Turnitin Originality Report

leadership by Student 1 Student

From "Comparison Test - Turnitin" (Instructional Support Test)

Processed on 10-01-08 4:24 PM EDTID: 75577547Word Count: 5743

Overall Similarity Index: 100%

paper text:

1Leadership and Change Management Introduction The gap between designing a new organization on paper and bringing it into reality is the domain of organization change and development. Kurt Lewin, a famous social psychologist, once wrote that a social organism becomes understandable only after one attempt to change it. It often happens that management's awareness for a new organization design emerges only after the start of an intensive change process. And even if it were possible for an omniscient manager to develop a master blueprint before introducing organization change, it is doubtful that other employees would readily accept the new design or have the required skills for making the design work. For these reasons, managers need to be as skillful at handling the question of how to introduce change as they are in diagnosing what needs to be changed (Adams and Spencer, 1986). This essay focuses on large-scale organization change, not on individual or small groups. The latter are obviously essential building blocks to organization change, but do not assure that a larger organizational unit will itself be transformed. Attention to additional variables beyond the individual and group is required in any organizational change, including such dimensions as multiple levels of authority, relationships between departments, environmental forces impinging on the organization, the climate of the organization, and the nature of the work flow that moves across departmental boundaries. In this paper I will discuss the concept of leadership as I have understood from my experience of what I have seen in a professional service firm. I will also discuss the change management process and my role in it. Objectives Of Organization Change If one were to "step back" after observing a number of organization changes, a variety of goals would seem to be present. These goals may be explicit and written down, or they may be implied by the actions of management. On the surface, the most common goals can be categorized under such labels as higher performance, acceptance of new techniques, greater motivation, more innovation, increased cooperation, reduced turnover, and so forth. Organizational changes are frequently directed at one or more of these general goals. Underlying these more obvious goals are usually two overarching objectives: Changes in an organization's level of adaptation to its environment, and Changes in the internal behavioral patterns of employees. Organizations are continually struggling to adapt themselves better to their external environment. Because the management of an organization cannot completely control its environment, they are continually having to introduce internal organizational changes which allow them to cope more effectively with new challenges presented from outside by increased competition, advances in technology, new government legislation, and pressing social demands. Most frequently organizational changes are introduced in "reaction" to these environmental pressures. In some cases, however, changes are made in "anticipation" of future pressures. This latter course, while more difficult to pursue because employees do not recognize its immediate importance, is a standard that can often be applied to organizations that lead rather than follow their industries. Such "proactive" organizations can be said to engage in attempting to change their environments as well as themselves (Basset and Brunning, 1994). The second goal of organization change, to achieve modifications in behavior patterns, becomes obvious if one recognizes that an organization's level of adaptation is not improved unless many of its employees behave differently in relationship to each other and to their jobs. Organizations do not operate through computers but, through people making decisions and every organization has its unique patterns of decision-making behavior. These patterns stem from both formal and informal ground rules, which specify how a "good" manager or employee should behave in relating to others and in making decisions. Thus, any organization change, whether it is introduced through a new structural design or a training program, is basically trying to get employees to adopt new patterns of behavior and ground rules for relating to each other and to their jobs. For organization- wide effects to be felt, these new behavior patterns must emerge not only within superior- subordinate relations, but also between and within work groups, and extend out to include larger subsystems (departments and divisions) of the total organization (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). Approaches To Organization Change Organization change can be introduced through any number of approaches, used singly or in combination. Some approaches emphasize the content of `what' is to be changed; others stress the process of `how' change is to be accomplished. A commonly used conception of `what' approaches is presented in a later reading by Harold Leavitt, who delineates three approaches to organization change "structure, technology, and people." 1"Structural" approach introduces change through new formal guidelines and procedures, (organization chart, budgeting methods, and rules and regulations). "Technological" approaches emphasize rearrangements in workflow, (new physical layouts, work methods, job descriptions, and work standards). "People" approaches stress alterations in attitudes, motivation, and behavioral skills, (new training programs, selection procedures, and performance appraisal schemes). Other descriptions have focused more on the `how' approaches to organization change. Larry Greiner, in another reading based on a survey of previous studies of organization change, identifies seven approaches most frequently used by managers. He categorizes these approaches under three alternative uses of power (Campbell, Draper & Huffington, 1991). 