The Role of Leadership Style in Organisational Change Management: A Literature Review

The role of leadership style in organisational change management has been investigated considerably in this article. Authors have made efforts to cover and present wide-ranging literature on the role of leadership style in organisational change. It was discovered in various literature reviewed that there are several leadership styles that can act as promoter in change management processes; ranging from authoritarian leadership, transformational leadership, laissez-faire leadership, servant leader, transactional leadership, democratic leadership, strategic leadership, bureaucratic leadership, to consultative and participative leadership. It was learnt further that leadership is one of the leading factors in bringing affirmative change in organizations. For instance, leadership is when the leader guides employees towards the direction they desire them in order to achieve organizational goals. It was also discovered that leadership has become an essential component for a successful change in any organization in order to face the ever contentious market competitiveness. In addition, the review as well, covered the concepts of leadership and organisational change management and their types in detail.


Introduction
The globalization has transformed the world into a global village where organizations are always antagonistic and compete with each other. As a result, organization have to create new beneficial operational ways in conducting their businesses. In this situation, "Leadership" has become an essential component for a successful change in any organization in order to face the ever contentious competition in the global market. As, leaders in organisations are recognized as "Champions of Change," it is therefore, the responsibilities of top management of any organization to keep the process of change on going in order to sustain the operational trustworthiness of the organization [1]. Besides, change is certain and a topmost main concern across all kinds of organizations. Nevertheless, studies have constantly indicate that 'between 50% and 70% of planned change efforts fail'. This may not augur well for an organization which desires, is to carry out serious change as the best way to succeed. Studies have also discovered that lots of organizations have become proficient at the 'operational or structural side of change', however, offer minute effort to the people side of change. In order organisations to achieve the outcomes needed from a 'new direction system, or initiative, they have to get the assistance of change leadership alongside the change management philosophy. Since, change leadership is all about directing and managing the stages of change as well as the sentiments connected with those stages. Therefore, people are oblige to move along when change is unbroken. Change leadership needs leaders, and the cooperation of the organization all together, to discourse on beliefs and mindsets that will help people to develop the practices and behaviors that can support them to become accustomed to change. On the contrary to change management (which is considered to be an outside-in process with a concentration on structures, systems and processes); change leadership is the inside-out component of meeting the change challenge. This is about conscripting people in the change process and making them to be committed all through 'the face of uncertainties, fears, and distractions' [2]. Moreover, İkinci [3] underlined the significance of change which İkinci term as an actuality of our time and the real fact of the problem is emphasized through the saying "the only thing that does not change is change itself". Besides, when there is persistent change, people and organization just have to change so as to get used to the change. Organizations are dynamic and are open systems that are frequently in business and in communication with their environments [4]. When looked at from this angle, it is understood that it befits extremely significant for organizations to adjust to the changes in their course of their operational activities in order to conserve their existence [5]. It is worth noting that it is important and powerful for organisations to have the ability and know-how to change in the process of adjusting to and creating a change. As reinforced by Achitsa [6] that nearly all organizations work in vibrant environments and experience change in numerous ways, such as the carrying out of new business strategies, streamlining, outlining of novel policies, acquisitions, mergers, relocations or the carrying out of new technology among others. Thus, to enhance organizational performance, companies must be skilled at planning, implementing and managing change not just as a strange event but on a continuing manner. It has been acknowledged the role leaders normally play in the management of strategic change in organisations in addition, how they navigate the organisation towards the accomplishment of their goals through the use of their leadership skills. Ganta & Manukond [7] further noted that a leader ought to be the person in control or as a 'change agent that can manage an organization or manage the process of organizational change more effectively and successfully'. Organizations nowadays have been obligated because of the rapid technological improvements, high anticipations of customers, and ever changing market situations to continually reexamine and have another look at how they work and to comprehend, embrace and carry out changes in their business in reaction to the changing trends in the market. Organizational change is a call of the day, and a necessity for survival of organizations. Organizations these days, soundly know the prominence of the problem, and are always in preparedness for now and the future in order to get the level of maintainable success. Nevertheless, organizational change is likewise a very difficult and perplexing process along with all of its consequences and importance. Moreover, Gerwing [8] postulated that Lippitt et al., [9] were the ones possibly provided the first book and definition on change agents. According to Lippitt et al, change agent is 'the planned change that originates in a decision to make a deliberate effort to improve the system and to obtain the help of an outside agent in making this improvement. We call this outside agent a change agent'. A more common and inclusive definition was carefully chosen by Beckhard [10] that a 'Change agent' refers to those people either inside or outside the organization who provide technical, specialist or consulting assistance in the management of a change effort'.
