module 6

Introduction: Change the Way You Lead Change

“I love change!” I know many leaders who would make that same state- ment until they lead a change process. It is at this point when the idealistic visions of change are tempered by the realities of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, or VUCA1 for short. Together, these four words aptly describe the world in which we live, and most of us (I hope!) have come to terms with the uncontrollable and ever-changing environ- ment that surrounds us. However, what can be more difficult for us to embrace is how these combined four words can describe the people we seek to partner with in leading change. That’s because we don’t treat people as partners, or as co-creators, in the change process. Rather, we take the easier approach, which is to lead change through command, control, and fear tactics. This book calls us to change the way we lead change: A people-centric way that involves a process characterized by care, collaboration, and life-giving measures that put people first. A process that brings people together, appreciates the power that exists in every human being, and leverages our collective abilities to benefit the world. Ultimately, to love change is meaningless if we don’t love people.

How Did I Arrive at This Conviction?

During my early years of leading change, I led mostly by instinct. My instincts told me to always love people more than the change itself be- cause what good is change if people are wounded along the way? As people responded to my leadership with high engagement and en- thusiasm, I learned that most people had experienced change trauma under leaders who led change with no regard for anyone other than themselves. In fact, research reveals “organizational change may be construed as a major emotional, even traumatic event, for many people” (Smollan, Sayers, and Matheny 2010, 15). To these “leaders,” their change agenda was of utmost priority, and they did anything to achieve it even if people were hurt along the way. I consider leading change in

DOI: 10.4324/9781003272243-1

such a way as a form of malpractice. No wonder the rate of change success is so low. Although the range of failure rates varies, research states that change success hovers around 25–30% (Kotter 1995; Miller 2001; Higgs and Rowland 2005)! Now, as a change leader with more than 15 years’ experience leading change in diverse contexts, I am committed to leading change for and with people. I’m excited to share research from non-profit change leaders that illumines a people-centric way to lead change, which I believe is key to change success.

What We Know—Current Research and Practice

Gaps in Research

Although non-profit sector research has expanded significantly over the last decade, “our understanding of the role of these institutions is still limited and data coverage frequently remains patchy” (Anheier 2014). Several gaps in the literature exist due to the sheer diversity of types and services of non-profit organizations in confluence with the complexity of their operations that address some of the world’s most difficult problems.

Non-profit social change organizations are a context that is “largely unrepresented in academic leadership2 or collaborative governance lit- erature” (Ospina and Foldy 2010, 303). Leadership research has pri- marily focused on the for-profit sector (Kotter 1996; Adair 2002; Bennis and Nanus 2004). The current research about non-profit leaders focuses mostly on board and governance issues within the United States (Hailey and James 2004). Therefore, generally little is known about change agent leaders in the non-profit sector, but especially those who lead non-profit organizations that have a global reach and social change impact outside the United States. There is insufficient literature with research about how non-profit leaders design and execute “planned change processes in cross-cultural settings” (Cummings and Worley 2015, 746). With cross- cultural work becoming more of a reality for organizations around the world, Cummings and Worley note that social change organizations that are internationally networked may provide opportunities for future re- search to address the gap in literature (2015).

Although non-profit organizations influence change in both individuals and society through a variety of efforts (Drucker 1990), the literature that connects non-profits to their social change role has mainly focused on their political advocacy efforts (Child and Gronbjerg 2007; Schmid et al. 2008; Kimberlin 2010; Mosley and Ros 2011; Mellinger 2014). Almog-Bar and Schmid’s literature review (2014) highlights this connection with research that centers non-profit social influence around shaping policy and govern- ment decisions without recognizing the additional ways non-profits influ- ence social change. Current literature, however, suggests that non-profits

2 Change the Way You Lead Change

influence social change through their relationships with various stake- holders, especially on the community level, as well as through non-profits’ own efforts to internally adapt to societal changes (Shier and Graham 2013; Shier et al. 2014). Further, Thompson argues that “the main world of the social entrepreneur is the voluntary [non-profit] sector” (2002, 413), thereby affirming that the non-profit sector is ripe for further research in social entrepreneurship and innovation (Weerawardena and Mort 2012). Even still, gaps in the literature exist as scholars analyze social change by relying on descriptive case studies of individual organizations or on popu- lations that use non-profit services (Boyd and Wilmoth 2006; Shier and Graham 2013; Spergel and Grossman 1997).

