CHANGE MANAGEMENT & HR- Leadership Styles and Change Approaches in HR
CHANGE MANAGEMENT & HR
BLOG 3
Leadership Styles and Change
Approaches in HRM
Introduction
In today’s fast moving business environment, the ability to lead change
effectively has become a crucial capability for HR practitioners and senior
leaders alike. Organizations face constant pressure from digital disruption,
talent shortages, economic shifts, or competitive forces and each type of
change requires the right leadership approach. This is where the frameworks of
Dunphy and Stace (1988) and Thurley (1979) become highly valuable, as they link
leadership styles with types of change, levels of resistance, and organizational
urgency. This article explores their recommendations, focusing on leadership
styles such as collaborative, consultative, directive, and coercive, and
connecting these to incremental vs. transformational change. To make this
practical, the discussion includes real-life examples and highlights what HRM
can learn from these models.
1. Dunphy
& Stace (1988)
Matching Leadership
Style to Change Context
Dunphy and Stace’s contingency model argues that no single
leadership style works for all change situations. Instead, leaders should
adjust their approach depending on organizational circumstances including
internal politics, resistance levels, and urgency. Their model identifies four
key leadership styles
Collaborative Leadership
Collaborative leadership involves wide participation, shared
decision making, and open dialogue. This style works best when,
• The environment is stable or moderately dynamic.
• Resistance is low to moderate.
• Employees have useful knowledge and want to contribute.
HR plays a central role here by creating forums for dialogue, facilitating
cross functional workshops, and ensuring employees feel psychologically safe to
contribute. Collaborative leadership aligns well with incremental change, where
organizations refine processes rather than overhaul them.
Consultative Leadership
Consultative leaders still retain decision making authority
but seek structured input from employees. This approach suits environments were,
• Leadership prefers speed but values employee insight.
• Resistance is moderate.
• The change is somewhat significant but not radical.
HRM supports consultative change through employee surveys, focus groups, and
targeted communications. This approach fits both incremental and smaller
transformational shifts.
Directive Leadership
Directive leadership involves faster decision making with
limited employee involvement.
It is appropriate when,
• Urgency is high.
• Resistance is significant.
• The organization needs clear, authoritative guidance.
Directive leadership is often required during rapid transformational change for
example, during a crisis, major restructuring, or new competitive threat. HR’s
role here is to support leaders through clear communication, reskilling
initiatives, and strong performance management.
Coercive Leadership
Coercive leadership characterized by forceful, top-down
changes used only in extreme situations. These include,
• Organizational survival threats.
• Intense opposition.
• Severe financial or compliance issues.
HR’s involvement becomes highly sensitive, consultation may be limited, and the
focus shifts to legal compliance, restructuring logistics, and risk management.
Dunphy and Stace warn that coercive leadership should be rare due to its
long-term cultural costs.
2. Types of Change:
Incremental vs. Transformational
Incremental vs. Transformational
Dunphy and Stace also distinguish between incremental and transformational
change, enabling HR to evaluate which leadership style fits best.
Incremental Change
Incremental change involves gradual, continuous improvements. Examples include
refining workflows, improving customer service processes, or updating HR
policies.
• Best suited leadership styles- Collaborative or Consultative
• HR’s role- Engagement, communication, skill development, employee involvement
• Benefits - Lower resistance, builds trust, maintains culture
Incremental change aligns naturally with environments where stability exists
and the goal is optimization rather than disruption.
Transformational Change
Transformational change is large-scale, organization-wide, and significantly
alters how the business operates. Examples include digital transformation,
global restructuring, or adopting an entirely new business model.
• Best suited leadership styles- Directive or Coercive (in extreme cases)
• HR’s role- Talent redeployment, leadership development, major communication
strategies, workforce redesign
• Risks-Higher resistance, potential drop in morale, cultural shock
Transformational change benefits from strong, clear leadership that can
navigate uncertainty and urgency.