2A. Unilateral Power: The Decree Approach. A "one-way" announcement originating with a person with high formal authority and passed on to those in lower positions. The Replacement Approach. Individuals in one or more key organizational positions are replaced by other individuals. The basic assumption is that organizational changes are a function of a key man's ability. The Structural Approach. Instead of decreeing or injecting new blood into work relationships, management changes the required relationships of subordinates working in the situation. By changing the structure of organizational relationships, organizational behavior is also presumably affected (Chell, 1993). B. Shared Power: The Group Decision Approach. Here we have participation by group members in selecting from several alternative solutions specified in advance by superiors. This approach involves neither problem identification nor problem solving, but emphasizes the obtaining of group agreement to a particular course of action. The Group Problem Solving Approach. This involves problem identification and solution by group discussions. Here the group has wide latitude, not only over choosing the problems to be discussed, but also then in developing solutions to these problems. C. Delegated Power The 1Data Discussion Approach- Presentation and feedback of relevant data to the client system either by a change catalyst or by change agents within the company. Organizational members are encouraged to develop their own analyses of the data, presented in the form of case materials, survey findings, or data reports. The Sensitivity Training Approach. Managers are trained in small discussion groups to be more sensitive to the underlying processes of individual and group behavior. Changes in work patterns and relationships are assumed to follow from changes in interpersonal relationships. Sensitivity approaches focus upon interpersonal relationships first, then hope for, or work toward, improvements in work performance. Although both Leavitt's and Greiner's conceptions are useful, they can be taken too simplistically, one can infer that "structural" approaches are formal, impersonal, and arbitrary, while "people" oriented approaches are more humanistic and democratic. This quite obviously does not have to be the case. Alterations in organization structure can have a strong "people" focus in terms of trying to promote more collaboration or give more autonomy to managers. On the other hand, a "people" approach, such as one based on sensitivity training, can, if used inappropriately, turn out to be quite coercive and stifling to individual autonomy and creativity. In addition, more than one approach will have to be used in any organization change. For example, a "people" approach, implemented through the use of a training program to teach new behavioral skills, may fall flat if new structural arrangements are not found to encourage the application of these learned skills on the job. Notwithstanding these qualifications, one can identify certain common denominators, which cut across all approaches. Managers need to give recognition to these denominators because they imply important choices, which have to be consciously considered rather than left to default (Board, 1998). A) Plan (From Structured To Unstructured) The process of change can be carefully planned in advance with a particular strategy imposed on the situation. Or it can be allowed to emerge as various issues become clearer to the people involved. Some changes can be introduced through a series of detailed steps and timetables, such as "Tomorrow morning the top team has to get together and decide such and such." Or it can be more open-ended, such as, "Let's send all our key managers off to a training program and let them apply whatever they learn in their own individual ways." B) Power (from Unilateral to Delegate) While the introduction of change through a new formal structure may at first glance seem like a very "directive" approach, many organizations have permitted plants or departments to design their own structures in place of having one imposed upon them. In contrast, an educational approach to change, while seemingly nondirective, can be imposed and administered in a very directive and mechanical fashion. At heart here is the issue of power --who is making the decisions and on what basis? Unilateral decisions tend to be based on the positional authority of top people, while delegated decisions depend more on the knowledge and skill of lower level managers (Fisher & Torbert, 1995). C) Relationships (from Impersonal to Personal) Every approach can take on very personal or impersonal overtones. An educational approach can directly confront managers on their personal leadership styles or it can impersonally acquaint them with new style alternatives through lectures and readings. A new structure can be implemented with much discussion and explanation of personal implications or it can be described in the impersonal tones of a formal document. Just how far one goes in terms of personal considerations is a difficult but important decision to be made in any change process. D) Tempo (from Revolutionary to Evolutionary) All approaches take on a particular tone in terms of just how far and how fast the change process should evolve. A structural change can begin with many far-reaching changes or it can start more modestly, on the assumption that wider changes will gradually evolve. Much testing will go on as a change takes its course to determine and clarify the limits of the change process. In some situations it may make sense for the process to happen in a piecemeal and gradualistic fashion, while in others it may require a more immediate and wide-ranging approach to provoke the changes required in the behavior of employees. My experience suggests that orthodox adherence to extremes on any one of these dimensions is not likely to be very effective. Rather, the intriguing challenge, I believe, is to find new and complementary combinations of these extremes--such as a structured plan that permits unstructured actions to emerge. For example, certain degrees of structure may be essential for bringing together appropriate people and focusing their attention on specific problems. Beckhard's article on "The Confrontation Meeting" illustrates how key managers can be required to attend a meeting and discuss change-related issues in a planned sequence. At the same time, solutions to the problems identified by these managers are not planned in advance. Rather they design and "tailor-make" their own solutions as they interact within a structured problem-solving atmosphere (Harrison & Robertson, 1985). Thus organization change is far more complex than the particular approach used to implement change. A variety of forces are usually at work before any approach is even decided upon. In addition, once a particular approach comes into contact with a complex organization, many unanticipated problems are likely to arise. Too often managers are quick to grab for a neatly packaged approach to change without knowing if it is appropriate to their situation. Their action-oriented concerns frequently take them into questions of what should happen before they are sufficiently clear on what is actually happening. One way for a manager to get at what is actually happening is to have in mind a conceptual framework about the change process. This can help him avoid the pitfall of falling back on his own assumptions and intuitions about change, which frequently say more about the particular manager than about his situation. The principal overarching concept is to think of organization change as an evolving series of stages. It is quite clear from research findings that organization change does not occur in one fell swoop. Rather there are obvious phases, which set necessary conditions for moving into subsequent stages. Omission of one stage appears to make it exceptionally difficult for the change process to continue forward on an effective basis. When top management overlooks an early stage, they often find themselves frustrated and perplexed as resistance grows at lower levels. A common response at this point is to "push harder" instead of recognizing that numerous managers, including themselves, may have to learn to crawl before they walk (Hirschhorn, 1988). The professional service firm Professional service firms, commonly organized as partnerships and exemplified by accounting, legal, consulting and certain engineering and medical organizations, have unique problems of management. Managing the professional firm has always been problematic. Professionals in a partnership have been described as "unmanageable", and their firms as being managed "badly or not at all." Central to the issue are the tensions created by the form of ownership, the nature of professional work, the needs and personalities of professional employees and the benefits of good management. Characteristics of Professional Service Firms The type of firm with which I have been associated unlike a typical business company is a professional partnership and therefore faces a multitude of problems especially regarding managerial challenges. First, ownership, management and the production of work all reside with the same individuals. Second, the nature of the work, which is the application of knowledge learned through extensive training and experience to a series of incrementally different but complex situations, is unique (Avolio, 2000, 173-209). Its essence is the ability to fit knowledge and experience to new situations requiring judgment. Third, professionals build their own roles; groups and teams tend to be informally defined, based on their interests and ability to work together and with clients. Fourth, there are relatively high levels of political activity, with everyone involved in small amounts of administrative detail, and, to preserve equality and maintain the diffusion of power, there is a rotation through management positions. Such work and organization characteristics either attract or develop unique individuals. Independence, autonomy and self-confidence, the common personal qualities required for professional work, are qualities that also create many dilemmas for management. Problems of Management Mergers and acquisitions have created firms, and according to my observance, several hundred partners are not uncommon and, size and growth have many advantages, they have also created new management problems in both the structure of the firm (the number and type of management positions) and the systems and procedures required for effective firm functioning (recruitment, selection, training, development, performance evaluation, compensation, information and billing systems) (Avolio, 2000, 173-209). Professionals have a hard time adjusting to hierarchy and new management systems; yet many firms have become too large and too complex to be managed by multiple layers of committees and by other organizational forms designed to preserve participation, consensus and the democracy of one partner, one vote. As far as I have experienced, confronting and resolving these management issues is a significant challenge. They are searching for answers, recognizing that better management is needed. There is, however, no obvious, or "one best solution" to the question of what structure and management processes make sense for them. There are issues to consider and processes to follow. There are inhibitors and constraints (Bass, 1995, 21). Like professional work itself, implementing better management requires diagnosis, reference to principles and the introduction and modification of ideas based on a sensitivity to the fit of proposed solutions. Forces Affecting the Management Issues After years of service I have observed that there are some common forces affecting the management issues in firms: The Effects of Growth - recent factors have precipitated the need for growth are: <ol> <li value="1"> The reduction of barriers across and between nations has opened new territory previously closed to competition, <li value="2"> The adoption of national and global perspectives by client firms has led to expectations that professional firms provide services on the same national and global basis, <li value="3"> The increases in complexity and interdependence between professional specialties has resulted in clients expecting full services from their professional firms, <li value="4"> The recent propensity of clients to bring professional work in-house and to spread work among firms has had the effect of shifting professional work to large-scale projects and more specialized fields, <li value="5"> The increase in overhead, staff and business development costs, along with considerable client resistance to fee increases, has squeezed profits and initiated moves where economies of scale can spread fixed costs over a