Gaps in Practice

Practically, non-profit leaders self-report that “being able to commu- nicate effectively” is one of their biggest challenges and obstacles to success (Brothers and Sherman 2012, 159), thereby necessitating further research to understand how non-profit change agents develop colla- borative social networks of relationships to fulfill their mission in changing environments (Ott and Dicke 2016). Communication has often been linked to leadership as a linear form of influence through message transmission (Ruben and Gigliotti 2016). However, practitioners need to rethink understanding of leadership through the lens of communication that reframes leadership as a process of social influence where people relate to one another and their environment (Ruben and Stewart 2016).

In addition, non-profit organizations need greater capacity for learning and building relationships in order to quickly respond to complex social problems in our constantly changing world (Hinrichs and Richardson 2015). Although research on organizational learning is available, a gap in research on organizational learning in non-profit settings continues to exist (Perkins et al. 2007). Attempted research focuses on small, local non- profit service organizations that do not provide adequate research for transfer (Florin et al. 1992) within larger non-profit organizations. With the lack of contextually relevant research, larger non-profit organizations struggle to transfer and execute known for-profit practices into their sys- tems, “a large proportion of organizations are not aware of these prac- tices,” and “still others resist applying them” (Colvin 2000; Cummings and Worley 2015). Several scholars note that “future research must es- tablish effective intervention methods to help nonprofits create new structures, processes, and cultures for the learning, development, and empowerment of members and clients, or the organization as a whole, and of the community it serves” (Perkins et al. 2007, 325).

Further, the increase in external challenges faced by non-profit orga- nizations has caught the attention of researchers, who argue that

Change the Way You Lead Change 3

non-profits should adopt more entrepreneurial postures in their work (Weerawardena, McDonald, and Mort 2010; Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort 2012) and pursue practices that are more innovative (Weerawardena, McDonald, and Mort 2010; Jaskyte 2004; McDonald 2007). However, little research exists on how non-profit organizations work toward sustainability in the face of challenging external influences, or how sustainability issues thereby influence non-profit strategy (Weerawardena, McDonald, and Mort 2010).

What We Need—New Research and Practice

Based on the above research and practice gaps, a study of non-profit change agent leaders who influence social change necessitates an under- standing of how they facilitate a purposeful interaction between thinking, talking, and learning about change that drives collective action in colla- boration with people both internal and external to the organization.

The purpose of this book is to provide new research that explores the relational communication strategies of change agents in non-profit or- ganizations.

Specifically, the following research questions guided my study:

1 In relationship with others, how do non-profit change agents catalyze a sense of urgency for a desired change?

2 In relationship with others, how do non-profit change agents connect people toward a desired change?

3 In relationship with others, how do non-profit change agents continue momentum for a desired change?

Through research, I’ll unlock insights from change leaders in the non- profit sector who influence social change,3 which is change that is dis- tinguished by the following attributes: (1) it is aimed at creating innovative change on behalf of others; (2) it addresses the root causes of social pro- blems; (3) it is collaborative; (4) it requires new learning; and (5) it is not simple (Komives, Wagner, and Associates 2017). In addition, this research conceptualizes social change in the context of communicative processes that happen in relationships as a way to develop collective impact directed at disrupting and transforming dominant, exclusive, and/or violent social systems (adapted from Dutta 2011). Social change can take place both inside and outside the organization, especially when learning is required as part of the change process.

Traditional change models operate under the assumption that we live in a world that is stable, predictable, and controllable (Burnes 2004; Uhl- Bien, Marion, and McKelvey 2007; Stroh 2015). Traditional approaches to change are helpful in addressing linear problems with available

4 Change the Way You Lead Change

solutions that create stability within an organization (Komives, Wagner, and Associates 2017). However, leading social change is “organic” and requires new ways of thinking (Stroh 2015; Komives, Wagner, and Associates 2017). Organic change “occurs in systems not compartments, is ongoing not episodic, is exponential not linear, and can be influenced but not controlled” (Komives, Wagner, and Associates 2017, 205). Rapid social change creates tension within organizations as they are challenged not only to constantly adapt and learn new ways of being and working with one another internally, but to also engage our world as socially responsible citizens. Increasingly, corporate organizations par- ticipate as socially responsible citizens in order to contribute to social change and a better world, but non-profit organizations can be an ex- ample of how to operate with a social change mission through social influence (Mirvis 2017).

