BLR Article

Continuity & Change: The Yin Yang of Leadership
Richard Taylor
Business Leadership Review VIII:I www.mbaworld.com/blr
January 2011
Page 1 of 9 © 2011 Association of MBAs
Richard Taylor
Founder, Why Be Limited
Abstract
Whilst much literature emphasises the importance of leadership in bringing about change, arguably a
key role of leaders is also to maintain a sense of continuity and consistency. This paper explores the
seemingly conflicting forces of organisational change and continuity and concludes that they should be
seen as perfect partners, not bitter enemies. As interconnected and interdependent elements they may
be considered the Yin Yang of Leadership crucial to the success of sustainable business. The concept
of „sensemaking‟ is explored as one possible way in which leaders can navigate the competing
demands of managing change and continuity and prepare organisations for uncertain futures. Although
less glamorous than change management, a call is made for continuity management to be given equal
enthusiasm and professional diligence among today‟s leaders and business schools and for the
theoretical and practical relationship of the intriguing change-continuity dyad to be researched further to
enhance understanding and practice.
The famous yet anonymous phrase, “constant change is here to stay” returns over 2.2
millions entries on a Google search! It is a phrase that has become part of the leadership
mantra in fast-moving times. It has been popularised by a multitude of management courses
that emphasis the need to be constantly changing to get ahead and stay ahead.
The traditional reading of the cliché is that change was once occasional and optional, but we
now live in an age where change is continual and vital. It is here to stay. But the well worn
phrase can be understood differently. Rather than reading „constant‟ as „continuous‟, the
synonyms of „steady‟ and „stable‟ render a fresh perspective. This new angle suggests
change needs to incorporate stability; change itself must possess constancy rather than being
constant.
Instead of seeing change as a continuous SERIES divorced from any appearance of
constancy, change can viewed as having a PARALLEL partner called continuity. Indeed, it is
this type of change that will provide long term benefit to an organisation that is „here to stay‟.
Consider two rails of a railway track with change and continuity being the two parallels on
which an organisation drives forward. The company that seeks change without continuity may
be able to speed ahead balancing solely on one rail but will eventually topple and crash.
Conversely, those that lay down only the rail of continuity sit grounded and watch as others
move ahead on change. Both unitary emphases are doomed to ultimately fail and the duality
of managing change and managing continuity is vital to long term success for sustainable
business.
This paper discusses the role of leadership in organisational change and continuity and then
considers to what extent the leader may be considered a „sensemaker‟, a term that is defined

Richard Taylor
January 2011
later on. It is acknowledged that debate surrounds whether leaders and mangers are different
or one and the same. For the purposes of simplicity, the terms are used interchangeably here.
Drivers of Change and Continuity
To open the discussion, three key drivers of organisational change and continuity are briefly
considered. In so doing the juxtapositions to be managed become evident and provide a
basis for further analysis.
Adaptability in the form of flexible work arrangements is seen as a core competence for
modern organisations working in fast moving markets. Fifty years ago, Burns and Stalker
1
urged organisations to assume organic, agile structures that permit managers to make swift
responses to an ever changing environment. Set against this approach is the ever present,
inert pressure of doing things as they‟ve always been done, which is easier than initiating
change particularly for managers without the drive and ability to change. The situation is
familiar and predictable; an easier environment in which to lead.
The need to reduce operational costs may motivate managers to undertake „make or buy‟
analyses. In the last two decades this has resulted in sweeping changes as managers have
been tasked with leading initiatives to outsource to cheaper parts of the globe. A
counterbalance to operational costs is transactions cost associated with corporate re-
organisation - recruiting, developing and retaining or releasing staff. Organisational stability
reduces these transaction costs and gives individuals a rationale for self-development and
commitment to the firm, benefitting both the employer and the manager.
2
Impatient capital markets often demand change as a perceived means of achieving
immediate financial gain for the shareholder. This puts pressure on managers to change
something (or anything!) to raise the share price; often this means restructuring. Distinct to
financial capital, Leana and Van Buren
3
talk of organisational social capital as a means of
competitive advantage and leaders who recognise the value of this may prefer continuity over
change. This is often the case in not-for-profit organisations.
Common to these few selective examples is the role leadership plays in considering the
drivers, pressures and opposing needs of stakeholders who include investors, employees,
community, suppliers and customers. The competing forces are many and varied and the
decisions to be taken complex. Leaders must make and enact the best contingent choice
taking into account the desire of the organisation for change and continuity and the
competence of leaders to manage both.
Indeed, Burchell and Kolb
4
are of the opinion that “understanding how an organisation‟s
appetite for stability and change matches its environment may be the key to finding the
sustainability zone – the balance that will enable the organisation to survive and drive”. If a
firm is „here to stay‟ it must practice „constant change‟ and achieve internal and external
balance. The role of managers is to gauge and manage the inherent tensions of this
challenge and lead the organisation through necessary change whilst providing consistency.