Alqatawenh [11] mentioned that change and managing it well in our time is a main concern to business organizations regardless their undertakings. Because, organizations live in a state of fast-tracked developments and high gross revenue. Furthermore, change take place all over nowadays with a cumulative and compounded rate that leadership and change might turn out to be huge tests facing modern organizations. On the other hand, a lot of researchers have approved that the 'subject of effective leadership strategy' is a constantly restructured issue [12]. As a result, organization did not heavily depend on mangers, but then, need the presence of leaders' capacity to persuade individuals through their organization's vision and mission in order to create the precise change [13]. However, the aptitude to deal with change successfully call for a leadership behavior to be overlapped with the work of the organization that is termed by Burns [14] transformational leadership. For İkinci [3], they have to have some essential 'conditions such as a desire for change, readiness for a change, and having the necessary resources to make the change'. In addition, in order organization to be in line with the change, it should be accompany with an abundant amount of political support which cannot be ignored [4]. Moreover, for an organization to acclimate to the changes around, it is crucial for it to embrace an effective leadership approach as well as being structured and making organizational preparations [5]. The fundamental purpose for this is the view that acquisition of unpredictable physiognomies and constructing these physiognomies maintainable are important leadership problems. Thus, it has been stated by some researchers that the prospect for any organization to refurbish itself and to become accustomed to changes will depend if, the administrators have strong leadership qualifications and have saying in managing organizations, [15].
Besides, Ali [16] pointed out that leadership will remain to be the test for the future. Therefore, without addressing the aspect of leadership adequately any restructuring effort may be hopeless. Any change in this case will be contingent on how well leadership can see its role in redesigning the change. Leadership is one of those potentials that are informal to identify than describe. Since, leaders themselves are different entities as a result, the nature of leadership also differs based on the necessities of a specific circumstances. In this circumstance, Peter Drucker, a renowned consultant in organizational leadership had observed that: Among the effective executives I have known and worked with, there are extroverts and aloof, retiring men, some even morbidly shy. Some are eccentrics, others are painfully correct conformists. Some are fat and some are thin. Some are worriers and some are relaxed. Some drink quite heavily and others are total abstainers. Some are men of great charm and warmth; some have no more personality than a frozen mackerel.
In addition, Jackson and Parry [17] further indicated that leadership is a practice where leaders apply their skills and knowledge in leading and bringing a collection of employees in the anticipated course of action that is germane to their organization's goals and objectives. Also, 'an effective leader that has strong leadership skills should also be in possession of certain characteristic, such as, passion, consistency, trust and vision; for only leaders who own these characteristics are able to build trust in employees'. Therefore, it is worth noting that leadership and management are two separate characteristics. As, management can possibly be the old-fashioned way of managing business, where the owner of the business has absolute control of the organization, 'and will single handedly create a direction and direct their employees to do their work in accordance to the owner's instruction and plan. On the other hand, leadership is when the leader guides their employees towards the organizational goals, all the while trying to communicate and motivate their employees in order to make sure their employees are in the right position to use their talents and commit to their jobs'. However, leadership approaches can sometimes change based on the present trends when needed; unlike management that simply follows it old-style rules [18].
Likewise, Kotter [19] established that 'leadership produces movement'. Kotter went further to state that leadership actions have contributed in managing the direction their team have to go, as well as the direction they should follow. In addition, leadership actions can also inspire and support the team to overcome stumbling blocks. Therefore, leadership cannot be the same as Management. As, leadership is an exceptional skill that some great managers possess.
As a result, change management specialists describe organizational change as an affair or method in which organization strive to progress its position and performance or culture by redesigning its structure as well as its strategy or working techniques ( [20,21,22]). Likewise, Lewis [23] also, expresses that organizational change is a noticeable feature and at the same time an appealing factor of businesses. Lewis also observed that organizational change arises in different dimensions for example, from small administrative changes in a unit, to far-reaching change. Besides, a company planning to transform itself is usually seen as a tactic to make progress. In the long run, organizational changes can affect the entire company and disturb the working culture.