The rapid and interdependent nature of change necessitates a leader who is able to navigate complexity while simultaneously sustaining him- or herself, others, and the organization throughout the transitions of change processes that can include an ebb and flow between different kinds and models of change (planned, directed, or iterative changing) at different points in time (Buono and Kerber 2010; Higgs and Rowland 2010; Van de Ven and Sun 2011; Kerber and Buono 2018; Colwill 2021). Increasingly, the skill sets of change agent leaders include the ability to discern future trends and needs, diagnose present-day challenges, lead and act on change agendas, collaborate with a diverse base of stakeholders, and remain courageous (Baer, Duin, and Bushway 2015; Colwill 2021).

The non-profit change leaders in my study work to solve some of the world’s toughest problems. Their shared perspective is that working with others is necessary to accomplishing a social change mission. We can learn from those who lead social change in the non-profit sector as they share stories about how they catalyze the urgency for, connect people toward, and continue momentum for a desired change. Their stories reveal three interconnected dimensions of leading change: people (relationships for change), process (communicating for change), and purpose (the change mission). Ultimately, my research reveals that strengthening social capital (people), centering marginal voices (process), and aligning stakeholders to the change mission (purpose) are critical to the work of change agents who value relationships. These change leaders defied the research on change failure through their unique ability to lead social change through relationships and strategic communication.

Specifically, non-profit change agents valued the process of change- making just as much as, or even more than, the change itself. Their propensity toward relational connection influenced the strategies they chose to move change forward. Further, the non-profit change agents in my research possessed a combination of humility, an awareness of

Change the Way You Lead Change 5

change complexity, and deep respect for every human being—all of which interacted in the change process to prioritize communication that strengthened partnerships and collaboration with others. Recognition of the power of collective social change also gave non-profit change agents the unique role of reweaving the frayed social fabric of our world.

As such, the non-profit sector and its leaders can provide insight into how social change and innovation can take place through relational influence, which involves the need to focus change around commu- nicative strategies and practices (Van Loon 2017). Understanding how the connection between communication and relationships influences a social change process would provide clarifying insight into the com- plexity of non-profit leadership, as well as reveal how the non-profit sector can continue to learn and share generative practices across in- stitutions that bridge future collaborative efforts.

Research Sample

My research sample comprises 26 change agents of non-profit organi- zations. I used as many personal connections as possible to pursue initial contact with leaders who were known to have had at least two to five years of oversight influence over the organization’s social change mission as well as consistent engagement with stakeholders both inside and outside the organization. Two to five years of experience were chosen to include participants who have experienced a journey of change with their organization. I aimed for a purposeful sample (Patton 2015) in order to “discover, understand, and gain insight” (Merriam and Tisdell 2016, 96) from non-profit change agent leaders, thereby securing a “sample from which the most can be learned” (Merriam and Tisdell 2016, 96). Purposeful sampling allows in-depth exploration of “information-rich cases” (Patton 2015, 53, emphasis in original). Information-rich cases provided depth of understanding around the work of non-profit change agent leaders as well as supplied greater learning around issues that such leaders considered most important.

Non-profit organizations were chosen based on criteria that “[guide] identification of information-rich cases” to reflect the purpose of this study (Merriam and Tisdell 2016, 97). Initially, I gathered a general list of non- profit 501(c)(3) organizations from online directories such as www. guidestar.org as well as through personal networks. Subsequently, I chose organizations within the boundary of 501(c)(3) charitable and the like or- ganizations that also included advocacy work on behalf of marginalized populations. Selected non-profits also had a social change mission aimed at improving the status quo for the sake of others. Characteristics such as combined local and global impact, headquartered in the United States, and established for at least five years were also prioritized.

6 Change the Way You Lead Change

One area of concern was people self-reporting as change agents without endorsement from another credible change agent. Three steps were taken to mitigate this risk. First, participants were also chosen based on recommendations from others as “change agents” rather than self-identification. Some initial participants were contacted based on my personal knowledge and recommendations from a personal connection at an organization that helps incubate change agents and entrepreneurs (detailed information about this organization is not shared to protect the anonymity of participants). From here, I continued to use a snowball method to ask participants for additional recommendations of change agents after the completion of each interview (Patton 2015, 298–301).

Second, the innovation literature informed the criteria for a change agent due to the overlap that exists between the change and innovation literatures (Mirvis 2017). In order to identity participants who were change agents, the following definition was contextually modified and used in communication with contacted organizations: A change agent works as a strategic communication link to facilitate the diffusion of new ideas to accomplish a social change mission (Rogers 2003, 368; Mirvis 2017; Komives, Wagner, and Associates 2017; Hill et al. 2014).

