D O LABELS MATTER WHEN IMPLEMENTING CHANGE ?

2.6. 1 Introduction

There are numerous labels for those involved in organisational change with some having more longevity than others. For example, change agent and champion appeared in the literature over sixty years ago and remain current; while terms such as change maker arose in the early 1990s (Mabey & Mayon-White, 1993), and change artist in 2012 (Jurow & Ruben, 2012). Many of these labels are not mutually exclusive. Their definitions are not agreed upon and they are used inconsistently within different disciplines. These discrepancies make valid comparisons of project outcomes extremely challenging. Absent from the literature is research into the perspectives of those who are given one of these labels. As the scan of projects from 21 universities revealed (se 2.5), two universities had no labels for their change agents. Of the 19 universities who had a label, six incorporated the word champion (one of these was DUU, the site of my research); four used fellow; two used scholar; two used leader; and none used change agent.

2.6.2

Change agents and champions

2.6.2.1 Confusing usage of labels in the literature

The change management and organisational change literature in the English language have produced many different terms and definitions for a change agent. They also 'fragment into accounts emphasizing role, taxonomies and competencies' (Buchanan, 2003, p. 665). The term change agent was first used by Hanna (1948) but was not explained. Ottaway later defined it as 'any individual or group operating to change the status quo' with three major categories: change generators, change implementers and change adopters (1983, p. 364). Recklies' (2001) definition is similar but refers only to formal roleswith positional power but in different categories; that is, change managers, change leaders and project managers. For other authors, change agents have an informal status (Battilana and Casciaro, 2012) or are at 'low levels of the structure … [with] low status' (Galbraith 1999, p. 8). Clearly there is no agreed definition or categorisation for change agent.

The other common term is champion, attributed to Schön—'the new idea either finds a champion or dies'—referring to 'emergent leaders' who effect change in their organisations (1963, p.84). Taylor, Cocklin and Brown (2012) refer to these leaders as change agents thus blurring the distinction between change agent and champion. Holtham's definition, specific to his study in a UK university, is that a champion is 'someone who both supports and personally implements ... innovation, and who seeks to influence others to innovate, but not from ... a formal administrative or managerial position' (2005, paragraph 10, lines 7-9). Some authors use change agent and champion synonymously and interchangeably (e.g. Cappelli & Smithies, 2009; Lorenzi & Riley, 2000). Others rank a change agent above a champion because they define a change agent as 'a trained specialist in organisational change' (e.g. Warwick, 2009, p.15) or one of the 'leading experts in the organisation' (Jenssen & Jorgensen, 2004, p. 68). To confuse matters further, a critical analysis of these concepts from a literature search from 1990 to March 2003 revealed that champions and change agent 'may be

variations of the same (thing) but with different conceptual labels' (Thompson, Estabrooks, & Degner, 2006, p. 698).

In summary, there is no agreement in the literature about the definitions of the terms change agent and champion. There are discrepancies in: definitions; ranking in terms of positional power; the relationship between the terms and leadership; whether the terms are generic and interchangeable; and what people in these roles do in relation to organisational change. Consequently, persons labelled as a change agent or champion, and the organisation attaching the label, could make very different

assumptions about what the role entails if there is no role definition and description. Inconsistent execution of the role could result.

2.6.3

Prevalence of labels in selected journals

To ascertain the prevalence of these two labels, five journals were searched: four in higher education and one in management. All titles and abstracts in Studies in Higher Education, Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, Higher Education Research and Development, and the Academy of Management Journal were searched from commencement of publication to December 2014. Search parameters for change agent also included agent of/for change and champion, change champion, and champion of/for change. Search parameters for change agent omitted agent or hyphenated forms; for example, principal-agent. In terms of champion, versions of the verb—for example, champions a cause and championing the change—were omitted, as well as champion used as a surname. The scan revealed no mention of champion in any of the journals. There were three

mentions of change agent: one in Studies in Higher Education and two in Higher Education Research and Development.

During the same period, in the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), there were 86 papers for change agent and 70 for champion and their respective variants as explained above. The rates of publication in Figure 2.3 were calculated as averages over each time frame, so that the axes would be easy to interpret. For example, in the period 1966-1989 there was an average per year of 1.25 papers on change agent and 0.25 on champion; that is, very few, with change agent more commonly used than champion. This rate increased to 4 and 4.4 papers respectively in each year in the five years from 2010 to 2014 (inclusive). Between 1990 and 1999, champion gains in usage so that from 2000

onwards both are in common usage with increasing frequency. This may indicate unintentional relabelling or that champion is considered to be a better or more legitimate label in recent contexts (Gunter, 2004, p. 22). Birnbaum (2000) notes that HE often adopts corporate buzzwords from management with mixed consequences.

Figure 2.3: Rate of publication of papers using the labels change agent or champion

2.6.4

Meanings of labels

Because 'labelling is the language of packaging' (Havelock & Zlotolow, 1995, p.121), no label is neutral. For example, 'connotations of labels have important impacts because people are drawn to certain names and repelled by others ... [as] the language ... used by an organisation can shape how members think' (Lowenthal & Wilson, 2010, pp. 40-41). Gunter identifies labels used by organisations as three types that can 'shape and represent identities' (2004, p. 22). They do this in different ways depending on whether they are prime or preferred, benign if they do no harm, or toxic. Both labels, change agent and champion, according to Nunberg (2009), have a heroic ring to them. To avoid possible negative and unintended consequences of labelling people, Havelock and Zlotolow (1995)

1966-1989 1990 -1999 2000 -2009 2010 -2014 change agent 1.25 0.9 2.7 4 champion 0.25 1.88 2.8 4.4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Rate of p u b licat ion in AMJ

suggest 'being precise and descriptive with labels, and ensuring familiarity with or acceptance by others in the organisation of what the roles entail beforehand' (p.121).

2.6.4.1 Do labels matter to those who are labelled?

Despite the extensive literature referring to change agents and champions, there is a dearth of research on the perspectives of those given these labels. Do these labels matter to them? Do the labels have any impact on them or how others perceive them in the role? My research fills this gap with interview data from change agents labelled school champions, using an interpretive framework that positions labels as identity badges (Grant, Berg & Cable, 2014). These badges, by virtue of the language used, package those who are labelled and can have a variety of consequences. For example, ill-considered labels could affect change agents' confidence to support institutional change by eliciting negative reactions from those who respond to the labels. This research is presented in Chapter 6 to explain why labels matter to change agents when they are implementing change, and has been published the journal Studies in Higher Education (Cordiner, Thomas & Green, 2016) (see Appendix D for the full paper).