3.Thurley (1979): Approaches to
Managing Change
Thurley’s five approaches directive, bargained, hearts and
minds, analytical, and action-based complement Dunphy and Stace by offering
additional nuance. Several overlap directly with the leadership styles already
discussed.
Directive Approach
Mirrors directive leadership: the change is imposed by
senior leaders. This is appropriate for high-urgency transformations,
restructures, or compliance-driven changes.
Bargained Approach
Used especially where unions or formal employee groups are
involved. HR negotiates terms, timelines, and impacts. This sits between
consultative and directive leadership depending on negotiation dynamics.
Hearts and Minds Approach
Similar to collaborative leadership, the focus is on
securing emotional commitment. HR plays a major role in storytelling,
culture-building, and engagement.
Analytical Approach
This is driven by data, planning, and structured
problem-solving. Leadership works with HR and analysts to model scenarios,
making it suitable for incremental change.
Action-Based Approach
Similar to agile or experimental change, this method uses
trial-and-error. Leadership encourages teams to experiment; HR supports this
through training, flexible structures, and feedback loops.
Together, Thurley and Dunphy & Stace give HR a full
toolbox for selecting the right approach based on context.
Real-World
Examples
Netflix’s shift from DVD rental to streaming is a powerful
example of directive transformational change. Leadership moved decisively,
reshaping the entire business model. HR had to support major reskilling,
workforce reshaping, and cultural change toward innovation and risk-taking.
This reflected Dunphy & Stace’s view that transformational change requires
strong, centralized direction to overcome resistance and enable rapid shifts
(Hastings, 2015).
Toyota’s “Kaizen” philosophy is a classic example of
collaborative incremental change. Teams at all levels are encouraged to
identify small, ongoing improvements. HR plays a major role in training
employees on problem-solving tools and ensuring a supportive culture. This
aligns perfectly with Dunphy & Stace’s collaborative style and Thurley’s
“hearts and minds” approach (Liker, 2004).
Conclusion
Effective change leadership is not about finding the “best”
style but choosing the right style for the situation. Dunphy and Stace’s model
gives HR practitioners a clear way to match leadership approaches to levels of
resistance, stability, and urgency. Meanwhile, Thurley’s approaches add depth
by highlighting emotional, analytical, and negotiated pathways to change. For
incremental improvements, collaborative and consultative styles help build
involvement and sustain cultural alignment. For transformational shifts,
directive leadership occasionally coercive provides the clarity and speed
needed to navigate upheaval. Ultimately, HR’s responsibility is to guide
leaders in selecting the appropriate style, prepare employees through
communication and capability-building, and ensure that change is both effective
and humane. By understanding these classical models, HR professionals can
better support organizations facing the increasingly complex challenges of
today’s business landscape.
References
Dunphy, D. and Stace, D. (1988)
‘Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change:
Beyond the OD model’, *Organization Studies*, 9(3), pp. 317–334.
Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/017084068800900302
Hastings, R. (2015) Netflix
Culture: Freedom & Responsibility. Netflix. Available at: https://jobs.netflix.com/culture
Liker, J.K. (2004) *The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles. New York: McGraw-Hill. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=5jKfQgAACAAJ
Thurley, K. (1979) ‘Approaches to organizational change’, International Studies of Management & Organization*, 9(3), pp. 1–20.
Chiranthi, this blog gives valuable insight for HR practitioners by matching leadership styles to different types of organizational change. It utilizes Dunphy & Stace’s model and Thurley’s approaches to demonstrate that change leadership is context dependent, factoring in urgency, resistance, and readiness.
ReplyDelete• Incremental change requires collaborative or consultative leadership.
• Transformational change demands a stronger directive action.
The use of Netflix and Toyota examples makes the theory practical and easy to understand. It's a well-structured guide for choosing the right leadership approach in various change situations.
Thank you so much for this thoughtful and well-summarized reflection. I’m really glad the connection between leadership styles and different types of organizational change came through clearly, especially through Dunphy & Stace and Thurley’s frameworks. Your breakdown of when collaborative versus directive leadership is most effective is spot on, and I’m happy the Netflix and Toyota examples helped make the theory more practical. I truly appreciate you taking the time to share such an encouraging and insightful comment.