Furthermore, Cawsey et al., [24] also pointed out that the causes for organizational change are many. The cause can be in the form of key changes like, mergers, acquisition, outsourcing, downsizing, streamlining or restructuring. At the same time, minor changes can take place all over the organization to improve business operations and effectiveness through departmental restructurings, the setting up of new technology as well as new inducement systems. Also, the minor changes can take place by either closing down certain manufacturing lines, 'or opening new branches in other parts of the country'. Helms-Mills, Dye and Mills [25] too defined organizational change, "as an alteration of a core aspect of an organization's operation. Core aspects include the structure, technology, culture, leadership, goal or personnel of any organization." Patterns of modifications or change can also be minor or major, together with the reorganization of a single department from side to side the whole company, the institution of a new machinery all the way through, the thorough change of the production or the closing down of one department and subsequently downsize all employees in that department. As a result, it is not the magnitude of the change that can be considered as important but, the effect it will create inside the organization. In brief, Smirnova [26] mentioned that diverse internal and external factors can cause the necessities for organisational change. Similarly, globalization, technological development, the emerging competition, the ever changing environment and, the economic condition have compelled companies to carry out changes as a probability to survive and continue to stay competitive on the market.
Also, Tuchman and Anderson [27] defined 'change management as the process that involves moving the organization from its present situation to another desirable situation during a transitional period'. They further stated that the efforts in managing change can likely demonstration the need to find discontent at the present situation. 'In order to obtain a serious desire for future situation, organizations need to build a clear strategy to achieve its vision' [28]. However, change is a vital attribute of transformational leadership, as postulated in the contemporary leadership literature. Therefore, transformational change is as a consequence of the change that will be made through the behavior and attitudes of the followers of change [29].
Smith, [30] commented that change management is an important plan in deciding what way an organization is anticipated to move from the current state to the desired future state. Therefore, 'when organizational change is planned, it acts as a link between the existing parts of a change process which includes; setting up priorities and timelines, delegating responsibilities, designing mechanisms for review and revision if applicable'. Thus, for the change management process to be active there is need to make proper plans so that the preparation for change can be done earlier with consultations, before the changes take effect [30]. In order to make sure any change management plan is effectively completed, there is need for proper plans to be in place and, the plans should as well be fully budgeted for. This process can make leadership very important since, the manager's duty is to 'capture employees back into their work so as to produce maximum benefits from the change. This method simply highlights the importance of leaders throughout the process of change [31].
Thus, Moran and Brightman [32] termed change management 'as the process of continuing renewing an organization's direction, structure and capabilities to serve the ever changing needs of external and internal customers'. On the other hand, Q5 Change [33] highlighted the difference between change management and change leadership. Q5 Change, further indicated the 37 change experts' definition of change management which, to them are a set of practices, implements and instruments designed to preserve the phases of change under control. These instruments are there to manage employees' reactions and preclude superfluously high costs. Contrariwise, change leadership according to their view, 'is concerned with the skills, knowledge and behaviours a leader needs to successfully initiate, drive and embed sustained change in an organisation'. However, successful change leaders could have some of the alike skills like change managers. Yet, what differentiated change leaders from change managers are their 'ability to embrace change, get people to buy into the underlying vision and keep them engaged throughout, rather than just push things along. Also, their ability to keep disruption to the lowest level.
Therefore, this paper explored the role of leadership style in organisational change management with the use of secondary data throughout the study.

Leadership Styles -Concepts and Forms
Holmes [34] observed that the idea of leadership has triggered a wonderful pact of investigation. And, most of the researches have been done through surveys and interviews and; the results have provided valuable information about people's patterns as well as the stereotypes of good leaders. The study has also discover approximately what people contemplate to be a 'good leadership'. All the same, a lot of people's still have the conservative belief that a good leader is for instance somebody 'who is authoritative, articulate, decisive, and until recently, typically male'. Even amongst citizens in many Western nations still consider the ideal leader to be white, notwithstanding the election of Barack Obama to the USA Presidency in 2009. As this condition proposes, nonetheless, stereotype and reality are regularly generally to some extent different.