Third, in order to further guide participant identification, the fol- lowing change agent roles were shared with the contacted organization or communicated to participants to generate snowball sampling: (1) a person who has a vision for change and thereby develops a need for change by bringing awareness to problems (Rogers 2003, 369–70; Borasi and Finnigan 2010); and (2) a person who consistently initiates and carries out new ideas (innovations) that add value to a change mission and to the clients being served (Borasi and Finnigan 2010).

Why Language Is Important

The terms in this book require clear definition in order to capture my intent in choosing specific language to describe the work of the non- profit sector and its leaders. This is especially important when re- searching non-profit organizations because “most definitions of the non- profit sector begin by stating what non-profit organizations are not and what they cannot do. Articulating what the non-profit sector is and does—and why—in positive terms is more difficult and requires more words” (Ott and Dicke 2016, 1).

Further, as previously stated, some overlap exists in the change and innovation literature (Mirvis 2017), which invites an integrated con- sideration with regards to their interrelationship in non-profit sector work. With full recognition that my chosen definition of terms may differ from those found in the existing literature and be understood differently based on context, the definitions that guide my study were chosen based

Change the Way You Lead Change 7

on my intent to look through the lens of a change agent who is in- tentionally engaging in a social change mission for the common good.

Change Agent Leadership

Researchers study a variety of leadership styles that demand a need for clarity around the use of the word “leadership” (Anderson and Sun 2017). Inspired by the change and innovation research of Philip Mirvis (2017); Komives, Wagner, and Associates (2017); Linda Hill et al. (2014); and Everett M. Rogers (2003), I define the change agent as a leader who works as a strategic communication link to facilitate the diffusion of new ideas to accomplish a social change mission. This de- finition is considered especially relevant to the work of change agents who engage relationships across differences.4

Social Change

Building on the social change definition fundamental to the Social Change Model of Leadership Development,5 the definition of social change is distinguished by the following attributes: (1) it is aimed at creating innovative change on behalf of others; (2) it addresses the root causes of social problems; (3) it is collaborative; (4) it requires new learning; and (5) it is not simple (Komives, Wagner, and Associates 2017). Last, social change is also conceptualized in the context of communicative processes that happen in relationships as a way to develop collective impact directed at disrupting and transforming dominant, exclusive, and/or violent social systems (adapted from Dutta 2011). Social change can take place both inside and outside the organization, especially when learning is required as part of the change process.

Social Innovation

I have chosen to use the definition provided by Stephanie Cosner Berzin, Humberto Camarena, and the European Commission’s Guide to Social Innovation. First, Berzin and Camarena write that social innovation “can be thought of using three broad frameworks—shifting paradigms, creating action, and changing structures—it can also be imagined as a range of solutions that are now available to respond to social need. This range of solutions may cause change in paradigm, action, or structure or in multiple approaches at once” (2018, 11). Anheier, Krlev, and Mildenberger write that social innovation is “socially oriented and thus person-related” and “as a consequence of this person-centeredness, so- cial innovation is fundamentally geared to serving social needs in

8 Change the Way You Lead Change

unprecedented ways” (2019, 17). They also write: “Social innovations involve a higher degree of bottom up and grass-roots involvement … . This can make their impact broader and more sustainable, but social innovations will typically take longer to evolve and sustain than other types of innovation. The most critical moderator will be their ability to gain legitimacy in a socially grounded negotiation process” (2019, 19).

Social Capital

Anheier, Krlev, and Mildenberger write: “Social capital describes the network of organizations and refers to the number and intensity of contacts of the organization to their stakeholders. It is also closely re- lated to the level of trust which others ascribe to an organization as a result of or prerequisite for being embedded in such a network. Thus, social capital in this regard is not about the mere degree of closure and interaction but also about the intensity of embeddedness within a con- text” (2019, 267).

Collective Impact

The commitment of a group of important actors from different organi- zations (non-profit or for-profit) to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem. This definition is slightly modified from one provided by the Stanford Social Innovation Review, specifically in the Winter 2011 publication by John Kania and Mark Kramer.

