Paulo Pinto da Costa da Luz
Fluminense Federal University – UFF, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Continuous leadership changes and constant exchanges in command functions can benefit organizations; however, these changes must be investigated and analyzed to ensure their effectiveness. This research aims to propose actions to mitigate the impacts of discontinuity in corporate strategic decisions. The methodology was made possible through a survey prepared on a digital platform to locate, within the various business sectors, leaders who have implemented changes and employees who have witnessed the changes of leaders, pointing out which are the critical factors of discontinuity of strategic decisions, discontinuities in management and organizational identity. The results point out that, for the employees, the "Functionality Dimension" brings greater importance and impacts, such as reductions in the number of employees and reductions in training and development. Employees are mobilized as a result of their interactions with hierarchical superiors and the organizational climate, which brings high levels of insecurity to their work routines and future in the organizations. Actions were proposed to minimize the risks or impacts on the change processes when implementing the change of leaders.
Keywords: Organizational Change; Organizational Culture; Decision-making.
According to Lopes and Fialho (2014), much of the history of leadership is based on the model that originated in industrial society, pointing out the eminently personal behavioral traits of leadership styles and that mainly these styles or models do not serve knowledge societies today.
Fonseca, Porto, and Borges-Andrade (2015), when referring to trends in leadership in the 21st century, point out that there is an expansion of international studies on leadership, referring to aspects of the influence of affection and attitudes at work and their consequences on the production of moods in subordinates. However, they emphasize that there is more theory than empirical evidence in this regard.
In addition, leadership regarded as charismatic and transformational/transactional leadership have been receiving more attention in the last 20 years and are considered "styles" that deliver results. However, few studies would have included mediators and moderators and organizational-level variables (such as firm performance) simultaneously. Few have attempted to integrate this literature with that of affective states, which has received much attention recently (Fonseca, Porto & Borges-Andrade, 2015).
There is evidence that it is necessary to update analysis benchmarks, seeking to align with the discoveries of sciences at the end of the last century and the new trends reinforced at the beginning of this century, such as the Home Office, where it can be seen that the new trends present leaders with new ideas, distributing knowledge throughout the organization, demonstrating that themes such as autonomy, information, complexity, participation, and intuition are part of their learning.
In this article, it is proposed to systematize analyses that allow observing these phenomena of leader changes, making it possible to use a mixed approach in which both the observations and perceptions of leaders and employees can converge so that management takes place in an integrated way and organizational values can be sustained in the necessary advances of world scenarios.
This research aims to propose actions to mitigate the impact of discontinuity in corporate strategic decisions.
Brigdes (2018) researched decision-making from an ethics perspective, as well as how it impacts individuals and/or how groups benefit and which ones suffer from executive decision-making, directly impacting frontline providers and customers indirectly. They are important because the repercussions of service interactions seem personal. The purpose of this paper was to fill a significant gap in the service literature by exploring how high-level executives make ethical decisions, thus creating values and culture within an organization. The results include testable propositions.
Barrett (2014), in describing what organizational values would mean to him, brings that: “Values are a simplified method of describing what is important to us individually or collectively (as an organization, community, or nation) at any given moment in time”. In this way, it is known that values are described in a word or phrase, and it is immediately clear what they mean. For example, they are about honesty, compassion, and human rights. The behaviors, however, should be described as thoroughly as possible and are context-dependent; for example, the behaviors associated with honesty can be: (1) always tell the truth; (2) never tell a lie; and (3) be free of deceit or fraud.
To better structure these dimensions or awareness levels and their trust connections, Barrett (2014) explains how it is that a person's values are reflected in their leadership style. That is, the more one expands levels of awareness about their actions, the more one elevates their values.
Giones, Brem, and Berger (2019) state that in times of great uncertainty, managers are called upon to make the right strategic choices, preserve core businesses, and prepare their organizations for the future. Furthermore, they show how executives have led the transformation of their organizations using the methodology of the popular VUCA framework (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity), which will help make sense of turbulent contexts and guide managers' decision-making.
In general, within the natural constraints of a management process, in theory, there are no repetitions; that is, each day is a new day. Organizational leaders may come into contact with what is called psychological capital. Nolzen (2018) points out the concern of dealing with it within a scenario of total chaos, of uncertainties, and permanent discoveries in corporate practices, with modern techniques of succession, selection, and development of leaders and their employees. Therefore, he has been drawing the attention of organizations worldwide to psychological capital. He describes the psychological capacity of an individual that can be measured, developed, and managed to improve performance.