larger base, <li value="6"> The maturation of the marketplace has produced increasing competitive pressure and the consequent search for product and market diversification. </ol> The Effects of Size - advantages of an increase in size include: <ol> <li value="1"> Greater ability to attract and retain top professionals. <li value="2"> Increased ability to attract and keep larger clients and bill larger fees. <li value="3"> Improved ability to act quickly and in force on client matters requiring rapid response. <li value="4"> Greater capacity for diversification. <li value="5"> Expanded economies of scale and scope, particularly in the areas of staff training and development, new services development, back office support and firm marketing and promotion. <li value="6"> A stronger position in the competition for labor -- the key strategic resource. <li value="7"> Less vulnerability to the loss of key partners. <li value="8"> Greater ability to raise capital, Less instability due to variations in workloads and downturns in the economy. <li value="9"> The Professional Environment (Bass, 1995, 21) </ol> The professional environmental pressures faced by the firm tend to influence the style, if not the structure, of management. With abundance and stability, systems of management tend to be democratic, participative and consensus-building; the inefficiency of democracy seems acceptable. But where there is complexity, turmoil and scarcity, more direction and centralization in response to difficult problems becomes appropriate; strong leadership seems preferable. With power diffuse and consensus building the norm, can a firm act with vigor, speed and decisiveness when faced with a crisis or opportunity? (Bass, 1995, 21)Consensus building often results in much wasting of time, slowness of response and conservatism in action, and becomes more difficult as the interest and activities of the firm and its partners become more diverse. Smallness and homogeneity make consensus building possible; size and diversity make it difficult. For a number of firms, the days of bounty have passed size and diversity are the reality, and making all decisions of consequence with a management system based on consensus can be less than appropriate. While the observation of these realities is often apparent, the capacity for change and the problems of transition are difficult. The Firm's Competitive Strategy As far as I have observed, with the imperatives for growth, the professional firm has a limited number of strategic options. It can enlarge the practice areas in which it is involved, diversify into new practice areas or diversify into new geographic or business markets (Bass, 1995, 21). The mechanisms for pursuing these strategies include the development of people internally, bringing in of one or a few individuals who have particular expertise, and mergers. The choice of strategy and the mechanisms for carrying it out have a significant impact on the firm's system of management. The merger of two partnerships is by far the most problematic, mainly because in the professional firm the psychological investment in culture and process is considerable. A key stumbling block in mergers is often the integration and resolution of the processes of the different systems of management. The need to resolve these issues prior to a merger is evident. The difficulties in implementation, which involve overcoming resistance, are often underestimated. Mergers require change and integration, internal development and lateral entry mean socialization. Internal development probably has the least effect on the management system, since individuals are brought into the firm at junior levels and gradually socialized to accept current systems of management (Avolio, 2000, 173-209). As far as I have observed, the strategy of internal development is not without difficulties, however, since new employees often bring changed expectations and attitudes about issues of management. Lateral entry at the partnership level is often used to diversify into new field and is either the acquisition of instant expertise or business generating ability. Since both of these are sources of power within the firm, a strategy of diversification through lateral entry has the potential to create conflict in the management system. Decisions on lateral entry require consideration of the potential benefits to the firm, the potential fit of individuals with the firm's culture and processes, and possible shifts in the distribution of power. Lateral entries create more problems for management than internal development, but they are considerably less problematic than mergers (Bass, 2003, 29-40). As far as I have observed, while strategic choice and the mechanisms for implementation influence the management system, the reverse is also true. The capacity to respond with speed to either crisis or opportunity can be hindered or facilitated by the system of management. If all decisions of consequence require consensus, opportunities can be lost and crises unresolved when intervention is most appropriate. Adaptability, flexibility, speed and entrepreneurship require a focus for decision making (Bass, 2003, 29-40). Without an appropriate system of management, the capacity to formulate and implement strategy is difficult. The Nature of Professional Work With the professional firm the freedom to act with minimal constraint is often justified by noting the uniqueness of professional work and the need to customize activities to fit client needs. True professional work is creative, complex and unique, involves more art than science and is best organized using forms of management devoid of both hierarchy and bureaucracy. In contrast, in services where the technology is well established, and where specialization and the division of labor are possible, work becomes more routine and is easier to manage. In this sense, the management system of the firm becomes a function of the proportion of routine to unusual work. Services also tend to mature over time. Work that began as unique and creative, changes to activities that can be completed following well-specified procedures (Bass, 2003, 29-40) With standardized procedures, services can be leveraged, and while this effect influences profitability (lower fees but higher leverage), it also changes the nature of the work. The