Richard Taylor
January 2011
Greater consideration is now given to the specific role of leaders in organisational change and
continuity:
Leaders of Change and Continuity
Management consultants and prominent gurus such as Peters and Kanter have placed high
value on change in organisations. This emphasis has been translated to managers‟ roles and
to their sense of identity as change masters, transformational leaders and other variations on
this contemporary form of self-identity
5
. This stance has led to the leader being synonymous
with change almost to the exclusion of other organisational imperatives.
The change-obsessed corporate culture has been fuelled not only by management gurus, but
by Academics‟ promulgation of works such as Lewin‟s freeze / unfreeze model
6
and Kotter‟s
8 steps
7
that have no notable counterparts arguing and promoting continuity. Fry and
Srivastva
8
reflect on this phenomenon:
“In recent years, the images of executives as „changemasters‟ and
„pathfinders‟, as „gamesmen‟ and „entrepreneurs‟ and as „visionaries‟ and
„transformational leaders‟ have captured the popular imagination. The
modernist spirit, as embodied in each of those notions, has predominantly
been one of novelty, of chaos, of innovation, of change. Indeed, the idea of
change dominates the landscape of modern life, most certainly including life at
the workplace. Executives everywhere continue to be called on to envision
alternatives that have not yet existed, to break the shackles of conventional
notions of what is possible, to ignite the spirit of collective renewal, and to
harness turbulent environmental forces to help transform their organisations in
new and different ways.”
Today businesses seem tired of this constant tirade to change. Converts to the guru‟s gospel
of continuous change have become wearied by the rapid and successive waves that sweep
through the firm. The result is change fatigue and cynicism. Perhaps leaders would welcome
the sound of organisational continuity? However, many may find themselves incoherent in this
respect. Managers have for years drunk to excess in the corporate bars of change where little
else was served. Would they know what continuity looks like, yet alone how to order it, drink it
and offer it to those they lead? This metaphor may help us understand the perception held by
many leaders: Continuity is boring and dull whilst change is exciting and stimulating. Why
order water when you can have alcohol?!
With this bias in mind, the implications for managers in managing organisational CONTINUITY is
discussed using the definition by Kolb: “the management of CHANGE where the desired state
of newness is developed with a conscious recognition and, to the extent possible,
incorporation of salient aspects of the „old‟ or existing organisation, in particular, its core
values, traditions and shared meaning from the past”
9
. As a basis, two common
misconceptions resulting from the heavy favouring of change over continuity are reviewed to
find a helpful way forward.

Richard Taylor
January 2011
Stability need not be resistance
In order for managers to play an active role in change and continuity, continuity must be seen
as an organisational dynamic. Yet a commonly held leadership view is that continuity is at
best a corporate stasis whereby the firm does not move forward, or worse it is seen as
actively resisting change by pushing in the opposite direction. Managing continuity is about
recognising the forces that bring stability in a changing environment in order to move the
organisation ahead effectively and efficiently.
Consider an Olympic sprinter. In order to move forward at the greatest speed, the arms and
legs must change position and the muscles expand and contract to apply the optimum vector
of force. But, the most efficient athletes keep their head and torso completely still so as
maintain perfect balance and stability and not waste energy with unnecessary motion. This
graphic image concurs with the work of Leana and Rosseau
10
who argue that stability enables
rather than impedes change and progress.
In the same way managers need to perceive continuity as a dynamic companion to change
and be active in propagating that mindset. For instance, leadership that emphasises
corporate identity and purpose provide great consistency when peripheral change is being
made. Within the context of this constancy, the leaders‟ role is to choose the appropriate parts
of an organisation that should be transformed and those that should be kept constant (usually
the central vision and values). The choice will vary from company to company, from place to
place and from time to time. There may even be occasions when the core of the body has to
change and the limbs have to remain stable. Imagine a pole-vaulter attempting to clear the
bar by pumping the arms and legs in the fashion of a sprinter whilst keeping the torso still!
Since organisations are social constructs, leaders ought also to be aware of the human
propensity to destabilise stable situations and seek constancy in changing environments.
Weick
11
stated it in a similar way describing „organisation‟ and „change‟ as two sides of the
same coin. The innate proclivity is to move from one state to another - for organisation to tend
towards change, and for change to tend towards organisation. The task of leadership is to
identify these trends in various facets of organisational life and assess the desirability of
facilitating them. Managers can either intervene to reverse the action or act as a catalyst to
manage the situation to the intended outcome over the appropriate timeframe. In this sense,
leaders exercise a stabilising influence by initiating change through intent and action or by
steadying the naturally occurring changes. As changes and continuities are inherent across
the company, leadership should be distributed to engage and enhance the bodily rhythms,
rather than being kept at a senior level where just the head might nod!
Connection need not be regression
Managing continuity is not only about recognising forces of resistance or stability in
organisations, “it is also concerned with connecting the past to the present and consciously

