a. What are the authors trying to do in writing this?
Whilst this is not empirical research and relies solely on theoretical arguments, Burns does demonstrate the shortcomings of the change contingency model. He attempts to show that organisations have choices which are not utilised which results in significant, negative, implications. b. What are the authors saying which is relevant to what I want to find out? Change could be planned but only in a stable environment. Change, in this situation would be, incremental, not transformational, and ignorant of a more direct approach and presumes that common agreements are reached.
However Burns suggest the emergent approach is more important in turbulent environments and situations. He also argues that change is part of learning not just the opportunity to create something new. This idea does link to the contingency theory such that organisations and leaders can manipulate contingencies to align with their own styles and agendas. This is a negative aspect which could be viewed as morally incorrect. Change approaches must match the environment and situation though exercising choice base on alternatives not a single best way. c. How convincing is the authorâ€™s argument?
Although not empirically based this is a good argument. Burns has a very good reputation in the field of change leadership/management. However it would be necessary to find additional evidence to support or counter these views. The RAVEN test is passed as there is no empirical research therefore we can imply that this paper is simply an academic view. d. In conclusion, what use can I make of this?
This could be linked to the paper by Zhu et al to show how transformational leadership can be a good approach to ensure moral decision making and actions are present when dealing with emergent change as this requires a number of contingencies which leaders and followers could use too support long term organisational change.