By linking organizational change to decision-making, we come to the overriding question: are the results sustainable? The integration of business sustainability is made possible through a systems-based approach to sustainability, change management, innovation, and corporate strategy. However, this construct comes through the creation of performance metrics within and across business units and functions, with a call for BottomLine performance measurement across organizations and value chains to inform management decision-making, transparency, and external reporting. Predictions are that integration and change management are critical success factors for advancing strategic sustainability initiatives.
Moreover, the subject of organizational change has become very complex and challenging, and employees' attitudes and beliefs toward change are even more significant. Alavi and Gill (2017) proposed a theoretical framework in their article on how authentic leadership can influence followers' change-oriented attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors through their psychological resources, including hope, confidence, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience, which influence readiness for change and changes in implementation.
Modernly, sophisticated systems and more complex modeling within these performance measurements are being used to provide greater support for decision-making, the so-called "big data". According to Halaweh and El Massry (2017), the term "big data" has been increasingly used in organizations, given the significant volume of data that is processed and analyzed using sophisticated technology to obtain relevant insights that will help key executives in the decision-making process.
Lastly, the contribution of Aslam et al. (2015) needs to be considered so that the organizational change process does not delve into what the authors cite and term as the detrimental effects of cynicism in organizational change. The study aimed to determine the causes of cynicism and suggest remedies so that changes are implemented with the consensus of all stakeholders.
Kaul (2019) states that strategy should always be valued but that the vitality of an organization will come from its culture. The conclusion is that, in general, a strategy should precede culture, and culture should be aligned with strategy. When a strategy or even a "strategy-culture" is adopted, it should support a competitive advantage. Within the proposed conclusion, strategy should generally precede culture because this competitiveness will guide companies in not letting their organizational culture undermine the success of major changes in strategic objectives and business model positioning. Even if the leadership realizes this alignment, it is also feasible to say that managers equally need to realize that culture should not guide strategy except in specific strategic decision-making contexts.
Effective positioning and intervention will come from leaders who have achieved better results from developing a culture that can evolve with stakeholders and the organization. Culture requires leaders who view it as one of their primary tasks and understand the importance of aligning the organization's strategies and decision-making with cultural ideals (Warrick, 2017).
Within the processes of cultural change also arise, almost step by step, processes of centralization and decentralization as waves that come and go in organizations, sometimes just changing names and acronyms, in others, centralizing or decentralizing processes, creating their own movements. Regarding this issue, Ghinea and Ghinea (2015) state that culture greatly influences these centralization and decentralization processes, risk tolerance, adaptability, changes in form and content, and people's involvement. In this article, the author proposes creating a cultural model design that can capture this relevant dynamic and address it.
Regarding job satisfaction, decision-making and culture also take relative space, directly influencing job satisfaction. In an experiment in Chinese companies, Xia, Zhang, and Zhao (2016) used a methodology involving Social Capital theory to prove the influence of decision-making on culture from a communication process perspective.
Culture also processes the innovation factor to build a theory of multidimensional organizational innovation cultures and innovative performance in transition economies and explore the moderating effect of team cohesion on this theoretical relationship. Using data collected from manufacturing firms with transition economies, Xie, Wu, and Zeng (2016) construct a new theoretical framework of multidimensional organizational innovation cultures, including knowledge sharing, organizational innovation environment, team decision-making, and organizational change.
New tools have been used so that decision-making, especially those that can influence culture, can be used more effectively. Ali and Miah (2018), in their article, address the organizational factors for successfully implementing Business Intelligence (BI), a tool that has seen widespread propagation and uses with ample satisfaction in all organizations, although its use to ensure decision-making is not yet common. This has become a key factor in its discovery and revealing itself as effective decision support. The findings point to two contexts: information management, which incorporates factors such as technological and personnel capabilities, and organizational context, which incorporates factors such as organizational capability, managerial decision, and organizational culture to facilitate the incorporation of information management resources for BI implementation in firms.