According to Bunmi's estimation, 'leadership is a social influence process in which the leader seeks the voluntary participation of subordinates in an effort to reach organization goals' [35]. Mullins [36] further conceptualized a leader 'as a person who delegates or influencing others to act so as to carry out specified objectives'. Therefore, nowadays' organizations require effective leaders that can comprehend the difficulties of the fast changing global environment. In a situation wherein, the task is highly designed and at the same time the leader has good working relationship with the employees, then the success of the organisation will be highly dependable on the employees, [37].
Checklist 256 [38] mentioned that initial theories about management and leadership style were predominantly concentrated on the way authority was applied by the leadership in organisations. According to the research done at the University of Michigan in the 1950s, Rensis Likert discovered four different styles of leadership as follows: a Exploitative/authoritative -the leader has little conviction or self-confidence in his subordinates. Therefore, he/she manages the employees by giving out orders and uses fear and punishment tactics as motivators b Benevolent/authoritative -the leader has some faith in his workers but manages them in a patronizing and authoritarian manner c Consultative -the leader shows belief and assurance towards subordinates, seek out their views and thinking, nevertheless preserves decision making power aspect of the organisation d Participative -the leader relies on his subordinates entirely, seeks and acts on their ideas and involves as well as in setting organizational goals Likert's research proposed that consultative and participative leadership styles are more operational, however, he never thought of the situation in which management should have a role to play such as directing its employees to do their work in consonant with the owner's order and design.
Furthermore, Ali [16] stated that Stephen Covey records in his book "Principle-Centred Leadership" which issues a leader typically concentrates on. He pointed out that leadership pay more attention on people than on things. Also, focuses on the 'long-term rather than the short term goals; on values and principles rather than activities; on mission, purpose and direction rather than on methods, techniques and speed'. In addition, Mahomed [39] observed that leadership has become a popular area of research as, it has been discovered that leadership has over two dozen different styles as already stated in literature. Thus, each style differs completely from the other, and has dissimilar fields of submission including in health, commerce, the public sector, and others. Importantly, Ali ( [16], [40], [39], [41]) in similar approaches have stated the most conspicuous leadership styles especially in business organization such as: a Authoritarian leadership or autocratic leadership can be describe as the type of leadership where the head of the organisation takes control of all decisions and commands processes and tasks to the organisation. Authoritarian leadership is deeply dependent on discipline within the organisation. b Transformational Leadership: Figure out the needs of people and develop ways of addressing them; Is engrossed with purposes and values, morals and ethics; rise above daily affairs; Is concerned with meeting long-term goals without compromising human values and principles. Moreover, transformational leadership divides causes that disrupt progress and their warning sign and works towards preventing them. Transformational leadership considers the value of profit as the basis of growth. Is proactive, catalytic and tolerant also; focuses more on missions and strategies for achieving them. Makes full use of human resources and, identifies and develops new talent. Transformational leadership recognizes the output of people and rewards them for noteworthy contributions; releases human potential and models love; always leads people out in new directions. Transformational leadership in addition, aligns internal structures and systems to reinforce all-embracing values and goals. c Laissez-faire leadership is the opposite of authoritarian leadership in many ways. A laissez faire leader tolerates followers to have complete freedom in making decisions that concern their work and how it is to be completed. The leader takes on the responsibility of providing the resources required by employees. d A servant leader is one who mainly shows concern for his/her team members and their needs. Servant leaders believe that meeting the needs of employees will lead to the success of the organisation. Such leaders facilitate the sharing of ideas within the organisation and offer support to employees to actualize their goals. Also, servant leaders facilitate the involvement of employees in the decision-making process. e Transactional Leadership: response on man's need to get a job done and to make a living; is engrossed with power and position, politics and perks/advantages. Is held up in daily affairs and; is short term and hard-data oriented. Transactional Leadership complicates causes and symptoms and concerns itself more with treatment than recommendation; focuses on tactical issues; relies on human relations to grease human interaction; follows and fulfils role expectations by striving to work effectively within current systems; supports structures and systems that reinforce the bottom line and, maximize efficiency and guarantee short term results. f Democratic leadership, as the name implies, is an open and crystal clear concept of leading where the decision-making powers are distributed amongst the members of the organisation; and contributions from all members are valued and their inputs in the formulation of the vision of the organization is encouraged. g Strategic Leadership: is perceive as effective. Sits at the connection between a company's main operations and its growth opportunities. He or she accepts the burden of executive interests while ensuring that current working conditions remain stable for everyone else. This is a desirable leadership style in many companies because strategic thinking supports multiple types of employees at once. Though, leaders who operate this way can set a dangerous practice with respect to how many people they can support at once, and