DeleteIt's important to warn people about the long-term cultural costs of coercive leadership. I've seen companies get short-term compliance by making big changes from the top down, but then they lose trust and talent. The short-term benefits almost never make up for the long-term damage to employee engagement and company culture.
ReplyDeleteYou’ve raised a very important point, and I completely agree with your perspective. Coercive, top-down change may deliver quick wins, but as you said, the long-term cultural cost is almost always far greater eroding trust, increasing turnover, and weakening the very capabilities needed for future transformation. Sustainable change depends on credibility, transparency, and involvement, not fear or pressure. Your practical insight reinforces why leaders must look beyond short-term compliance and focus on building a culture that people genuinely want to support and grow with. Highly appreciate your practical approach on the comment, Thanks again.
DeleteExcellent focus on how leadership styles influence change outcomes. I liked how you showed that directive leadership might work at first but transformational styles often last longer. I think organisations underestimate just how much leadership style must evolve for effective change.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, Shashi, for your thoughtful reflection. I’m really glad the contrast between directive and transformational leadership resonated with your point is absolutely right that many organizations underestimate how much leadership style must evolve for change to truly stick. Short-term direction can initiate movement, but long-term transformation always depends on inspiration, empowerment, and sustained engagement. I truly appreciate you taking the time to share such a meaningful insight.
DeleteThis is a very well-written and insightful analysis of how leadership styles directly influence the success of organizational change. I really like how you connected Dunphy & Stace’s contingency model with Thurley’s approaches to show that there is no one-size-fits-all method leadership must adapt to urgency, resistance, and the scale of change. Your explanation of collaborative, consultative, directive, and coercive styles is clear and practical, and the real-world examples of Netflix and Toyota make the concepts easy to understand. The HR perspective is especially strong, showing how HR practitioners support communication, capability-building, and cultural alignment at each stage. Overall, this blog provides a very balanced and academically grounded view of how HR can guide leaders in selecting the right approach to change.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this encouraging and thoughtful feedback. I truly appreciate how you highlighted the importance of adapting leadership style to the level of urgency and resistance your point reinforces exactly why Dunphy & Stace’s contingency model remains so relevant in today’s organizations. I’m also glad the Netflix and Toyota examples helped bring the theory to life, because practical context is often what makes these models easier to apply. Your observation about HR’s role in capability-building and cultural alignment is spot on, and it’s a perspective I fully agree with. Thank you again for taking the time to share such a meaningful and well-articulated comment.
DeleteHow should HR choose between collaborative and directive leadership when both speed and employee involvement are important during a change?
ReplyDeleteThank you, my friend, for raising such an important and practical question. You’re absolutely right that many real-world change initiatives require both speed and meaningful employee involvement and finding that balance is one of HR’s biggest challenges. I would agree with your point that leadership style can’t be chosen in isolation HR must assess readiness, risks, and the cultural impact before recommending a collaborative or directive approach. At the same time, I’d challenge us to consider whether a hybrid model is sometimes the best path, where leaders set clear non-negotiable priorities (directive) while still co-creating solutions and workflows with employees (collaborative). It’s often in that middle ground that organizations achieve both momentum and commitment.
DeleteThis blog offers an exceptionally valuable, contingency based framework for effective change leadership in HRM. This analysis brilliantly applies Dunphy and Stace's contingency model proving that effective change requires matching leadership style (Collaborative, Consultative, Directive) to the context (incremental vs. transformational change, urgency and resistance). By integrating Thurley's approaches ("Hearts and Minds" vs. "Directive") The blog equips HR with a crucial strategic tool. The examples of Netflix (Directive Transformational) and Toyota (Collaborative Incremental) clearly illustrate why HR must select the appropriate style to ensure successful, sustainable and people centered change.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this generous and insightful reflection. I really appreciate the way you captured the core intention of the blog showing that effective change leadership is always contingent on context rather than a one-size-fits-all formula. Your point about how Dunphy & Stace and Thurley together create a practical decision-making framework for HR is spot on, and I’m glad the Netflix and Toyota examples helped demonstrate how these models play out in real organizations. Your feedback reinforces the importance of HR acting as a strategic guide in selecting the leadership style that ensures not only successful implementation but also sustainable, people-centered transformation.