The universe of analysis covered an investigation that corresponded to a universe of 330 business contacts through the business network called LinkedIn. The survey was prepared on a digital platform using the Survey Monkey tool. A total of 124 respondents out of the 330 business contacts responded to the invitation and participated in the survey. Of this total, 44 respondents identified themselves as leaders (37.58%) and 80 respondents identified themselves as collaborators (64.52%).
The dimensions (strategic, decision-making process, functionality, and identity) were defined from the variables that make up a set of processes and/or themes brought from the literature.
Furthermore, the comparison strategies between what should be asked of leaders and what should be asked of employees, as well as their impacts and reflections on both, were defined. In this way, leaders and employees were analyzed so that the critical factors that surround the organizations could enhance results, confirm the hypotheses, and delimit, in a more structured way, the processes and the findings of the issues that defined the elaboration of questions for the questionnaire applied according to Figure 1.
In this way, the definition of the dimensions and their variables per dimension allowed the focus to be maintained in close harmony with the theoretical foundation's position and within the application of the mixed method. This enabled the perceptions to be qualified and quantified, distinguishing them from the collection or analysis of quantitative and qualitative data in a single study, where the data were collected sequentially, prioritized, and integrated into the various stages of the research process. The "Likert Scale", consisting of the sum of the answers given to each item on this scale, was used. Five levels of answers were used, namely: (1) strongly disagree, (2) partially disagree, (3) indifferent, (4) partially agree, and (5) strongly agree.
The origin of the respondents can be seen in Table 1 as the industry sector leaders were 62.60%, followed by an average of 22.76% of respondents from the service sector, and an average of 5.69% from the trade sector.
The variables with the greatest disagreements were analyzed to establish the critical factors to be considered by managers in organizational changes.
In the variable organizational culture, when it points to the total levels of agreement that culture strongly impacts changes, leaders point to 70.27% and employees 60.28%, according to Table 2. Schein (2009) points out that culture is an abstraction, although the forces that are created in social and organizational situations that derive from it are impactful because if it is not interpreted correctly, the victim could be the individual or his organization.
In the knowledge management variable, the sample analyzed presents a disagreement in the leaders' view versus the view of the employees when comparing the concordances and disagreements. The leaders point out that their total agreement is around 50% and they understand the importance of the knowledge management process; therefore, it is equally critical. However, 56.94% of the employees, according to Table 3, indicate they disagree that this process is considered by the organizations. From this result, it can be inferred that leading by knowledge is not yet a hallmark of management. Rodrigues and Rodrigues (2013) point out, referring to the experience of implementing GC in an energy company that:
"[...] the more their activities are related to the core business, the more difficult it will be to include the subject "knowledge management" in the agenda of managers and specialists, because commonly, even though they recognize the relevance and importance of a certain project, their agendas are demands for other more urgent activities [...]." Rodrigues and Rodrigues (2013)
In the variable of team performance management, the concordances between the leaders and the employees are within the same level of importance and point to 64.87% (leader) and 50% (employees), according to Table 4. When Hamel (2007) refers to the strong beliefs surrounding management, he points out that in order to have innovation in the management process, it is necessary to systematically deconstruct the management orthodoxies that prevent viewing new possibilities. The search for performance may be affected by the change in leadership since performance is negotiated by one leader and measured by another.
In this dimension, all the processes analyzed and selected here allow the proposition that they are critical factors of strategic discontinuity in organizations. However, in a more detailed analysis, the strategic planning and the decision-making process make up an even more necessary level to be more carefully planned before making leadership changes.
The variable of changes in management structures and processes showed high levels of agreement. According to Table 5, the result was 88.24% for leaders and 76.72% for employees. Within these analyses, creating management, designing structures, changing names, redesigning processes, changing process names, and changing processes from one side to the other seems to constitute a fairly frequent routine in organizations. This level of agreement is hypothesized to lead to certain saturation with so many changes affecting people, leaders, or the very planning areas. The literature advocates that changes are and will always be necessary; however, it is increasingly essential to systematize them to avoid wasting time, money, and personal stress.
The variable of preponderance on whether the changes fall on the strategic, tactical, and operational projects also reaches high levels of agreement. The leaders indicate a result of 76.47% and the employees, 63.08%, according to Table 6. A reflex also directly felt by the teams happens when projects in general are paralyzed. The feeling left is of a waiting period to review sponsorships, a time that presupposes that it is better to wait to see if the new manager accepts certain projects, and consequently, a good part of them are discontinued, because they do not represent the "new" leader. Additionally, there seems to be an ambivalent feeling that whoever becomes the new leader has to be obliged to undertake new projects.