need for the coordination of professional work puts pressure on the management system. Numerous client tasks become complex, requiring a diverse set of skills. Within the firm, to complete client work successfully, the response is to develop specialists with greater interdependence. Specializing and differentiating the elements of the firm also require increased coordination, but coordinating roles tend to create hierarchy in substance, if not in form. The Characteristics of the Professional Perhaps the most salient psychological characteristic of those who choose professional careers is a strong need for autonomy. Individuals choose professional work because it is not routine and structured. Professionals also seem to be significantly influenced by the need for status and prestige, both of which tend to create an aversion to hierarchy. Systems of management influence both autonomy and status, which is certified by the decision making processes. Professionals tend to resist management, fearing limits to their power, to their right to judge a situation as they see fit and to use their own time according to their preferences (Bass, 2003, 29- 40). Perhaps the most critical factor in managing professionals is leadership. As is often noted "professionals can't be driven, they have to be led -- or they don't follow" The Leadership Requirements In the professional firm, both management and leadership, which require different skills and abilities, are required. The confusion between the two arises when, in an effort to resolve problems related to growth and size, leaders become managers. Whereas leadership must address the core competence and mission of the firm, management must attend to processes supportive of service delivery and firm functioning. Management is necessary, but leadership is crucial. In professional partnerships where alternative types of power compete for influence, where participants value independence and where individuals identify less with the firm and more with the profession gaining the consent of the governed is difficult. With professionals, the process of influence must be subtle, using persuasion, negotiation and consensus building. Effective leaders inspire, consult and interact (Bass, 2003, 29-40). Perhaps above all, the leadership of professionals requires credibility. In the professional firm, leaders need to be worthy of their followers -- a respect most often gained by being a superior professional or a business generator. Professionals can only be led successfully by other professionals. As far as I have observed, it is the need for credibility in combination with the skills required that makes leadership scarce, but for professionals, there are significant tradeoffs in assuming leadership roles. Time spent on satisfying and often highly-rewarding professional work is given up for the uncertain rewards and frustrations of leadership activity. For the leader, the competing attractions of professional work and leadership activity is a dilemma often unresolved (Bass, 2003, 29-40). The Management Structure and Distribution of Power In professional partnerships one of the greatest challenges of leadership is making changes to systems of management. For many partnerships the inability to resolve the forces affecting management has led to working in many kinds of half-way houses. The firm is left with nominal management -- form without substance, positions without power. For a partnership, the management structure of the firm is a critical problem in development. Managing Partnerships Successfully There is little empirical evidence to support prescriptions for success in managing partnerships. There are, however, needs that can be identified, eight of which are presented below, each accompanied by a proposition suggesting a change in management. They are intended to stimulate discussion within the firm rather than to provide pat answers. These needs are: 1. The Need for Defined Roles A management system is an instrument of human action, a means of achieving goals. Several roles need to be played and several constituencies rep, resented. A system will be successful to the extent that roles are defined, constituencies represented and incumbents capable. When systems of management are changed, it is important that there be clarity and understanding of the activities and responsibilities of the new roles that are defined and that they are accounted for in the performance evaluation and compensation systems. Without clarity of responsibilities along with adequate rewards, the pre-eminence of client work will reduce the focus on important firm issues (pinto, 2002, 406-9). In redefining management, as far as I have observed, adequate representation of the constituencies of the firm must also be considered. Generally speaking, the broader the representation the better; Broad representation, especially in the most important positions and committees, helps communicate and resolve issues of fairness and equity. As the firm becomes more differentiated, adequate representation helps deal with typical concerns about centralized power. When new roles have been defined, people to fulfill them should be chosen based on the skills and abilities required (pinto, 2002, 406-9). Significant problems will occur when people are chosen based on criteria unrelated to fulfilling the activities of the role adequately. In such situations the firm usually suffers in two ways: it loses important skills and abilities in one area, and suffers inadequate performance in another. 