Cited by 135Organizational Change and LeadershipOrganizational Management and ChangeLeadership and Management in Organizations

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 54 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully? A Study of the Behaviors of Successful Change Leaders

Higgs, Malcolm, Rowland, Deborah·2011·The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

Abstract

This article seeks to explore the impact of leaders’ behaviors on the successful implementation of change. A qualitative empirical study of change leader behaviors based on interviews with leaders from 33 organizations is presented. Analyses of the data indicated that leader-centric behaviors have an adverse impact on change implementation. In contrast, behaviors that may be described as being more facilitating and engaging are positively related to change success. Four critical behavior sets are identified. It was evident that leaders who experienced the highest levels of success deployed all four of the behavior sets and minimal presence of leader-centric behaviors. The study findings provide support for some of the recent research into change leadership. However, they provide a more detailed picture of the nature of behaviors associated with successful change implementation. The article concludes with a brief discussion of limitations and areas for further research.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a qualitative study of 65 change stories from leaders in 33 organizations, leader-centric “Shaping” behaviors were adversely related to change implementation success, while facilitating and engaging “Framcap” behaviors were positively related. Leaders with the highest success deployed all four Framcap behavior sets and showed minimal presence of leader-centric behaviors.

Key findings

  • Leader-centric behaviors (Shaping) had an adverse impact on change implementation, whereas more facilitating and engaging behaviors were positively related to change success; four critical behavior sets were identified: Attractor, Edge and Tension, Container, and Transforming Space (together labeled “Framcap”).
  • Less successful changes showed a far higher proportion of dominant Shaping behaviors and relatively low Framcap behaviors; more successful changes showed dominance of Framcap behaviors, with the most successful group generally showing limited Shaping.
  • The most successful changes were associated with a broadly balanced deployment of all four Framcap subcategories; in the top five versus bottom five stories, the top stories deployed all four subcategories, while bottom stories showed negative manifestations of Framcap behaviors when strong Shaping was present.
  • The overall sample comprised 65 change stories from leaders in 33 organizations; 4 stories were excluded for insufficient behavioral data, leaving a distribution of 43 private-sector, 9 public-sector, and 9 “third sector” stories.

Methods

  • Qualitative empirical study using interviews with senior leaders from 33 organizations; each leader described a change story in which they played a significant role. Interviews lasted 1 to 1.5 hours, were recorded and transcribed, and were supplemented by detailed field notes.
  • A critical incident approach was used to reduce retrospective smoothing; the coding frame combined prior Higgs and Rowland behavior sets (Shaping, Framing, Creating) with four new Framcap categories (Attractor, Edge and Tension, Container, Transforming Space).
  • Transcripts were double-coded, with a third coder for adjudication when coder alignment was below 90%; success was assessed by a panel combining leader self-assessment, line-manager ratings, and an expert team review. Analyses compared success categories (top 20%, next 40%, lower 20%, lowest 20%), top five versus bottom five stories, and top five stories scoring highest on all four Framcap sets with limited Shaping.

Limitations

  • Paper-stated: the purposive sample introduces possible respondent bias; success ratings are skewed with underrepresentation of unsuccessful changes; ensuring a robust and reliable success measure was difficult; and causality is unclear.
  • Paper-stated: analyses failed to show contextual differences affecting the leadership-behavior patterns linked to success, but the authors cannot be certain results were not influenced by differences in change type or content; goal congruence and resulting leadership behaviors could not be examined.
  • Evident from the text: the study relies on retrospective accounts, which the authors acknowledge and attempt to ameliorate through critical incident probing; the success measure includes self-assessment alongside line-manager and expert ratings, so self-report bias may remain.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0021886311404556

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

32 Own result · 14 No full text of the sources · 13 Own interpretation · 10 Not checked yet · 8 Own method · 7 Sources not found · 1 No basis given

Show all 49 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 9
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
36 of 36
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    This research, which is primarily quantitative, generally fails to link directly with the change literature.

    “This research, which is primarily quantitative, does, however, generally fail to link directly with the change literature.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In examining the leader's role and behavior in the change process, few studies have moved beyond generic descriptions.

    “In examining the leader's role and behavior in the change process, few studies have moved beyond generic descriptions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The panel's final success ratings are a valid measure of change success.

    “Final panel success rating”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The change stories and transcripts accurately reflect the leaders' actual behaviors and change initiatives.

    “These were explored using an overall sample that comprised 65 stories relating to change initiatives provided by leaders from 33 organizations.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 74 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Conner D., 1999, Leading at the edge of chaos
  2. Finkelstein S., 1996, Strategic leadership—Top executives and their influence on organizations
  3. Goffee R., 2000, Harvard Business Review, 63
  4. Hambrick D. C., 1988, Executive effectiveness. Concepts and methods for studying top managers, 3
  5. Higgs M., Paper presented at the First Applied Positive Psychology Conference
  6. Higgs M. J., 2006, Organisations and People, 13, 23
  7. Jaworski J., 2000, Synchronicity
  8. Kets de Vries M., 1995, Life and death in the executive fast lane
  9. Kotter J. P., 1996, Leading change
  10. Kouzes J. R., 1998, Encouraging the heart
  11. Kramer R. J., 2005, Developing global leaders: Enhancing competencies and accelerating the expatriate experience
  12. Miles M. B., 1984, Analyzing qualitative data: A source book for new methods
  13. Pettigrew A. M., 1997, Advancement in organizational behavior: Essays in honour of D. S. Pugh, 277
  14. Pettigrew A. M., 2000, Breaking the code of change, 243
  15. Seligman M. E. P., 2002, Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment
  16. Senge P. M., 1997, Harvard Business Review, 75, 30

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–135 of 135

Metadata

Authors
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Transcend Consultancy, London, UK
Corresponding author
Higgs, Malcolm
Venue
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
Published
2011-04-11
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
309-335
ISSN
  • 0021-8863 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6879
OpenAlex
W2097319786
Cited by
135
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
11.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Change
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
Keywords
change leadership, organizational change, change implementation, leadership behavior, change success

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review