The preponderance variable is about whether the changes fall on specific people clustered at high levels of agreement from both the leaders' perspective (63.63%) and the employees' perspective (73.62), according to Table 7. This result leads to the inference that in such replacements, especially the inclusion of a new manager, people trusted by the previous managers will be affected, that is, they may be replaced. This is a phenomenon that seems very common in organizations. In some way, preference is given to people we trust to talk to about opinions, doubts, and testimonials.
Vergara (2001), referring to the political approach in the area of human resource management (HRM), points out that there is a convergence between individuals and the organization; however, there is a divergence between personal interests and the organization. He says the following: “[...] managerial action is primarily a rational and ethical arbitration between the HRM and people through decisions related to power sharing and organizational design”.
As for the variable on whether the changes affect interpersonal relationships in the analysis of the answers, there is a dissonance between the understandings and readings of the leaders and the employees. In the leaders' perception, the total concordance about these impacts, which total 41.18%, contrasts with the employees' total concordance pointed out as 15.27% (Table 8). In truth, the movement that it generates, consciously and unconsciously, in the two actors (leaders and collaborators) has very different reflections.
While the leadership takes on a new challenge and arrives in a form validated by top management, in general, their expectations and starting actions do not lead them to say that the ambiance of the groups and teams will be their priority. On the other hand, because they do not yet have psychological bonds with the new leader, the teams, who are very insecure and going through psychological rupture movements and are threatened in their status, begin to experience a plethora of ambivalent and contradictory feelings.
As shown in Table 9, in the variable of the impacts on the number of people (increase/reduction), perceptions are divergent. When the concordances are added up, the leaders point out a total concordance of 42.42% and the employees register a total concordance of 74.64%. Such a distinction leads us to believe in an unbalanced point in perceptions, which is well-marked because it deals with effects directly related to the very people. For employees, a series of mismatched feelings may affect individuals' routines. Some payments may be delayed because the new leader does not know the procedures, the reasons for these routines, and their impacts. In other words, the days accumulate the tasks, and the tension increases. Depending on the volume of changes, this could become a critical point. From this variable, one can deduce that, given the new scenarios, the reduction of collaborators is the basis of the changes. Thus, a hypothesis may fall on the weaknesses pointed out in knowledge management, which does not support the people changes analyzing their knowledge and technological domains. Most of the time, they just “remove people”.
In the variable about there being impacts on the qualitative of people (skills/training), there is an antagonism and a differentiation of perceptions among employees, as shown in Table 10. Employees who agreed with this impact pointed at 47.89%, while the employees who disagreed pointed at 46.48%. Two hypotheses can be elucidated since, on the one hand, having training is always very good, and on the other hand, employees "prefer" to choose their training. This impasse could be explained in this sample by a phenomenon dealt with by the author Eboli (2004), which deals with corporate education. Among other topics, there is the quote that says that “[...] training with digital challenges should not be largely developed in classrooms and a face-to-face manner” Eboli (2004). This means that training should preferably be done on the job itself. Thus, a question remains for further analysis, which would be to determine the added value for corporate development in organizations. The agreement on the importance of training and competencies for leaders was recorded at 75.75%.
In the variable on the impacts on customer service, the results show polarity when adding the agreement and disagreement between the leaders, because when they agree on the importance, they point to 48.48%, and when they disagree, they point to 33.33%. On the other hand, when the employees agree, they point out 47.89%, and when they disagree, they point out 43.66%, according to Table 11.
Analyzing the polarization, one can imagine that these distances point to the deliveries that are generally mandatory but perhaps without the much-needed and desired "customer satisfaction" as a brand. Another point is that, because it is fulfilled regardless of the change, that is, depending on the nature of the organization's sector (example of a service company), this issue would be more or less critical. Considering that the highest percentage of respondents was from the industry sector, it is not observed as an expressively critical and even ambiguous factor.