2. The Need for New Mechanisms Change in organization structure is a necessary but not sufficient condition to shift the balance of power in the direction of intentions. Such shifts tend to occur when mechanisms that alter patterns of interaction and decision making accompany changes in organization structure. The simple modification of structure, such as creating practice area heads, will not, on its own, transfer the intentions of change into effective systems of management. A change in the systems without the mechanisms required to alter behavior such as budgets, information or manpower, leaves the individuals in whom power is vested without the tools for expressing and representing to others their intentions to act. Also moderating the conversion of intentions into effective management is the motivation of the individual, for whom the requirements of position must be consistent with personal needs, interests and aspirations. Power in the hands of the timid, uninterested or distracted is of little use. 3. The Need for Choice There is no one best solution for the problem of management in the professional firm. There are a number of solutions, all of which are equally acceptable, and from which a choice must be made. Changing a system of management means establishing, in advance of performance, the methods of work and areas of responsibility for each position in the structure; The intent is to direct energy and alter behavior according to an overall plan of organization function. It is difficult, if not impossible, in any given firm to demonstrate in rational terms that one particular system of management yields a higher payoff than another (pinto, 2002, 406-9). What can be demonstrated is that a proposed system of management is different from others, will provide more power to some individuals and groups is used elsewhere and seems to work satisfactorily, and that there are a number of equally acceptable solutions to the problem of management. 4. The Need for Restructuring While systems of management can be changed, they should not be tinkered with. Problems in the area of management are often signalled by chronic recurrence of problems related to the operations of the firm. In the search for solutions, there is a tendency to engage in minor adjustments that alone are inadequate and that, over time, result in a patchwork of changes that fail to address critical issues. Such tinkering often reflects the lack of resolve to confront significant problems, and as a result, problems endure, the organization never solidifies and energy is diverted from accomplishing quality work. 5. The Need for and Importance of Process When systems of management are changed, the process is critical to the outcome. In my firm changes in the management of a partnership entail a redistribution of the power originally residing in ownership. Most critical to this change is achieving the consent of the governed (pinto, 2002, 406- 9). The objective is to authorize a leadership cadre that will take hold of the firm's development problems and potential and govern in a way consistent with culture. 6. The Need for Consensus In general, developing a consensus on the need for change is a critical factor in modifying systems of management and indeed, no issue requires greater consensus, as successful change is most likely to occur only where there is debate, consultation and involvement. This consensus is particularly critical in a partnership of professionals. In organizations where authority systems are fragile and where power is diffuse, commitment to change can never be taken for granted (Schneider, 1997, 40). Commitment springs from an agreement on need, which is particularly important when changes may challenge traditional values of autonomy and independence. While successful change requires more than a consensus on need, it will surely fail without it. 7. The Need to Maintain the Firm's Traditions and Values Changes in systems of management must recognize the values and traditions of the firm. Professional firms have distinct and varied cultures that often originated with the founding partners or significant leaders (Weber, 1997, 29). The culture, as defined by values and traditions, and sustained by the characteristics of the firm's administrative systems, is of psychological importance. For the professional, knowledge of the firm's distinguishing culture is often instrumental in the choice of employment and the degree of satisfaction with work. Changes in management will be facilitated to the extent that proposed modifications are consistent with the distinctive culture, helping to protect it and enabling it to develop. 8. The Need for Recognition and Reward Changing systems of management redistributes power, and those who perceive their power to be reduced will resist; those whose power is increased will be supportive. Resistance to change within systems of management occurs when the effect of the change is to alter the balance of power in the firm without the implementation of offsetting compensations (pinto, 2002, 406- 9). New systems of management must provide rewards that sustain the willingness to accept influence. Changes in management have differential effects on individuals - some may perceive gains and others losses in relative power. Open to debate is the question of whether management can be changed such that everyone gains power while the effectiveness of the organization also increases. If, when systems of management are changed, individuals experience a relative loss of power it is rational for them to experience the shift as deprivation and to resist the change through individual and collective action (Yammarino, 2000, 400). The potential losses to individuals, whose services are highly valued, will usually merit considerable attention and perhaps lead to the outright modification of planned changes. Critical to the issue is the clarity of how change will result in a more effective organization and, consequently, will facilitate the capacity of key individuals to transcend personal goals for the overall benefit of the firm. Conclusion In recent years many forces have influenced professional partnerships and brought into focus the inadequacies of traditional management systems. Similar has been the case in my firm. Transition difficulties are related to the ambivalence over alternate systems and to the problems in the management of change. As far as I have observed, with size and growth there arises a need for a new partnership process that supports an authentic leadership cadre and management system. Its essence lies in a more differentiated partnership in which leadership and performance are unambivalently acknowledged and in which collegiality is preserved. Changes in management require more than the simple relating of means to ends. According to my experience and observance, between the initiation of change and its successful outcome stands a process of synthesis in which individuals resolve organizational imperatives with personal ambitions. For the professional firm, the issue rests on complex social-psychological forces and is a significant problem in development.