Abstract
Global interest in Africa is growing. It is predicted that the growing interest, with expanding global mobility, greater global integration, and better information access, will lead to an increase in disruptive change across the continent. Leadership will be essential in navigating the expected disruptive change in Africa. Yet, little is known about what it takes for leaders to navigate disruptive change effectively. The existing literature on leadership and disruptive change in general, and for Africa specifically, is scarce and lacks theoretical sophistication, depth, focus and integration. With this study, I aimed to capacitate African leaders with an empirically validated model that they could practically apply to navigate disruptive change in such a way as to propel Africa beyond merely surviving to thriving. With the literature review, I integrated the currently available planned and emergent change paradigms and, by embracing complexity leadership theory, developed the Leadership Model for Disruptive Change (LMDC). I initially developed the LMDC with four dimensions: change context, change response, leadership processes and leadership qualities. Within the LMDC, I defined change as both context and response. The change context extends a metaphorical invitation to change to an organisation and its leaders. The leaders interpret the change invitation and formulate a change response that generates a particular fit with the change context. Each change context–response fit has an inherent tension, a dissonance, between the change context and the response. The dissonance builds over time and, if not mediated, can lead to unintended change. To mediate the dissonance, leaders could prioritise and execute specific leadership processes. The LMDC recommends which leadership processes to prioritise based on leaders’ change context–response fit positions. Each leadership process employs distinct leadership qualities, necessary for the effective execution of the leadership processes. Following the literature review, I contextualised this study for Africa. I identified and reviewed the potential impact and change implications of global and regional trends for African leadership. I also considered the development implications for African leaders resulting from Africa’s emerging character. I then applied the LMDC generically and predicted anticipated change context–response fit scenarios for leaders in Africa. Based on the application of the LMDC, I set postulates to test the LMDC qualitatively. I applied an exploratory sequential, mixed-method research design to validate the LMDC empirically. I led with a qualitative research approach, using ‘Tabula Geminus’ or twin slate grounded theory, which accommodated the earlier literature review. With the qualitative study, v I interviewed fourteen African leaders working in sub-Saharan Africa. I tested and adjusted the process prioritisation suggested by the LMDC based on the African leaders’ change context– response fit positions. Using the LMDC leadership qualities dimension, I confirmed 45 leadership qualities that the African leaders associated with leadership processes. In a review of the qualitative findings, I identified a need to measure leaders’ dissonance experience, and decided to assess leadership wellbeing as a surrogate for the dissonance experience. I added leadership wellbeing as a fifth dimension to the LMDC for which I subsequently developed a Leadership Wellbeing Scale. Based on the qualitative findings, I set hypotheses to test the dynamics of the LMDC and explore the biographical influences on the LMDC outcomes. A survey was done with N = 270 African leaders. The results showed that leadership biases influenced African leaders’ assessments of their change contexts and change responses. African leaders tended to overrespond to a change in their contexts, yet there was a disconnect between their change response intent and actual responses. African leaders’ wellbeing was indeed a proxy for change dissonance, but processes of dissipation and self-organisation, combined with the leaders’ vantage points, distorted their experience of change dissonance. As dissonance was more expansive than leadership wellbeing, I restated the fifth dimension of the LMDC as a ‘change dissonance’ dimension. On the process dimension, African leaders’ views and prioritisation of the leadership processes were linear and undifferentiated. As success with disruptive change affects the dynamic of the LMDC, I added ‘leadership effectiveness’ as a sixth dimension. I subsequently validated specific leadership qualities for each of the leadership processes. Despite cultural differences across Africa, the final set of leadership qualities reflect African leaders’ deep value of community and relational focus. All in all, it was found that the LMDC was a robust disruptive change model that can assist leaders in Africa and elsewhere to navigate disruptive change. Leaders can use the LMDC reactively to assess and understand their previous interactions with disruptive change more systematically. They can also use the LMDC proactively to prepare for a more holistic, multidimensional interaction with change. Despite the focus on Africa, I expect the model’s dynamics to be universally applicable. The model outcomes and application in this study are, however, uniquely African...
D.Phil. (Leadership in Performance and Change)