Decision‐Making

“…Our findings also carry implications for change management initiatives. Organizations that are in transition and need to redirect managerial decision-making patterns might also benefit from management teams consisting of members with diverse regulatory foci (Taylor-Bianco & Schermerhorn, 2006). For example, Westinghouse -a nuclear power plant builder -recently decided that its managers should Adjusted promotion (prevention) focus is calculated as the dyadic promotion (prevention) focus score multiplied by the variance of individual promotion (prevention) focus scores within the dyad.…”