Richard Taylor
January 2011
nurturing elements of stability within a changing environment”
12
However, leaders are often
heard arguing the case to make a complete break with the past. Many top firms will bring in a
new CEO who will sweep aside all that has gone before. This will often happen every few
years! This negative view of having any sort of connection with the past is based on the
premise that the company will be held back by old ways and bonds. In this regard, connection
to the past is seen as regression, whereas connection to the future is visionary progression.
Managers who frame organisational change in this way may lose the goodwill, wisdom and
support of long serving employees whose previous efforts and services are implicitly deemed
to be inadequate. Ironically, these are the very people who could provide the corporate
consistency so vital if change is to be successful.
Connection to the past is not regression if historical elements can be used as a rationale for
the change that is proposed. For instance, proposed changes to working patterns or
restructuring can be given credence and find acceptance by intentionally referring to previous
changes in the firm‟s history. In so doing, fear and anxiety can be dispelled as staff
understand the historical necessity of the change; that they are not the first to be „subjected to
it‟ and „everything turned out alright‟. Similarly, trust is based on consistency in relationships
over time and is a great asset to leaders who seek change. Without it, change is often
resisted and takes much longer to enact. During change initiatives, one tool that can be used
to build trust is storytelling. Long standing members of staff pass on tales of continuity either
through formal workshops or as workplace champions engaged in casual conversation.
Organisational change expert and consultant, Kolb
13
enthuses about this collective storytelling
activity saying, “I have not…been able to design a better or alternative approach to seeking
and supporting continuity in an organizational setting”. This connection to the past is a
progressive tool that leaders can utilise to build trust and increase the chances of successful
change.
In addition to oral story telling, the study of narrative texts by Chreim
14
reports on how
leadership “establishes confluence (or simultaneous continuity and change) using „selective
reporting‟ of elements from the past, present and future, the juxtaposition of the „modern and
attractive‟ with the „outdated and undesirable‟.” The choice of the word confluence is poignant
and can be developed to great effect: imagine the twin Rivers of Change and Continuity. The
power of the River of Change is augmented at the point of confluence by the upstream activity
of the waters in the River of Continuity; by what has gone before. Similarly the potential of the
River of Continuity is amplified at this point by the powerful torrents from the River of Change.
There is confluent benefit greater than the sum of the two parts. The combined rivers‟
PRESENT ability and power to change the FUTURE landscape is greatly enhanced as it draws
upon flows from the PAST. The lesson is plain and compelling – leaders should actively find
ways to simultaneously manage continuity and change. The extent to which the leader may
be considered „sensemaker‟ in this regard is now explored.

Richard Taylor
January 2011
Leaders as Sensemakers
Black Adder II, Episode 3 (Potato): It‟s the sixteenth century and Edmund Blackadder is
before Queenie as he prepares to circumnavigate the globe.
Melchett: Farewell, Blackadder.
[hands him a parchment scroll].
The foremost cartographers of the land have prepared this for you;
it's a map of the area that you'll be traversing.
[Blackadder unfurls it and sees it is blank]
They'd be very grateful if you could just fill it in as you go along. Bye-bye.
The management of organisational change can feel a lot like sailing into the unknown for
many leaders who readily relate to poor Edmund! MIT Leadership Centre tells us, “As a
leadership capability, sensemaking closely resembles map making
15
” (NOT map reading).
Cartographers and sensemakers create consequences with their maps speaking of „where we
are,‟ „where and why we are going‟ and „what should we look for‟. Similarly in his seminal
book, Making Sense of the Organisation
16
, Karl Weick, who coined the term sensemaking,
talks of organisations as cognitive maps.
It is evident from this metaphor that leaders who combine the past, present and future through
managing continuity and change act as sensemakers. The questions of „where we are,‟ and
„what should we look for‟ are echoes of continuity reference points whilst, „where and why we
are going‟ spurs the organisation into change. Bartunek et. al
17
make a subtle distinction by
relating sensemaking to continuity and sensegiving to change, but the point remains that
leaders who practice both are dealers in sense.
Weick
18
states, “the basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment
that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs”. This
definition concurs with the dual actions of leaders to seek continuity amidst change. He
continues, “Sensemaking… is built on vague questions, muddy answers, and negotiated
agreements that attempt to reduce confusion”. Interestingly, this statement suggests
sensemaking as a capability is limited to certain leadership styles. Autocratic, charismatic
leaders are unlikely to be happy with vague questions and muddy answers, less so
negotiation. Conversely, this questioning, collaborative approach suits transformational and
distributed styles of leadership and concurs with the acts of sensemakers who “obtain data
from multiple sources...and involve others.”
19
Whereas Lewin and Kottler would like us to believe that change can be carefully planned,
predicted and implemented, Weick emphasises that change does not unfold in an orderly