what the best direction for the company really is if everyone is getting their way at all times. h Bureaucratic Leadership: styled as seldom effective because, they lead by the rules. However, this style of leadership might listen and consider the input of employees. Unlike autocratic leadership bureaucratic Leadership tends to reject an employee's input if it conflicts with the company's policy or past practices. Employees under this leadership style might not feel as controlled as they would under autocratic leadership, but there is still a lack of freedom in how much people are able to do in their roles. This type of leadership can quickly shut down innovation, and is absolutely not encouraged for companies who are pursuing ambitious goals and quick growth. Alqatawenh [11] remarks that organizations need to reflect on their patterns of leadership in the midst of the fast changes on the market in order to conserve their survival and sustainability. Therefore, it is necessary to have mindful leaders who should be conscious of the size of the challenges and the complexity of the administrative processes, which will enable them to discover the right leadership methods that can be capable of keeping abreast of developments. Najm [42] however, prescribed the most famous leadership style which Najm identified as the 'transformational leadership' that will be in position to address the trials and complication of the emerging administrative practices. Similar assessment was also made by Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy [37] in their article 'Leadership Styles'. Alqatawenh further assert that the transformational leadership needed today should have the ability to stimulate subordinates to perform their best, as well as, improve their skills that will advanced subordinates logical levels. Accordingly, the transformational leader has the potential to impulse his groups to deliver more than expected by the organisation. However, Conger [43] assesses a transformational leadership 'as the leadership that goes beyond incentives for performance'. Conger opined that the objective of a transformational leadership is to nurture and inspire workers to be intellectually and creatively balance. In addition, to change workers' own apprehensions into an important part of the organization's mission.
Besides, Trofino [44] described transformational leadership 'as the kind of leadership that sets a clear vision for their organizations'. Kirkan [45] also buttress that transformational leadership 'is a leadership pattern used by leaders to change the current situation by identifying those who follow the organization's problems through inspiration, persuasion, and excitement to achieve a high level of clear vision for the purpose of recognizing common goals'. According to Ghadi et al. [46], transformational leadership comprises of four sub-dimensions. First, transformational leadership has the ideal inspiration that can provide him/her the capability to increase employees' level of fidelity, devotion and empathy without concentrating on their self-interest. Second, has inspiring motivation that can construct a visualization that will influence subordinates to make them to be committed to the organization. Third, intellectual stimulus can offer leaders the ability to train employees how to be innovative as well as risk taker. Final, transformational leadership possesses the authorization to coordinate with subordinates or act as a top-down motivator. This role is achieve through the delegation of authority to subordinates in order to make decisions and deliver them.
Also, Rank and Hutchison's [47] presented a study inside the social work profession and noticed five shared features in leadership such as 'proactive, values and ethics, empowerment, vision, and communication'. They also observed that there are rather differences on the challenges faced by social work leaders to those experienced by other disciplines. According to McDonald & Chenoweth [48], these challenges might have stemmed up from the 'conflicts with professional values, a holistic and systemic orientation pattern, the overarching concern for others, and a strong desire to promote inclusive practices'. Nevertheless, much of the core leadership approach revealed by the Rank and Hutchison study is suggestive of a transformational leadership style.
In the same way, Bass [29] postulated four factors that characterized transformational leadership style as follows: 'idealized influence/ charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration'. They further mentioned that transformational leaders are role models. They generate a sense of fellow feeling with a common vision, inculcate pride and faith in groups, stimulate and empower groups, encourage groups to reconsideration their conservative practice and ideas and; they also, give attention to individuals and be familiar with their needs [49]. Bass [29] further pointed out this time to transactional leadership style which he said is, characterized by two factors: 'contingent reward and management by exception'. According to Lowe et al., [50], the management by exception factor has been lately divided into two features: 'active and passive'. As a result, transactional leadership style take place in a' leader-follower' conversational relationship where remedial actions are concession and therefore, followers who obviously meet well-defined goals are rewarded. In a situation where a transformational leadership style consist of values and visionary leadership, a transactional leadership style remains more thoroughly connected towards spotting and rewarding of particular follower endeavors ( [51]. Consequently, literature on transformational-transactional leadership discourses whether gender and organization type require definite response tendencies. Even though female managers are found to be more transformational ( [49,52]). Thus, research on gender had shown that female managers that managed female followers have reported of higher levels of female transformational leadership than their male opposite numbers [53]. Further, Bass and Riggio, [54]; Eisenbach et al. [55], emphasized that transformational leadership is a suitable leadership style for managing organizational change. In addition, Callan [56] pointed out that transformational leadership have the ability to assist followers to understand how to cope with change.
