Robert H. Guest, Paul Hersey
& Kenneth H. Blanchard
Organizational Change Through Effective Leadership

by Don Brown

Introduction
As succinctly stated in their concluding remarks, the authors of Organizational Change through Effective Leadership held dual purpose in creating their work; first, helping readers “become more sensitized to the systemic complexities” of organizational change (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 173) and second, “sharing the insights of those who have studied organizational change” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 173). Themselves dedicated practitioners of the applied behavioral sciences; the authors provide us a panoramic view of an organizational case study - “Plant Y” - through a lens of the classics of organizational behavior. In this comprehensive work, I believe that the authors endeavor and succeed in building upon the foundation established by Dr. Douglas McGregor; that “the manager, vis-à-vis the social sciences will one day be no different than that of the engineer vis-à-vis the physical sciences or the doctor vis-à-vis chemistry or biology” (The Human Side of Enterprise, McGregor, 2006, p.7).

The following article is organized by first touching upon the subject case study itself, an inventory of the contextual models used in interpreting the case study, a discussion of what appear to be the critical success factors responsible for the success of “Plant Y”, and finally, a series of questions for further discussion of this classic work of Guest, Hersey and Blanchard.

The Case Study – Plant Y
Plant Y, the subject case study of Organizational Change through Effective Leadership, is identified by the authors only as “a patient who was acutely ill and who became extremely healthy…the ‘patient’ was not a person but a management, the management of a large, complex, industrial organization” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 2). The case covers a three-year span of time, covering what are termed to be periods of disintegration, change and retrospection.  The authors very clearly differentiate their case in four ways:

1. “it describes a real-life experience…covering many dimensions” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 2). This is as close to reality as we can get, with lots of variables.
2. “this real-life case not only gives ‘before and after’ data on the organization studied, but focuses on the process of change itself” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 2). The people and process are as much a part as the numbers.
3. “this case study contains an unusually complete set of performance indices” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 2). Far too many studies today stop short of capturing specific, measurable, end-result variables.
4. “controlling ‘constants’ in the situation made it possible to concentrate on the behavior of the new top manager and his role in the process of change” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 3). Because Plant y was one of five other identical plants, meaningful comparative data was plentiful, and causal variables – specifically the change in leadership – could readily be isolated.

Guest, Hersey and Blanchard do a very thorough job up-front of establishing for the reader the organizational structure of Plant Y (personally, I have my guess as to the plant’s parent company – the authors never do reveal it). They also position and detail early on their framework for analysis under the Administrative/Structural, Decision-Making/Information, Economic/Technical, and Human/Social subsystems. The book itself is set up with the case study printed on the right side pages, and accompanying analysis pages on the left. Readers are encouraged to read through only the case study pages first - the entire book - without reading analysis or interpretive pages. Then, on re-reading the case we asked to do so with benefit of also reading the authors’ observations and insights immediately to the left of each segment of the case study.

The Contextual Material
Throughout the book, the authors take the time to not only interpret their case study via the classic contextual models and theories of organizational behavior – but to also present each one in a succinct, eminently understandable fashion. Where else can you receive both an accelerated schooling in upwards of 25 of the most powerful models and theories available, along with their application to a true-to-life slice of industrial history? In fact, the authors’ final summary analysis is probably the most comprehensive 12 pages of organizational commentary you could ever find.

Guest, Hersey and Blanchard divide their summary analytical efforts with Plant Y into the theoretical categories they have used through the work, “(1) motivation and behavior, (2) leadership, and (3) change” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 160). A quick inventory of those components would include:

• Motivation; Maslow-Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg-Motivation/Hygiene Theory, McClelland-Achievment/Motivation Theory, Homans-Activities/Interactions/Sentiments Model, Argyris-Immaturity/Maturity Concept, Berne and Harris-Transactional Analysis
• Leadership; Blake, Shepard and Mouton-Model for Managing Intergroup Conflict, McGregor-Theory X/Theory Y, Argyris-XA/YB, Tannenbaum/Schmidt-Leadership Continuum, Michigan Leadership Styles, Cartwright and Zander-Group Dynamics Studies, Ohio State Leadership Studies, Blake and Mouton-The Managerial Grid, Likert-Patterns of Management, Fiedler-Leadership Contingency Model, Lawrence/Lorsch-Differentiation and Integration Model, Hersey/Blanchard-Situational Leadership Theory,
• Change; Lewin-Force Field Analysis, Hersey/Blanchard-Change Cycles, Lewin-Unfreezing / Changing / Refreezing, Kelman-Mechanisms for Change, Guest-Sociotechnical Cycle Theory.