Non-profit Social Change Organization

Underlying the use of this term is the assumption that non-profit orga- nizations “exist to bring about a change in individuals and in society” (Drucker 1990, 3). Non-profit scholars provide several typologies for the study of non-profit organizations (Lewis, Hamel, and Richardson 2001; Salamon et al. 2013; Anheier 2014), but what is meant here by “non- profit organizations” are 501(c)(3) charitable and the like organizations that also participate in advocacy,6 excluding church congregations and denominational agencies primarily to harness the scope of this study. These non-profit organizations have a social change mission that seeks to have a positive impact in the lives of the people as well as the social systems they serve. To encompass the relational aspects of my view of non-profit organizations, the phrase “non-profit social change organi- zation” will be used in this study. It should be noted that there is a distinction in the literature between non-profit “social change” organi- zations versus non-profit “social service” organizations. The former focus on social change and innovation by disrupting the status quo

Change the Way You Lead Change 9

whereas the latter focus mainly on providing service needs to different groups in society (Ospina and Foldy 2010; Anheier 2014; Ott and Dicke 2016). Although the lines between the two are blurry, with social change and service often intertwined, I have chosen to focus on non-profit social change organizations as officially named and described in the literature. In addition, the words “organization” and “institution” may be used interchangeably depending on the articles cited.

Community

Miroslav Volf describes community as an embrace rather than exclusion (1996), which is a description that works well in this study. Volf states that exclusion skews our perceptions of reality and causes us to react to others outside our personal relational circles with fear or anger. By contrast, an embrace of others requires us to open ourselves up to others in an effort to learn more about the reality of our interdependence.

Themes and Dimensions

The findings in this book are supported by diverse streams of research. I reviewed the precedent literature that connects non-profit sector work with social change and innovation. This was accomplished by building the foundation of non-profit social change work on the intersection of research that integrates the topics of communication and relationships. Specifically, the main theoretical frameworks on which my research rests include communication theory, relationship theory, educational theories of transformative and social learning, change theory, research in social in- novation, and literature surrounding social entrepreneurship and in- trapreneurship. These strands of literature provide a robust inter- disciplinary framework that deepens our understanding of how non-profit change agents use relational communication strategies in their work.

My research found 12 themes that contribute to the literature and practice gaps. These 12 themes are presented as separate chapters and then discussed under the umbrella of three dimensions that enrich the under- standing of the relational communication strategies of non-profit change agents. The first dimension is that non-profit change agents value people. Their high regard for people was not only the catalyst for their work, but also the foundation with which they approached their work. Oftentimes, change agents are seen as rash and harmfully disruptive to the status quo. However, the non-profit change agents in my research revealed that their respect for all people throughout all levels and stages of a change process caused them to wisely and strategically influence change as opportunities emerged. They did not force change on anyone or in any system but rather desired to partner with people if and when others wanted change.

10 Change the Way You Lead Change

Discerning these opportunities for change and key partnerships were cri- tical to the non-profit change agents in my study, and they invested time and energy to plan well. Although they did not force change to happen, this should not be misunderstood as a passivity on behalf of the change agents. By contrast, non-profit change agents courageously acted upon their convictions to work for social change, but fully desired to value the dignity of people along the way to ultimately improve society for people in the end. They recognized that social change required a social process, which they valued just as much as the change itself.

The second dimension is that non-profit change agents value com- munication as process. Designing the process for change, from beginning to end, was important to the non-profit change agents in my study. Related to their value for people, non-profit change agents made sure that the change process included continued opportunities to learn through data collection and feedback loops, which required intentional conversations with different stakeholders. Oftentimes, they created and continued to shape organizational cultures where dialogue and open communication were valued as a way of working together. They were also intentional about creating conversations of accountability for others and for themselves so that the change process could move forward.

Finally, the third dimension is that non-profit change agents value change and embrace it as their purpose. This statement may seem un- necessary when talking about leaders who identify as change agents, but a distinction should be made that non-profit change agents did not state that they necessarily liked change. In fact, they frequently mentioned that change was uncomfortable and challenging, and required sacrifice. Despite this, non-profit change agents valued change for the potential of influencing life-giving outcomes for people. They were fully aware that in order to tackle some of the toughest social problems of our world, they needed to endure the challenges of change with hope for a better future for those they sought to serve.

Figure I.1 portrays the dialogue between the discerning change agent and the three dimensions of a change process. In this visual, people (the first dimension of relationships), process (the second dimension of com- munication), and purpose (the third dimension of change mission) are seen interacting with one another in a Venn diagram. What is not seen is the change agent, because change agents typically operate under the radar and prefer to be proximate to the people they serve. Therefore, one can assume that the change agent is within the people dimension. The overlapping spaces of the Venn diagram are areas in need of constant discernment by the change agent in order for him or her to more fully understand the layers of interaction. The movement toward the right represents the en- during interaction of the three dimensions throughout a change process, as well as the learning that occurs with continual discernment.