Therefore, a successful change is contingent greatly on leadership style. Santalainen [57] cited the case of Jesus of Nazareth as the greatest strategic leader who generated a religious movement (known as Christianity) from nothing to something spiritually beneficial today, through devising a vision, goals, charisma; as well as forming a core team and enabling them to work with him. Thus, 'organizing informational events and reserving time for reflection'. These qualities led to the configuration of the three important dimensions that a great leader can form: learning capacity, flexibility and managerial wisdom. Thus, Smirnova [26] expressed that leadership skills are exceptionally essential however, in order a change application to be successful, there is need for a great leader to follow certain process. As a result, Kotter [58] developed an eight (8) step process that he considers organisations have to follow to manage change successfully: a. Establishing sense of urgency: by exploring the market and the competitive realities; identifying and discussing crises, potential crises, or major opportunities. b. Creating the guiding team: put together a group with enough power to lead the change; get the group to work together as a team.  [59] made an important research instrument that was often used by specialists to observe the leaders' style, acronym MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire). The authors disclose four proficiency areas that safeguard the success for a transformational leadership: a. Idealized behavior -it makes a leader to be trusted and respected; b. Inspirational motivation -the ability to stimulate employees to outperform themselves; c. Intellectual stimulation -leaders stimulate the employees to ask questions and to solve old problems in new ways; d. Individual consideration -refers to the habit of listening to the needs and wishes of subordinates. On the other hand, Stagl [60] pointed out that successful organizational change hinge on leaders i.e. managers and bosses that usually have direct authority with people experiencing the change. These leaders should support and execute change in their area of control. Effective leaders recognize that their backing is central to the success of the process as well as their commitment in playing their own part is also crucial. Stagl [60] mentioned some of the roles leaders might play as they pursue change in their organizations. a. Sponsor: Leaders act as advocates for the change at their level in the organization. They are representatives who keep the change in front of their peers and the "higher-ups." A Sponsor is the person who won't let the change initiative die from lack of attention, and is willing to use their political capital to make the change happen. According to the sponsor, the leader is the champion. b. Role Model: Leaders of change must be willing to take the lead. They should demonstrate the behaviors and attitudes that are expected of everyone else. Employees watch leaders for consistency between words and actions to see if they should believe the change to really going to happen. Leaders should be self-aware and deliberate. c. Make Decisions: As managers, leaders usually control resources such as people, budgets, and equipment, and thus have the authority to make decisions that affect the initiative. They have the ability to say "yes" or "no" to the project moving forward within the span of their control. During change, leaders must leverage their decision-making authority and choose the options that will support the initiative. Thus, Leaders should be decisive and set priorities that support change. d. Communicate: Leaders are the face and the voice of change. They communicate often to share information, keep people updated and offer encouragement. When employees hear multiple messages in the organization, the one they listen to the most is their immediate boss. Leaders interpret the change message to be relevant for their reports, while still matching the overall message. So, Leaders should be transparent and consistent. e. Engage: Leaders provide the motivation to change and get people involved. They create a sense of urgency and importance about the change, and show commitment and passion about getting things done. They offer recognition to those who are participating and doing well. Leaders realize that change can be difficult, and understand the need for people to be motivated to step out of their comfort zone. Therefore, Leaders should be energetic and empathetic. f. Hold Accountable: With their authority, leaders hold people in the organization accountable for the change.