Richard Taylor
January 2011
manner.
20
Instead there are moments of, “vu jade - the opposite of déjà vu: I‟ve never been
here before, I have no idea where I am, and I have no idea who can help me”. This is a
limitation to understanding sensemaking as the combined management of change and
continuity. In times of crisis when there is no continuity leaders have to act as bricoleurs,
improvising as they go and making sense of what they find.
Conclusion
Matruano & Gosling
21
define leadership as, “a term applied to a very diverse set of human
actions – perhaps evenly spread between those that seem to be initiating and managing
change, and those that provide continuity and direction in spite of change”. This paper urges
leaders to perceive and intentionally use change and continuity as complementary partners of
sustainable business and not treat them as bitter enemies. This call is supported by the study
by Collins and Porras
22
who found that long lived companies that survived many rounds of
change partially attributed their success to maintaining a sense of continuity and stability over
the years. They used the Yin Yang symbol to capture this essence: the seemingly contrary
forces of change and continuity are in fact interconnected and interdependent. Although less
glamorous than change management, continuity management deserves equal enthusiasm
and professional diligence among today‟s leaders. The theoretical and practical relationship of
this intriguing dyad is also worthy of further academic research to improve leadership
understanding and practice. To a large extent, the managing of change with continuity can be
viewed as the leadership capability of sensemaking but there are limits to this framing
concerning suitability of leadership styles and discontinuity during crisis. Nevertheless,
organisations whose leaders practice constant change are here to stay.
23
__________________________________________________________________________
Online Discussion Questions
Can change and continuity really work together in parallel in a business culture where
change seems pervasive?
How do the opinions stated in this article tally with those made by Stephen Long in the
same issue in his article entitled Change or Perish?
CLICK HERE TO DISCUSS NOW!
__________________________________________________________________________

Richard Taylor
January 2011
References
1
Burns, T. & Stalker G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock, London.
2
Leana, C. & Barry B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in
organizational life. Academy of Management Review 2000, 25 (4), pp. 753-759.
3
Leana, C. & Van Buren, H.J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment
practices. Academy of Management Review 1999, 24 (3), pp. 538-555.
4
Burchell, N. & Kolb, D. G. (2006). Stability and change for sustainability. University of
Auckland Business Review 2006, 8 (2), pp. 33-41.
5
Kolb, D. (2002). Continuity, not change: The next organisational challenge. University of
6
Lewin, Kurt. (1951). Field theory in social sciences. New York: Harper & Row.
7
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Learning change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
8
Fry, R., & Srivastva, S. (1992). Introduction: Continuity and change in organisational life. In
Srivastva, S., Fry, R., & associates. Executive and organisational continuity: Managing the
paradoxes of stability and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9
10
Leana, C. & Rousseau, D.M. (2000). Relational Wealth: Advantages of Stability in a
Changing Economy. New York: Oxford.
11
Weick, K. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12
13
KOLB, D. (2003). Seeking continuity amidst organizational change: A storytelling
approach., Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 2, 180-183.
14
Chreim, S. (2005). The continuity–change duality in narrative texts of organizational
identity. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 567–593.
15
MIT Leadership Center. Making a difference by making sense. Retrieved at:
http://mitleadership.mit.edu/pdf/Making_a_Difference_by_Making_Sense.pdf

Richard Taylor
January 2011
16
Weick, K. (2000). Making sense of the organization. Wiley Blackwell.
17
Bartunek, J. M, Krim, R., Necochea, R., & Humphries, M. (1999). Sensemaking, sensegiving, and
leadership in strategic organizational development. In J. Wagner (Ed.), Advances in Qualitative
Organizational Research, v2, pp. 37-71. Greenwich: JAI Press.
18
Weick, K.E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch
disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (4), pp. 629-52.
19
Ancona, D. T., Kochan, M., Scully, J., Van Maanen & D. E. Westney. (2005). Managing for
the future: organizational behavior and processes, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
College Publishing.
20
Weick, K.E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch
disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (4), pp. 629-52.
21
Marturano, A. & Gosling, J. (2007). Leadership: the key concepts. Routledge.
22
Collins, J. C. & J. I. Porras (1998). Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies.
London, Random House.
23
Richard is the founder of Why Be Limited (www.whybelimited.co.uk) and has over ten years
experience as a management consultant in diverse sectors with clients ranging from
multinationals to sole traders. His specialism is in Quality Management, Best Practice and
Process Improvement and he has recently been awarded Master of Business Administration
(Entrepreneurship and Innovation) with distinction by Exeter Business School.

BLR Article

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to BLR Article

Similar to BLR Article (20)

BLR Article