Change the Way You Lead Change 11

Overall, these three dimensions reveal a powerful interaction between communication and relationships that influence life-giving social change. These, along with the 12 themes found in my research, help deepen our understanding of the processes that are critical to catalyzing the need for, connecting people toward, and continuing momentum for a desired change. Specifically, this book bridges a gap in the literature on non- profit sector leadership by voicing the insights and concerns of change agent leaders who influence social change processes across diverse rela- tional terrains. Voicing the experiences of non-profit change agents highlights the highly relational work in which they engage, which con- tributes guidance to other organizations as they adapt to an increasingly diverse workforce searching for meaningful, socially responsible work.

Audience

This book hopes to influence three distinct audiences. The first intended audience is those who identify as non-profit leaders, with the hope that this book can provide a platform for the voices of non-profit change agents as valued experts of change in their own right, a resource for learning and information sharing among the non-profit change agent community that seeks to serve others but is often not served in return, and an encourage- ment to continue the good work of social change and make a difference in our world. The second intended audience is the community of for-profit leaders. The hope is that this book may guide those who hold positions of authority in for-profit organizations, which often entail making hard decisions that impact people while simultaneously negotiating an

SOCIAL CHANGE

People (D1)

Process (D2) Purpose (D3)

Figure I.1 Three Dimensions of Leading Change Well.

12 Change the Way You Lead Change

organization’s power dynamics. The findings in my study that concern co- creating processes that value the dignity of people, connecting people toward a new mission, or helping people learn how to change can be valuable to for-profit leaders who hold positions of authority that in- herently require such interactions with people but could benefit from further wisdom. The third intended audience is leader developers, those who interact with emerging leaders who want to change the world. This audience could be educators, coaches, or mentors, for example, who have influence over emerging leaders, especially those who vocalize a desire to create new organizations, have new ideas, or impact society in some way. The hope is that this book can help prepare emerging change agents with a posture and awareness of change agent work that builds up the next generation of changemakers who are wise, discerning, humble, aware of self and others, respectful, and courageous.

One Final Note

I call myself a change agent. It is how I am naturally wired, and therefore is the primary lens I use when I enter into any sphere of influence. Initiating and sustaining change through relationships and strategic communication on behalf of others is my core passion and vocational calling. This passion emerged from my childhood when I experienced racism and marginalization as an Asian–American female growing up in a homogenous environment that centered whiteness. Ever since, I have wanted to change systems and structures for myself and others who experience marginalization. I have worked in non-profit organizations for over 20 years creating, re-building, or revitalizing systems and structures. Therefore, I have an idea of what successful change processes look like since I have both led change and seen the fruit of such ex- periences. However, I am still learning and growing into the change agent role and anticipate wisdom from you to inform my own thinking and practice as you read and interact with this book.

Notes 1 First described in 1985 by economists and university professors Warren Bennis

and Burt Nanus in their book Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, VUCA helps describe the challenges posed to leaders by various external factors.

2 With the exception of The Leadership Quarterly’s special 1994 issue on social change leadership.

3 My definition of social change builds on the social change definition funda- mental to the Social Change Model of Leadership Development created by Komives, Wagner, and Associates 2017.

Change the Way You Lead Change 13

4 “Difference” refers to any socially defined marker that exists to separate one person from another and that can also be used to de-value the other. Examples include gender, race, and socioeconomic status.

5 This model states that social change is distinguished by the following attri- butes: (1) it is aimed at creating change; (2) it addresses the root causes of social problems; (3) it is collaborative; and (4) it is not simple (Komives, Wagner, and Associates 2017, 235–236).

6 Advocacy organizations “promote social, economic, and/or political causes and include political parties, citizen groups, and lobbying groups among others” (Lewis, Hamel, and Richardson 2001, 8).

References

Adair, John. 2002. Effective Strategic Leadership. London: Macmillan. Almog-Bar, M. and Schmid, H. 2014. “Advocacy Activities of Nonprofit Human

Service Organizations: A Critical Review.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43, no. 1: 11–35.

Anderson, Marc H. and Sun, Peter Y.T. 2017. “Reviewing Leadership Styles: Overlaps and the Need for a New ‘Full-Range’ Theory.” International Journal of Management Reviews 19: 76–96.