They uphold agreements and make sure others do the same. They don't let people get away with not changing, and work to understand the underlying reasons so they can remove obstacles. Leaders follow through on delivering consequences when people don't do their part. Leaders are exacting and fair. Effective leaders recognize that change cannot happen unless they fulfill the roles that only those in authority can. Enlist their support and clarify the roles you need them to fill in their areas and in different situations. For this reason, leaders need to be helped in your organization in order to see the importance and unique part they play in change, and help them fulfill it. Băeşu & Bejinaru [61] buttress that in recent literature, specialists have extended the research and discussions about the role of leaders in organizations to other profound issues similar to 'the effects of different leadership styles upon the process of implementing organizational change'. As, different leaders will have diverse opinions about innovation and will use different approach in facilitating the implementation of the idea. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the views, styles, as well as the behaviors of individual leaders and the system support strategies which should take these differences into account. For instance Higgs and Rowland ( [62], [63]) have made research on the connection between several styles of leadership and organizational change. Based on their results five broad competency areas of leadership related to successful implementation of organizational change were presented as follows: a. Creating the case for change -building awareness among employees regarding the imminence of change and its necessity; Creating  structural change -firmly working on people understanding the essence of the specific change phenomena and providing its support through consistent tools and processes; b. Engaging other -getting people involved and committed to run along the change process; c. Implementing and sustaining changes -elaboration strategies and development of effective action plans and supervising the progress towards the desired change; d. Facilitating and developing capability -sustain people to find their own motivation for achieving change. e. However, some extremist theorists who dispute that championing change should be the central role of a leader and everything else is considered secondary. In addition, Yukl, G. [64] opines that a leader can be considered effective if that leader succeeds in making an organization to adjust to a changing environment through incessant revival. Yukl further stresses on the need to understand the reasons for the resistance to change. To also, understand the successive stages in the change process and, different approaches to change can significantly boost the probability of a successful change implementation.

Organizational Change Management -Concepts and Forms
Since the emergence of globalization the issue of change is always on the agenda of organizations, 'just as it has always been a common characteristic of human life'. However, change has become very difficult for humans to embrace because, it is something that at times take away 'people out of their comfort zones', which can sometimes forces them to transform their lifestyles and make them very much uncomfortable [65]. Thus, Hao & Yazdanifard [66] made an example of a worker who usually starts work at 9 a.m.; suddenly his supervisor demands the worker to now begin work at 7 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. Following the abrupt change of starting time, the worker will be late to go to work because, force of habit might keep him to be woken up late. If the same thing applies to the organization, where the employees normally does their work by following the order of A to Z and suddenly there is change of sequence of work to Z to A. All the employees in this situation may find it quite difficult for them to use to the change within a short period of time. For this reason, 'change management in an organization can be defined as an approach to deal with change in two different areas -the organization and the individual, with individuals and the overall organization adapting to change at their own pace and style' (Rouse, 2014). As, change management sanctions the 'organization to catch an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage, if the organization effectively and efficiently implements and adapts to the change of the market' [67]. Hritz, [68] pointed out that there are three phases in change management, which are 'adapting to change, controlling the change and lastly effecting the change'. The first stage expressed the individual preparedness and determination to adjust to the changes and their readiness to commit to the change. The second stage includes the control and implementation of the change in everyday life. Thirdly, to effect the change which means to endure the change and get familiar to it in lifetime. However, Alqatawenh [11] observed lately that, change management is considers as one of the most key tests that have faced the management leadership, which needed decisive planning as well as providing resources that can deal with the internal and external variations equally in the business environment and at the same time proffer appropriate solutions.
In pointing out the types of organizational change, Gerwing [8] revealed that researchers such as Porras and his colleagues Silver and Robertson in the early 1990's reviewed theory and literature generally on organizational change and as well, conducted intense research on the field of organizational change. They further highlighted the difference between 'planned versus unplanned change and first-order versus second-order change'. According to them planned change is a careful verdict or process to progress the organization while unplanned change respond to 'external influences'. External influences can be new technologies or competitors that affect an organization's core business. In such a situation, organizations should react proactively in order to response in a more adaptive manner in consonant with the planned change. The first-order change represent "continuous improvement" (which means it causes less fundamental impact in the business) because, it is the changes or adjustments in the existing systems or processes, for instance; changes in an organization's hierarchy. In contrast, the second order change is more drastic and important. And, it is related to unplanned change that is why, Porras and Robertson [69] termed this pattern of change as "revolutionary change". However, Gerwing questioned the findings of Porras and Robertson which did not provide an easy understanding of the different types of change, therefore; it lacks understanding 'due to the misunderstanding that "evolutionary" and "revolutionary" change cannot be planned at all'.