In the variable about the impacts on relationships with superiors, the perceptions are very homogeneous when the total agreement is grouped, which indicates 72.72% for leaders and 60.57% for employees, as shown in Table 12. Similarly, in more critical analysis, the analysis of the leadership profile shows homogeneity regarding the agreement with these impacts. Since this sample deals with a Leader of Change and his loyalty and obedience bonds are considered fundamental, it can be seen that because this individual was chosen, he enjoys a relationship authorized by the top management. These relationships will hypothetically be aligned in their choices, selections, or preferences. Thus, this variable would not be critical. Another relevant point is that the respondents themselves as leaders point out 12.12% of indifference, which seems to reinforce the hypothesis that the variable would not have a critical behavior.
In summary, in this dimension, two variables would need more critical attention: the impacts related to the number of teams due to possible comparisons regarding the levels of their production and the dualities of understanding and feelings with the sudden changes in the impacts that cause the qualification issues in the organizations. The organizational atmosphere, by its sample, is critical. However, once again, it is a better known and explored indicator, treated in the medium to long term, and it is not relevant to be pointed out in this paper.
In the variable about the perception of image and reputation, the respondents registered agreement on the critical sense pointed out by this variable. However, the distribution along the answers seems to show strangeness with the theme when reading that 57.57% of leaders and 60.29% of employees agree with the supposed criticality. Table 13 shows the understanding of the importance of the process. However, the "partial concordances" are greater than the totals, i.e., the leader responds with percentages of partial agreement of 42.42% and a total of 15.15%, while the employees respond with percentages of partial agreement of 33.82% and a total of 26.47%. This could indicate an unmastered subject, an insecure evaluation, or a new subject in organizations. From their own experiences, the answers represent their own experiences with their image and reputation. However, it would be worth increasing efforts to make this variable more consciously mature.
In explaining organizational commitment, Barrett (2014) points out that in the 21st century, “[...] successful companies will be those that not only understand how to create internal cohesion through values and mission alignment but are structurally agile enough to adapt to the ever-changing needs that society and the marketplace present.”.
What is expected is that advanced and mature levels of relationships portrayed in productive labor contracts bring learning to mirror a relationship that implies reciprocal gains in image and reputation, reproduced in pride and belonging for all involved.
In the variable of new management strategies during managerial changes, the total agreement of the leaders points to a high percentage of around 81.82% against 52.54% of the employees, according to Table 14. Within the analysis, it has been demonstrated that the employees also registered 35.30% of disagreement, pointing to the following hypotheses: (1) a disagreement that suggests that there have not been new management strategies from the change of leaders; (2) the change failed to demonstrate that for this reason a certain leader was changed; or (3) there is the disbelief that the profile of this new leadership will add to that group of individuals.
Modernly, the most charismatic style has been researched in greater depth. Several authors have been comparing the behaviors and styles of competencies and identities of great leaders, such as John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Mary Kay Ash (founder of Mary Kay Cosmetics), and Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple Computer). Therefore, "[...] when questioning a charismatic leader about what his skills were, he replied that it would be a mixture of a pleasant temperament and a reputation for morality, and as for skills, he said, "never fight with anyone," "never humiliate anyone,"" affirms Nicholson (2010), apud Wheatley (2010).
Historically, there is a perception or expectation that the new leader should therefore come to improve the expectation for a profile that promotes actions; a leader that gets involved with the teams, which is charismatic, and stimulates people to produce is the most common. If the style is not what is expected, there will be tension and frustration, and probably no effective learning will occur in this change process.
In the variable about the indication of new leaders during managerial changes, even with percentages of agreement around leaders of 69.70% and collaborators of 58.82%, according to Table 15, a percentage of indifference in leaders of 15.15% and collaborators of 13.24% appears within a further analysis. According to this result, when one turns to the literature and searches for models or structures and practices of recruitment and selection, one does not find a plentiful supply of experiments and systematizations. At first, this brings up the hypothesis that not all appointments are crafted in a systematized and transparent manner. Even today, personal choices largely supplant the efforts of human resources areas that strive behind top leadership sponsorship to sustain recruitment and succession programs.
In the variable perception of ethical values during management changes, the percentages are quite dispersed, with the perception of employees at a lower percentage than the leaders. Thus, the leaders register 63.63% in their total agreement and the employees point out only 32.29% in their perceptions, as shown in Table 16.
One cannot help but notice indifference levels of approximately 21% for employees in the variable's behavior. Given the sample size, this result is extremely concerning, as ethical standards serve as the foundation of values and reflect a large portion of an organization's intentions and practices.