Anheier, Helmut K. 2014. Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Anheier, Helmut K., Krlev, Gorgi, and Mildenberger, Georg. 2019. Social Innovation: Comparative Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baer, Linda L., Duin, Ann H., and Bushway, Deborah. 2015. “Change Agent Leadership.” Planning for Higher Education Journal 43, no. 3: 1–11.

Bennis, Warren and Nanus, Burt. 2004. Leaders. New York: Harper Collins. Berzin, Stephanie Cosner and Camarena, Humberto. 2018. Innovation from

Within. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Borasi, Raffaella, and Finnigan, Kara. 2010. “Entrepreneurial Attitudes and

Behaviors That Can Help Prepare Successful Change Agents in Education.” The New Educator 6: 1–29.

Boyd, A.S. and Wilmoth, M.C. 2006. “An Innovative Community-Based Intervention for African American Women with Breast Cancer: The Witness Project.” Health and Social Work 31, no. 1: 77–80.

Brothers, John and Sherman, Anne. 2012. Building Nonprofit Capacity: A Guide to Managing Change Through Organizational Lifecycles. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Buono, Anthony F. and Kerber, Kenneth W. 2010. “Creating a Sustainable Approach to Change: Building Organizational Change Capacity.” SAM Advanced Management Journal 75, no. 2: 4–14, 21.

Burnes, B. 2004. “Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re- Appraisal.” Journal of Management Studies 41: 977–1002.

Child, C. and Gronbjerg, K. 2007. “Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations: Their Characteristics and Activities.” Social Science Quarterly 88, no. 1: 259–281.

Colvin, G. 2000. “Managing in the Info Era.” Fortune 141, no. 5: F6–F9. Colwill, Deborah A. 2021. Conflict, Power, and Organizational Change. New

York, NY: Routledge.

14 Change the Way You Lead Change

Cummings, Thomas G. and Worley, Christopher G. 2015. Organization Development and Change. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Drucker, Peter F. 1990. Managing the Nonprofit Organization. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Dutta, Mohan J. 2011. Communicating Social Change. New York, NY: Routledge.

Florin, P., Chavis, D.M., Wandersman, A., and Rich, R. 1992. “A Systems Approach to Understanding and Enhancing Grassroots Organizations: The Block Booster Project.” In Analysis of Dynamic Psychological Systems, edited by R. Levine and H. Fitzgerald, Vol. 2, pp. 215–243. New York: Plenum.

Hailey, J. and James, R. 2004. “Trees Die from the Top: International Perspectives on NGO Leadership Development.” International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 15, no. 4: 343–353.

Higgs, Malcolm and Rowland, D. 2005. “All Changes Great and Small: Exploring Approaches to Change and its Leadership.” Journal of Change Management 5, no. 2: 121–151, 10.1080/14697010500082902

Higgs, Malcolm and Rowland, Deborah. 2010. “Emperors with Clothes On: The Role of Self-Awareness in Developing Effective Change Leadership.” Journal of Change Management 10, no. 4: 369–385.

Hill, Linda A., Brandeau, Greg, Truelove, Emily, and Lineback, Kent. 2014. Collective Genius. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Hinrichs, Gina and Richardson, Cheryl B. 2015. Large Scale Change for Non- Profits: A Playbook for Social Sector Capacity Building. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Jaskyte, K. 2004. “Transformational Leadership, Organizational Culture, and Innovativeness in Nonprofit Organizations.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 15, no. 2: 153–168.

Kania, John and Kramer, Mark. 2011. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. www.ssireview.org

Keller, Scott and Aiken, C. 2008. “The Inconvenient Truth about Change Management.” McKinsey and Company. https://www.aascu.org/corporate- partnership/McKinseyReport2.pdf

Kerber, Kenneth W. and Anthony F. Buono. 2018. “In Defense of Directed Change: A Viable Approach in the Rhythm of Change.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2018, no. 1. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.

Kimberlin, S.E. 2010. “Advocacy by Nonprofits: Roles and Practices of Core Advocacy Organizations and Direct Service Organizations.” Journal of Policy Practice 9: 164–182.

Komives, Susan R., Wagner, Wendy, and Associates. 2017. Leadership for a Better World. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Kotter, John. 1995. https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation- efforts-fail-2

Kotter, J. 1996. Leading Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lewis, Laurie K., Hamel, Stephanie A., and Richardson, Brian K. 2001. “Communicating Change to Nonprofit Stakeholders: Models and Predictors

Change the Way You Lead Change 15

of Implementors’ Approaches.” Management Communication Quarterly 15, no. 5: 5–41.