Each of these contextual models or theories, when first presented in the book, is offered with an explanation of its tenets and premise. Further reference to each provides only “analytical remarks” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 160) appropriate to Plant Y.

Critical Success Factors
An overriding theme throughout the book was the authors’ obvious desire to help the reader learn and grow through the experience of digesting the case study and contextual theories and models. Guest, Hersey and Blanchard quote Robert Merton early on in their concurrence that “More is learned from a single success than from multiple failures. A single success proves it can be done. Therefore, it is necessary to learn what made it work.” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. viii). I believe that the critical success factors - what made Plant Y work - can best be explained through the work of; Hersey and Blanchard, H.C. Kelman, Robert Guest and Raymond Miles.

1. Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard – Accessing both the Situational Leadership model, as well as Hersey and Blanchard’s work in Change Cycles, what is most evident is the demonstration of an effective match. Leadership style and follower maturity were in sync in that “Cooley started almost immediately using a high task/high relationship leadership style, which was appropriate for the maturity potential of many in the management hierarchy” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 170). Not only did Cooley match his style to follower maturity to begin with, but continued to match as maturity grew, until “the management of Plant Y was able to operate essentially on its own with little direction or support from Cooley” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 170). All of this is evidence of Cooley effectively applying “participatory change methods, which emphasize the use of personal power and general supervision” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 171). Stewart’s futile attempts to use coercive change methods, while perhaps deemed quicker, led to “animosity and hostility” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 38) and ultimately the removal of Stewart.
2. H.C. Kelman – Through his theories of mechanisms for change, Kelman discusses three “processes for changing the attitudes or behavior of people: compliance, identification and internalization” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 42). It was through the rare opportunity for identification that Plant Y was able to succeed. “Identification occurs when one or more models are provided in the environment, from whom an individual can learn new behavior patterns by identifying with them and trying to become like them” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 42). Cooley provided this all-important model that managers could identify with and eventually replicate.  Without that model, the internalization of more effective practices would never have taken place.
3. Robert Guest and Raymond Miles – For this reader, the enlightening power of the work of Guest and Miles comes not in reference to a single theory or model with their name on it, but instead almost in passing mention on three pivotal pages. Robert Guest, one of the co-authors of the book is himself footnoted 22 times, but it is his thoughts around “span of cognition” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 106), and “leeway to act” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 118) that are most meaningful to me.  By Cooley’s allowing managers to have “a greater awareness of, knowledge about, and interest in the role of others” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 106) several functional walls of isolation, lack of cooperation and integration came tumbling down. This increased awareness, coupled with the time and “permission to act without constant dictation by superiors” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 118) allowed the management team of Plant Y to grow to levels of self-directed maturity.

1. Within the summary analysis of the period of disintegration, it is stated that “Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey and Blanchard) is an outgrowth of the leadership model developed at Ohio State University” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 65) – can you tell me more about how this came about? Was there personal involvement by Dr. Hersey and Dr. Blanchard in the Ohio State studies? What were the most and least relevant outcomes of the Ohio State Studies?
2. Within that same summary analysis we read from Guest, Hersey and Blanchard that if a high task / low relationship style is “continually used, it leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy – that is, if one repeatedly treats people as if they are less mature than they are, eventually an ineffective cycle will begin to develop” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 71). Is this not what Dr. Blanchard’s subsequent changes to the Situational Leadership model (the current SLII) prescribe? How is this seeming contradiction of using high amounts of task behavior and low amounts of relationship behavior – with a follower of low to moderate maturity (M2) - diffused or explained?
3. What was the genesis of this book? What was the previous relationship between Dr. Hersey and Dr. Guest?