DeleteUses Dunphy & Stace and Thurley's frameworks to clearly guide HR practitioners by effectively connecting leadership styles with various organizational change types. The practical applications of directive-transformational and collaborative-incremental techniques are demonstrated by the real-world examples of Netflix and Toyota. A quick explanation of how HR may assess the success of these leadership strategies throughout change projects would be one way to improve the blog even further.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for this thoughtful and encouraging feedback it truly means a lot. I’m glad to hear that the use of Dunphy & Stace and Thurley’s frameworks helped make the leadership change alignment clearer from an HR perspective, and that the Netflix and Toyota examples added practical value. Your suggestion about including guidance on how HR can measure the success of different leadership approaches is an excellent point, and I will definitely consider adding a section on key metrics and evaluation methods in future revisions. I really appreciate your support and the constructive insight you’ve shared here.
DeleteThis blog offers a clear and well-articulated analysis of how leadership styles influence the effectiveness of organizational change. By integrating Dunphy and Stace’s contingency model with Thurley’s five approaches, the article successfully demonstrates how different leadership behaviours align with incremental and transformational change contexts. The discussion is strengthened through practical examples such as Netflix and Toyota, illustrating how leadership style determines the pace, participation and cultural impact of change. Overall, the blog provides a comprehensive and theoretically grounded perspective that highlights HR’s strategic role in guiding leaders to select context-appropriate change approaches and ensuring that transitions remain both effective and people-centred.
ReplyDeleteThank you for such a thoughtful comment. I’m really glad the integration of Dunphy & Stace’s model with Thurley’s approaches resonated, as the aim was to show how leadership behavior must shift depending on the scale and nature of change. Your reflection on how the Netflix and Toyota examples clarified the practical impact of leadership style is especially encouraging, because grounding theory in real organizational settings is exactly what I hoped to achieve. I also appreciate your emphasis on HR’s strategic role it’s a vital reminder that effective, people-centered change depends on HR’s ability to guide leaders with both insight and context.
ReplyDeleteHi Chiranthi, What I found especially insightful in this blog is how clearly it illustrates that choosing a leadership style is not just a theoretical exercise, but a strategic decision that shapes employee experience, trust, and long-term cultural stability. The comparison between incremental and transformational change is very practical, because it reminds HR professionals that small improvements require space for voice and collaboration, whereas urgent, disruptive shifts call for clarity and decisive direction. I also appreciate the addition of Thurley’s five approaches. It adds nuance beyond the four leadership styles and reinforces that real change requires both structure and emotional connection. A very thoughtfully constructed piece.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed feedback! I’m glad the focus on leadership style as a strategic decision resonated with you, and that the comparison between incremental and transformational change felt practical. I also appreciate your recognition of Thurley’s five approaches it’s exactly that nuance and combination of structure with emotional connection that I hoped to highlight. Your reflections really capture the balance needed for HR to guide meaningful and sustainable change.
DeleteA well-balanced reflection on how effective change leadership depends on situational fit, not a one-size-fits-all approach. By leveraging models like Dunphy & Stace and Thurley, HR can help leaders choose the right style, whether collaborative or directive, while ensuring change remains both effective and humane. Insightful and highly relevant for today’s complex organizational environments.
ReplyDeleteChiranthi, you highlight an important reality about coercive leadership. Organisations may achieve short-term compliance through top-down pressure, but the long-term cultural cost is significant. Trust erodes, engagement weakens and talented employees eventually leave. The temporary gains rarely compensate for the lasting harm to morale and culture. This is a timely reminder that sustainable leadership requires respect, participation and psychological safety.
ReplyDelete