2. In what situations is the mixed change process method best applicable?

The mixed change process method is usually best applicable in an environment, and it works best there, where participants team-up, share knowledge, role play processes, and step-by-step determine the status of processes and then plan the change of processes together. The mixed change process method is mindful of people’s needs and requirements, their experiences and ideas, their time pressures, current work loads, the learning curves, over-time needs, technology updates, and anything that adds to productivity, work-job satisfaction, and customer retention. This is especially important as opposed to radical change the mixed change process method has a greater affect on operational competitiveness and customer satisfaction (Haudan, 2002).

In table 5 below, an attempt is being made to demonstrate how the leadership methods influence the change environments. There are two extremes in leadership styles or methods and in-between are various mixes of leadership styles possible. These mixes of various leadership styles possible create an increased complexity of change, especially when organizations are larger.

While this paper only focuses on 3 main groups of leadership methodologies, there are many more variations. There could be a mix of situational changes that leans more over to radical change methodologies; Or one that leans more over to the incremental change methodology. It depends on each leader, their personalities and their skills. And, in larger organizations that operations in taller hierarchies and management levels, the complexity increases even more with every manager’s leadership style, communication style, learning style, culture, and personality. Plus, during the complexities of change, there are many variables possible as can bee seen in table 5 (Gunasekaran ,2002; Joffe and Glynn, 2002; and Sandbrook, 2001). This paper will address the complexities of change more thoroughly in the Application Section.

Table 5: Leadership Methods influence on Change Method Environments

Leadership Methods             Change Method-Environments	Radical Change Method (RCM) 1.      Dissonant 2.      Short-term   Creates high turnover, sharp Learning curve shock, lots of overtime, and productivity decrease long-term	Mixed Situational  Change Method (MSCM) Variable project timeframe   Controllable turnover – Sorting out bad apples Controllable learning curve	Incremental Change Method (Long-term / Resonant)- (ICM) Resonant Long-term Turnover more likely managed Learning curve over a planned and managed timeframe
Business Process Reengineering (BPR)	Time shortage allows only for small BPR change teams to act and implement quickly. No-to-little participation is allowed.	Depending on the urgency of change in BPR, the MSCM allows sufficient time and collaboration between stakeholders required to implement changes, but with limitations because of the influence and techniques within the BPR environment (process reengineering evolves around technology and not people)	Long-term leadership styles (ICM) in BPR allows for clear long-term planning in the technological direction. The technology is the driving force, often planned too far out, which calls for frequent re-reengineering of processes.
Holistic Business Process Management (hBPM) – participation, solution, reflection	Appears to be authoritarian with little room for free communication and idea-creativity / think-tank. Collaboration & participation is not promoted. It is contradicting. hBPM promotes participation and radical change puts time pressure on it.	hBPM and MSCM go together hand-in-hand. MSCM responds to the participants’ inputs and requirements, to time needs and plans BPR around people abilities.	ICM steps in reengineering promote hBPM environments and their stakeholder group participation and low-tech role-playing of processes.
Process Modeling (PM)	Dictatorship – dissonant styles work well in PM if PM is produced by 1 person with little group interaction and collaboration.	MSCM supports PM environments to increase PM team members and promotes participation.	ICM is group-focuses while PM is more focused on technology-driven process modeling by one person.
Workshop Applications	Workshops call for group participation and role playing. Radical Change leadership styles call for little to no time spending and therefore are counter productive to workshops.	MSCM in workshops will adapt to the need of the participants in the Workshops.	These two work together well. Workshops call for group participation and role playing while ICM promotes a long-term planning and implementation.

 

The mixed change process method in leadership as Goleman et al (2002) have elaborated, which consists of dissonant and resonant leadership styles, each is applied according to the situation. A pressing situation requires quick action and aggressive decision making. Therefore a dissonant decision will result in quick results with however more damage to the relationships and long-term productivity stream. In an urgent decision-making environment, an organization and their leadership may not have the luxury to take the time to train existing personnel, or hire new personnel adequately prepared to handle a radical change. Radical change causes much stress among participants and those affected by it. There is little time to prepare and it often leaves shock scars and it traumatizes teams and their collaboration abilities long-term.

A situation that requires a change management decision that is not as urgent will more likely result in long-term outcomes with stronger relationship consideration. Leadership using resonant leadership mixed methods or incremental change methods is considering personnel culture differences, their personalities, collaboration skills, communication skills, ongoing training, career goals, and employee relationship history, etc. when planning process reengineering. In such a time and situation, the organization does have the luxury of time to carefully plan each step of the BPR project. But it has only as much time as the organization allows itself to have. And certainly participants and stakeholders (and all those affected by change) have the opportunity to adequately prepare for the changing impact (Bjoernsson et al (2002), Gappmaier (1997), and Haudan (2002).