Leadership and Strategic Change under Ambiguity
Abstract
This paper draws on a case study of a large public hospital to examine the processes of leadership and strategic change in organizations where goals are unclear and authority is fluid and ambiguous. The case history describes the evolution of leadership roles during a period of radical change in which a general hospital acquires a university affiliation while moving towards a more integrated form of management. The study traces the tactics used by members of the leadership group to stimulate change, and the corresponding impact of these tactics on both the progress of change and on leadership roles themselves. It is suggested that strategic change in these organizations requires collaborat ive leadership involving constellations of actors playing distinct but tightly-knit roles. Yet, collaborative leadership is fragile and can easily disintegrate due to intemal conflict or to discreditation associated with more unpopular (although potentially effective) change tactics. Thus, under ambiguity, radical trans formations may tend to occur in a cyclical non-linear pattern with periods of substantive change alternating with periods of political realignment. The paper concludes with a series of five propositions concerning the collaborative, cyc lical, interpretative, and entropic nature of leadership and strategic change pro cesses under ambiguity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a more complex change paradigm, the role of leaders becomes significant, particularly in making judgments about the change approaches to be adopted.
“It has been argued that in a more complex change paradigm, the role of leaders becomes significant, particularly in terms of making judgments in relation to change approaches to be adopted”
From What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully? A Study of the Behaviors of Successful Change Leaders (2011) · cites this paper as Denis, Langley & Cazale, 1996
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008 · see citing works
Self-citationHiggs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886311404556 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Côté-Boileau, É., Denis, J.-L., Callery, B., & Sabean, M. (2019) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0482-6 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Self-citationChreim, S., Williams, B. E. (., & Coller, K. E. (2012) · Journal of Health Organization and Management · doi:10.1108/14777261211230781 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., Cazale, L., Denis, J.-L., Cazale, L., & Langley, A.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 673-699
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2035901645
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 4.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Studies (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
- Keywords
- leadership, strategic change, organizational ambiguity, public hospitals, collaborative leadership, university affiliation, integrated management, leadership roles, internal conflict, political realignment, cyclical change, organizational change
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.
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