1 April 28, 2000 IT Leadership Behavior and Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Outcomes An Empirical Analysis of 30 BPR Projects Norma Sutcliffe

2 April 28, 2000 Definition “Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed. “ Definition “Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed. “ Hammer and Champy (1993)

3 April 28, 2000 l The Risk in BPR While BPR results can be startling, the risk of failure runs high. Some estimates of failure run as high as 50% to 70%. Many have sighted a failure in committed leadership as the underlying cause.

4 April 28, 2000 The Leadership of BPR Students of the BPR phenomena assert that BPR is a top-down phenomena where a directed, committed leadership is critical for success.

5 April 28, 2000 The Leadership Theorists There is a substantial leadership literature that states that when the task is highly non-programmable requiring people who are highly motivated and independent thinkers, such as BPR, then a non-directed leadership is indicated.

6 April 28, 2000 The Dilemma Therefore, is the success of BPR dependent on top-down, directed leadership is the success of BPR dependent on top-down, directed leadership or or is it dependent on non-directed leadership or or is it a combination of the two?

7 April 28, 2000 The Agenda l Review of Leadership Literature l The Framework Used Here l The Method Used l The Findings l The Contributions l Questions

8 April 28, 2000 Traits Versus Behavior in Leadership Studies l Trait theories had no predictive power l Contingency approach found effective in behavior studies l No leadership behavior works in all situations l Contingency approach never covered change

9 April 28, 2000 Change Focus Versus Leadership Behavior Focus

10 April 28, 2000 Transactional/Transformational Leadership Framework Transactional leadership covers incremental change: l Works within an existing organizational culture l Uses contingent reward for negotiation l Uses management by exception for feedback

11 April 28, 2000 Transactional/Transformational Leadership Framework Transformational leadership covers radical change: l Uses charisma l Uses intellectual stimulation l Uses individualized consideration

12 April 28, 2000 Transactional/Transformational Leadership Framework Some leadership issues the framework never covers: l How needed resources are acquired l How goals are established and monitored l How teamwork is accomplished

13 April 28, 2000 Transactional/Transformational Leadership Framework Shortcomings l Transformational highly correlated to transactional l Assumes a line management relationship exists l Transformational -- only in the eye of the beholder l Could find no characteristics predictive for transformational leadership

14 April 28, 2000 The Flamholtz Leadership Effectiveness Framework

15 April 28, 2000 Definition Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences the behavior of people in a way that increases the probability the they will achieve organizational goals. Definition Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences the behavior of people in a way that increases the probability the they will achieve organizational goals.

16 April 28, 2000 The Leadership Effectiveness Framework l A synthesis of several tested theories l Does not assume personal traits are prerequisite l Does not assume a line management relationship exists

17 April 28, 2000 The Leadership Effectiveness Framework Overview

18 April 28, 2000 The Frameworks Compared

19 April 28, 2000 Some Additional Insights from the Literature l Evidence from previous studies suggest that the Flamholtz framework is useful for examining BPR phenomena. l Consistency of leadership behavior seems important

20 April 28, 2000 The Hypotheses l There is significant difference in the style-situation fit of successful and unsuccessful BPR leaders. l There is significant difference in the emphasis successful BPR leaders place on the task and people dimensions (orientations) and the emphasis unsuccessful BPR leaders place on the dimensions.. l There is significant difference in the consistency of leadership task performance between successful and unsuccessful leaders.

21 April 28, 2000 l Data collected from 30 BPR projects using a two- step survey questionnaire l Respondents from completed BPR projects sought from: -Subscribers to an IT-oriented magazine (snail) -Two Internet Listservers (electronic) -Two Internet Listservers (electronic) The Research Method

22 April 28, 2000 l BPR Outcome Variable -- target attainment overall project goal primary project goal l H1 -- Style-Situation Fit -The Job Autonomy Profile -The Project’s Task Programmability -The Leader’s Style Profile l H2 -- Task/People Orientation Balance -Task Orientation -People Orientation l H3 -- Consistency of Behavior Using Factor Analysis -The Level of Effort Measurement of Variables

23 April 28, 2000 Content and construct validity claimed Steps: l The pretest on all questionnaires -Colleagues -Interviews with IS executives l Leadership Effectiveness Questionnaire -Likert scale versus paired-comparison l Pilot study to fine tune instruments l Non-response Bias Test Validation

24 April 28, 2000 Multiple Regression Analysis Results

25 April 28, 2000 Hypothesis I The Style-Situation Fit Dependent Variable Overall Project Attainment Dependent Variable Overall Project Attainment with  =.39 at  .05 Dependent Variable Primary Goal Attainment Dependent Variable Primary Goal Attainment with  =.36 at .10 Results

26 April 28, 2000 Hypothesis !I The Work-People Tasks Balance Dependent Variable Overall Project Attainment Dependent Variable Overall Project Attainment with  =.37 at  .05 Dependent Variable Primary Goal Attainment Dependent Variable Primary Goal Attainment with  =.46 at  .01 Results

27 April 28, 2000 Hypothesis III The Leadership Task Consistency Dependent Variable Overall Project Attainment Dependent Variable Overall Project Attainment nonsignificant Dependent Variable Primary Goal Attainment Dependent Variable Primary Goal Attainment nonsignificant Results

28 April 28, 2000 Research l Empirical results on previously developed framework l Extension into change management Practice l Behavior based guidelines can be developed l Not based on line-management Research Project’s Contributions

29 April 28, 2000 Questions and Comments