8.  Conclusion

            In conclusion, leadership methodologies in process reengineering or process change management have a direct impact on the outcome of the project. Various different styles also influence human participation in all stages of the redesign projects of processes. While leadership methods may vary and influence the decision of which reengineering or process change method should be used, each process reengineering method also calls for a specific or various different types of leadership methodologies.

            The controversies and the differences between radical change or incremental step-by-step change were also discussed, where radical change was found to take place in a shorter time frame and where incremental change was found to take place over a longer period of time. The controversies on both however are that rapid change steps can cause multiple learning curve shocks and surprises that require tremendous adjustments. Many people have difficulties adapting to rapid change over night and are often set of and rather resisting the change initiative.

And when change takes place incrementally over a longer period of time, while giving the affected people the opportunity to gradually learn with it and go with it, unpredictable events can lead to surprises and force a change of direction during the change project. Exposing a change or reengineering project within incremental change methodologies applied to the elements of time could possibly yield a greater risk to the reengineering project’s effectiveness than applying radical change methodologies. In a radical change methodology applied, maybe participants’ resistance to the change is the greatest risk. But in long-term incremental change methodology applied, over time the project is exposed to every element that time can bring. The longer it takes, the greater the risk.

            In addition, to add to the complexity of change reengineering methodologies and leadership style choices, each environment in which change is eminent or desired, is becoming more complicated with the environment in which it is to take place. And that is not all; complexity is increased in change processes with time applied. If no other process change of a change project would be applied, time alone would likely call for changes. And all a change project has to do is namely take longer and the longer it takes the more likely it would be exposed to the dangers associated with time.

Every new complexity aspect creates a new axis of variables. The greater the quantity of axis of change variables the greater the complexity of the change project could be. This could also mean that a project becomes increasingly impossible to complete effectively. The outcome of change project effectiveness relates to competitiveness during the project and of course finally at the end where the outcome should be a greater competitive advantage of the organization. And hopefully the competitive advantage yields in greater returns than the cost and effort over the time of the process reengineering project was put in.

            So far, it could be considered that environment is axis a, leadership methods are axis b, reengineering methods are axis c, and time and progress from external entities is axis d. In other words, as described in this paper, the complexity of change could be considered a four-dimensional undertaking. And if every dimension has 4 dimensions, we could possibly be looking at change projects being unpredictable variable reactions to external forces that leave organizations poorly managed and unprepared to compete in their target market. What are really the odds for success taking this complexity into account?

Each axis of variables possibly even has by itself multiple variable aspects. For instance the axis a (environment) alone consists of the stakeholders that work in an organization. These stakeholders work with the processes and policies given and dictated by the organization subject to the leadership style of the top leader and influenced and bent / applied in various different ways by middle management.

The environment in an organization is not only the make-up of stakeholders or of people who work in that organization but also by the people they serve, their customers and their suppliers, and other entities they interact with. They are also influenced by communication styles, abilities, and communication processes and equipment and how effective one may be over another one. Work environments and the change environment are influenced by education, culture, language, personalities, and also by competition. Is this not complex enough yet?

Process change and reengineering could be considered a mute issue when concerned about the complexities of change. Mute because why even changing one application to another when failure is eminent regardless? Maybe it is a setup for failure. Maybe in any change or reengineering project the most important factor that should be considered is that it is difficult, complex, and likely will take a long time; and for sure it is not a project that starts and ends at one point in time but is continuous and indefinite. Maybe Gappmaier (1997) was right when he said that organizations should consider having permanent Change Process Managers on board, since change is a never-ending event, just considering one thing in change, its complexity.