McDonald, R.E. 2007. “An Investigation of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations: The Role of Organizational Mission.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Quarterly 36: 256–281.

Mellinger, M.S. 2014. “Beyond Legislative Advocacy: Exploring Agency, Legal, and Community Advocacy.” Journal of Policy Practice 13, no. 1: 45–58.

Merriam, Sharan B. and Tisdell, Elizabeth J. 2016. Qualitative Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, David. 2001. “Successful Change Leaders: What Makes Them? What Do They Do That Is Different?” Journal of Change Management 2, no. 4: 359–368, 10.1080/714042515

Mirvis, Philip. 2017. “Redesigning Business to Serve Society: Joining Organization Development and Social Innovation.” OD Practitioner 49, no. 3: 30–38.

Mosley, J.E. and Ros, A. 2011. “Nonprofit Agencies in Public Child Welfare: Their Role and Involvement in Policy Advocacy.” Journal of Public Child Welfare 5: 297–317.

Ospina, Sonia and Foldy, Erica. 2010. “Building Bridges from the Margins: The Work of Leadership in Social Change Organizations.” The Leadership Quarterly 21: 292–307.

Ott, Steven J. and Dicke, Lisa A. 2016. The Nonprofit Sector. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Patton, M.Q. 2015. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perkins, Douglas D., Bess, Kimberly D., Cooper, Daniel G., Jones, Diana L., Armstead, Theresa, and Speer, Paul W. 2007. “Community Organizational Learning: Case Studies Illustrating a Three-Dimensional Model of Levels and Orders of Change.” Journal of Community Psychology 35, no. 3: 303–328.

Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (5th edition). New York, NY: Free Press.

Ruben, Brent D. and Gigliotti, Ralph A. 2016. “Leadership as Social Influence: An Expanded View of Leadership Communication Theory and Practice.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 23, no. 4: 467–479.

Ruben, B.D. and Stewart, L. 2016. Communication and Human Behavior (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Salamon, Lester M., Sokolowski, Wojciech, Haddock, Megan A., and Tice, Helen S. 2013. The State of Global Civil Society and Volunteering: Latest Findings from the Implementation of the UN Nonprofit Handbook. Working Paper No. 49. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

Schmid, H., Bar, M., and Nirel, R. 2008. “Advocacy Activities in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations: Implications for Policy.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37, no. 4: 581–602.

Shier, M.L. and Graham, J.R. 2013. “Identifying Social Service Needs of Muslims Living in a Post 9/11 Era: The Role of Community-Based Organizations.” Advances in Social Work 14, no. 2: 379–394.

16 Change the Way You Lead Change

Shier, M.L., McDougle, L.M., and Handy, F. 2014. “Nonprofits and the Promotion of Civic Engagement: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the ‘Civic Footprint’ of Nonprofits within Local Communities.” The Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research 5, no. 1: 57–75.

Smollan, Roy K., Sayers, J.G., and Matheny, J. 2010. “Emotional Responses to the Speed, Frequency, and Timing of Organizational Change.” Time and Society 19, no. 1: 28–53.

Spergel, I.A. and Grossman, S.F. 1997. “The Little Village Project: A Community Approach to the Gang Problem.” Social Work 42, no. 5: 456–470.

Stroh, David Peter. 2015. Systems Thinking for Social Change. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Thompson, Janice L. 2002. “The World of the Social Entrepreneur.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 15, no. 5: 412–431.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., and McKelvey, B. 2007. “Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era.” The Leadership Quarterly 18, no. 4: 298–318.

Van de Ven, Andrew H. and Sun, Kangyong. 2011. “Breakdowns in Implementing Models of Organization Change.” Academy of Management Perspectives 25, no. 3: 58–74.

Van Loon, Rens. 2017. Creating Organizational Value through Dialogical Leadership. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Springer.

Volf, Miroslav. 1996. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Weerawardena, Jay, McDonald, Robert E., and Mort, Gillian Sullivan. 2010. “Sustainability of Nonprofit Organizations: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of World Business 45: 346–356.

Weerawardena, Jay and Mort, Gillian Sullivan. 2012. “Competitive Strategy in Socially Entrepreneurial Nonprofit Organizations: Innovation and Differen- tiation.” American Marketing Association 31, no. 1: 91–101.

Change the Way You Lead Change 17