The European Business Review - July-August 2019

82 The European Business Review July - August 2019

In times of dual transformation, the challenge of

making sense could be greater because the leaders

need to find out and understand the situation that

embraces two changes. Since all the subsequent

leadership tasks rely on the credibility of sense-

making outcomes, leaders must get it right. Leaders

are not only required to make sense of transfor-

mation A and B, but also the interdependencies

between them. What makes sense for transforma-

tion A may undermine the message delivered for

bringing about transformation B, and vice versa.

Back to the Apple example, if the new iPhone were

advanced enough that people don’t need to rely on

using laptops anymore, the transformation of Mac

computers business wouldn’t take off. So, leaders of

dual transformation need to engage in the sense-

making process for transformation A that goes

hand-in-hand with the one for transformation B.

Likewise, the sense-giving process for transfor-

mations A and B needs to be aligned. Sense-giving

is the method of communicating the outcomes of

sense-making (e.g. the vision). It is about the dialogue

that leaders have to have with stakeholders. Leaders

need to disseminate their interpretation of a new and

better reality resulted from the sense-making process.

Leaders need to win the trust of others by assuring

them that their organisations have the capability

to pursue the change, explaining the value of the

new state, and demonstrating that the status quo is

unsustainable. Again, the interdependencies between

transformations A and B is crucial here. For example,

highlighting the benefits of transformation A may

make change recipients suspect the value of trans-

formation B, and vice versa. Giving sense to those

affected by the change has to be in alignment with

transformations A and B.

Leaders of dual transformation also have to give

sense to change recipients when it comes to miti-

gating resistance. Studies on resistance to change

explored strategies such as participation, manipu-

lation, and coercion. Each of these strategies may

require different modifications in the case of dual

transformation since some change recipients might

be mutually affected by the change. Participating

change recipients in transformation A who may

potentially resist transformation B may negatively

affect their participation in transformation A and

vice-versa. Manipulation could lead to future prob-

lems if change recipients feel manipulated. This

could be too risky particularly for dual transfor-

mation leaders as the discovery of manipulation

by change recipients of transformation A would

lead to unfortunate results to transformation B.

Coercionis theleastfavourablestrategytomitigate

changerecipients’resistance.However,intimesof

dualtransformation,changeleadersneedtorecon-

sidertheirpoweroverbothtransformationsA and

B aswellastheirchangerecipients’power.Thisis

essentialbecausea groupof changerecipientsmay

holdminimalpowerovertransformationA buthas

theabilitytoderailtransformationB.

To conclude, the research about leading dual

transformationis stillininfancyandthisis because,

perhaps,there arestillfewexamplesof companies

thatundertookdualtransformation.However,with

theadvanced technologythatis changingtheenvi-

ronmentandcreatedthefourthindustrialrevolution

causedbyAI,InternetofThings(IoT),bigdata,and

manyothers,one canexpectthatmanycompanies

havetogothroughdualtransformation.Thus,it is

worthnotingthatfuturestudiesneedtoexplorehow

leadersof dualtransformationengagein theprocess

ofsense-makingandsense-givingandtowhatextent

theyaredifferentfromothertypesofchanges.

AbouttheAuthor

Yazeed Alhezzani, PhD is Organiza-

tional Change consultant at a global

consultancy firm. He worked at several

academic institutions as a research super-

visor at WMG Department at Warwick

University and as an Associate Tutor at Coventry

University Group. He is associated to the management

team of the Management Consulting Division, the

Academy of Management.

References

1. Gilbert, C., Eyring, M. and Foster, R.N (2012) Two routes to
   resilience. Harvard Business Review, 90: 65-73.


2. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell.


3. Ancona, D.M., Thomas, W., Orlikowski, W.J. and Senge, P.M (2007)
   In praise of the incomplete leader. Harvard Business Review, 85: 92–100.

Sense-giving is

the method of

communicating

the outcomes of

sense-making

(e.g. the vision).

It is about the

dialogue that

leaders have

to have with

stakeholders.

Leaders continuously engage in the process of sense-

making by seeking data from various sources, using

observations to design small experiments to test

ideas, and through involving others in diagnosing

current issues to get different perspectives.

Leading Change