In this case, an acceptable hypothesis would be the possible strategy used in organizations today called "Turnaround," which synthetically considers four strategies: cost reduction, repositioning, substitution, and renewal. It is perceived that the application of this technique, especially the "replacement" technique used internationally in the 1970s and 1980s, is used today in organizations at various levels and the learning recognized for this technique would be, in theory, only for the top leadership and always bringing in market executives. In a deeper analysis, the further to the top, the more interesting it becomes to change. Initially, its leaders. Further to the base, when analyzing the technique, tacit knowledge and operation indicate other strategies, such as management development, coaching, and other strategies more adapted to sustaining the ethics of leadership.
Nicholson (2010), apud Wheatley (2010), points out that even leaders with strong vision need two conditions to establish change: (1) the future needs to be minimally predictable; and (2) the visionary leader needs to be available. Therefore, if these conditions are not available, the operation will be in a fuzzy vision model, in which the leadership states: “[...] forcefully that the present is intolerable and that performance must improve in a certain time, but that it trusts that the organization will get there”.
The expression “needs to change” is imperative, impetuous, and constantly repeated, and can be complemented with the phrase "help is needed". Therefore, this hypothesis is also reinforced by the disagreement of the employees, which scores 47.06% against 27.27% of the leaders, according to Table 16. The feeling is that employees perceive ethical distortions and that nothing in this field has been implemented to avoid more complex developments when the market asks for more and more transparency for their organizations.
For the employees, the "Functionality Dimension" brings greater importance and impacts, that is, reductions in quantitative (number of employees) and qualification (reduction in training and development), as well as the relations with the hierarchical superiors and the organizational climate, leave the employees mobilized and bring high levels of insecurity to their work routines and their future in the organizations, according to Table 17.
Thus, exemplifying the selection of critical factors, one can state that the highest percentages make up the set of critical variables in that dimension when analyzing the total concordances in the various dimensions. Therefore, in exemplifying the real results of the research application, when detailing the main dimension of the high agreement for the leaders (dimension of the decision-making process), it can be stated that, on one hand, leaders point out, within their total agreement, the three most critical factors as being: structure and processes (88.24%), organizational projects (76.47%), and leadership profile (76.48%), making up the three largest variables (critical factors) in levels of importance in their perceptions.
Based on the results and the analysis obtained, it becomes possible to make a proposal to mitigate the discontinuity of strategic decisions, according to the work plan presented in Chart 1, developed and suggested so that organizations can implement and follow up the development of more specific results with the leaders that may be changed, thus minimizing the impacts of the change of these leaders and the employees involved in those specific management positions.
Notwithstanding the constant practice of leader changes and its impacts on employees and organizational results, this study indicates the factors and variables that can be mitigated so that the change of leaders at different levels can be better oriented and planned.
The most critical factors of the discontinuity of strategic decisions have a differentiated performance in the various dimensions and have different priorities. Depending on the application of the modeling and especially on the nature of the organization, their results will be different and differentiated from each other. Leadership changes must happen, but they can be systematized for quality improvement in minimizing their impacts. For the leaders, within the perceptions pointed out and reinforced in the literature, the centrality of the issues is pointed out: decision-making processes, that is, in addition to the need to have well-defined strategies, coherent management, and business plans, as well as medium and long-term visions. These are issues that cause impacts when it comes to changes, as well as the necessary time for the maturation of its structures and processes and, especially, in the projects that have been started, so that the changes do not confuse leaders, employees, suppliers, and other impacted agents, besides distorting the interpersonal relationships that are so important for the sustainability of the organizational processes.
The employees pointed out that the most critical dimension is related to the functionality dimension, i.e., there is a change in the number of people, training, qualifications, customer service, and relations with hierarchical superiors. In the face of these changes, it can be assumed that bonds become fragile, beliefs become negative, and, mainly, employees perceive themselves as being managed when analyzing their futures, their learning, and their opportunities.
The decision-making process dimension is the one most ambiguously identified by the respondents. It is the second most critical factor indicated by the collaborators and marks the critical aspects pointed out for management weaknesses. How is it conducted? How is it directed? How is it deployed? Its impacts mark changes in the structure, the processes, in interpersonal relationships, with direct impacts on the bonds of subordination, in the activities, in the general functioning of the management, perhaps pointing to the core of the issues when the challenges of transforming individual interests into collective interests are posed.
Discontinuities in Organizational Identity have a direct impact on reputation and image, effective changes in team management, transparency on the indications of new leaders, ethical values, and issues involving team self-esteem. Friends and friends of friends remain without a chance for new possible leaders, which are extremely important issues to reflect on the negative impact generated when changes change just for the sake of changing.
The leadership changes need to be better evaluated as presented in this research, as does the need for the use of critical knowledge management that will sustain the future of organizations. This must be the commitment of all (employees, leaders, suppliers, top management, etc.) that are fundamental parties so that together they can make a difference, mobilize interests, and increase levels of transparency that will sustain more ethical and satisfactory levels in organizations.
Alavi, S & Gill, C 2017, Leading Change Authentically: How Authentic Leaders Influence Follower Responses to Complex Change. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 157–171.
Ali, M & Miah, S 2018, Identifying organizational factors for successful business intelligence implementation. International Journal of Business Intelligence Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 47- 63.
Aslam, U et al. 2015, Organizational cynicism and its impact on privatization (evidence from federal government agency of Pakistan). Transforming Government: People, Processand Policy, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 401-425.
Barrett, R 2014, A organização Dirigida por Valores: Liberado o potencial humano para performance e a lucratividade. 1. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Bridges, E 2018, Executive ethical decisions initiating organizational culture and values. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 576-608.
Eboli, M 2004, Educação corporativa no Brasil: mitos e verdades.
Fonseca, A M O, PORTO, J B & Borges-Andrade, J E 2015, Liderança: Um Retrato da Produção Científica Brasileira. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 290-310.
Friedrich, E & Wüstenhagen, R 2017, Leading Organizations Through the Stages of Grief: The Development of Negative Emotions Over Environmental Change. Business and Society, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 186-213.
Ghinea, V & Ghinea, M 2015, Organizational culture dynamics preamble. Quality - Access to Success, vol. 16, no. 144, pp. 69-72.
Giones, F, Brem, A & Berger, A. 2019, Strategic decisions in turbulent times: Lessons from the energy industry. Business Horizons, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 215-225.
Halaweh, M & Massry, A E 2017, A synergetic model for implementing big data in organizations: An empirical study. Information Resources Management Journal, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 48-64.
Hamel, G 2007, O Futuro da Administração. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
Kaul, A 2019, Culture vs strategy: which to precede, which to align? Journal of Strategy and Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 116-136.
Lopes, M C & Fialho, F A P 2014, Liderança no contexto da sociedade do conhecimento: uma revisão sistemática. Revista da UNIFEBE, vol. 1, no. 13, pp. 1-21.
Nolzen, N 2018, The concept of psychological capital: a comprehensive review. Management Review Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 237-277.
Rodrigues & Rodrigues, M V R (org.) 2013, Gestão do Conhecimento e Inovação nas Empresas. Qualitymark.
Schein, E H 2009, Cultura organizacional e liderança. 1. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, pp. 413.
Umar, R et al. 2018, Conceptual frameworks for the work place change adoption process: elements integration from decision making and learning cycle process. Ergonomics, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 1173-1186.
Vergara, S C & Davel, E (org.). 2001, Gestão com Pessoas e Subjetividade. São Paulo: Atlas.
Warrick, D. 2017, What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business Horizons, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 395-404.
Wheatley, Margareth J 1999, Liderança e a Nova Ciência: Aprendendo organização como um universo ordenado. Tradução de Adail Ubirajara Sobral e Maria Stela Gonçalves. São Paulo: Editora Pensamento-Cultrix.
Xia, Y, Zhang, L & Zhao, N 2016, Impact of Participation in Decision Making on Job Satisfaction: An Organizational Communication Perspective. Spanish Journal of Psychology, vol. 19, no. 58.
Xie, X, Wu, Y & Zeng, S 2016, A theory of multi-dimensional organizational innovation cultures and innovation performance in transitional economies: The role of team cohesion. Chinese Management Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 458-479.
Received: July 14, 2020
Approved: August 13, 2022
DOI: 10.20985/1980-5160.2022.v17n2.1662
How to cite: Luz, P.P.C. (2022). A proposal for actions to mitigate the discontinuity of strategic decisions in managerial change. Revista S&G 17, 2. https://revistasg.emnuvens.com.br/sg/article/view/1662