In trying to explain the concept of organizational change further, Carter et al., [70] experiment that organizational change activity seems to be common but often a difficult process for many organizations. As, companies without choice certainly need to change their strategies, interchange resources, or embrace new technologies in reaction or in expectation to the improvements in innovations, the emergence of new competitors, or changes in market needs. Organizations that find themselves in these situations, change is there solution 'for survival and a prominent aspect of life'. However, Lewis perceived that 'organizational change can serve as a mechanism to address many different types of challenges such as new policies, regulatory demands, need for increased profitability, resource management or general effectiveness' [23]. As, reinforced by Carter et al. [70] 'each of these driving forces can lead to change initiatives that vary in size and impact, but the ultimate goal of the organizational change is to improve performance'. Hansen [71] opined that irrespective the causes for organizational change, it is likely that the putting into practice of the change may reliant on 'the organization's culture, leadership and communication styles'. Hansen further expressed that the end product of organizational change can likely lead to an entirely 'new beliefs and practices that may conflict with those previously held', which can likely be to a large extent the reason for the transformation. Thus, the belief is to put forward an opportunity that will allow management to make the best use of employee engagement and commitment, possibly through the use of culture, leadership, and communication. Consequently, if change is unavoidable, then it is important to comprehend 'how these variables might cultivate a landscape of change within the organization'. Nonetheless, 'the impact of these variables may not be entirely understood as a means of cultivating change'. Nevertheless, many firms still remain competitive by continuously changing their strategies and adapting to new technologies [72]. Amidst the challenges faced by change management actors, change management philosophy still remain as a 'popular term that evokes the action of creating organizational change. This action typically includes creating the vision, promoting communication and participation, and facilitating the process' [73].
In so doing, Mária et al., [74] discovered that organisations acclimatize to one of the three different ways of managing change. The three ways are: reactive change, pre-active change and pro-active change. In reactive change, organisation can only adjusts to a new situation based on the reactions from the market or customers. However, the pre-active and pro-active organisations do not wait for a situation to arise before they act on it. Many pre-active organisations can probably expect changes in their environment and as a result commence their planning strategies in order to respond when the new situation presents itself. Thus, the most desired form of change management organisations prefer today is the pro-active change method. This method defines a 'situation where organisations do not wait for changes in the environment to occur at all. Rather, they actively work to influence the environment in which they operate, in order to make it conform to their own pre-planned objectives'.
In addition, Anderson & Ackerman Anderson [20] present three of the most popular types of organizational change method practice by most organisations nowadays. They include: developmental change, transitional change, and transformational change. An organization can assess what kind of a transformation it requires to go through in order to achieve its strategic goals. Though, not all changes are planned which, Porras and Robertson [69] term as "revolutionary change". In some circumstances, 'an organization might be forced to go through a certain form of transition. Therefore, companies should understand and manage different types of change depending on its nature and complexity'.
In this situation, Kotter [75] has opined that the main goal for carrying out a change is to make vital changes in order to manage the new challenges for the business. Kotter [75] further said that a change process experiences different stages that should need a definite amount of time to occur. All these stages are important therefore, leaving out any step could be disadvantageous and can produce an unsatisfactory results as it can only lead to a deceptive speed. Therefore, Kotter [75] have recommended eight (8) steps that are indispensable when making a change in your organization: a. Establishing a Sense of Urgency -this stage need a thorough examination of the market opportunities which is vital, as well as discussing any ongoing or potential crisis or prospects. b. Forming a Powerful Guiding Coalition -at this phase there is need to assemble a very important group with powerful people that will manage to lead the change as a team. c. Creating a Vision -this step needs a focus vision that will help to direct the change. It is also important to develop good strategies to reach the vision. d. Communicating the Vision -there is need to use all possible channels to communicate the vision and strategies by demonstrating cases for a new behaviour through for example the guiding coalition. e. Empowering Others to Act on the Vision -eliminate obstacles and systems etcetera that will threaten the vision as well as encourage new ideas. f. Planning for and creating Short-Term Wins -in this step it is important to plan and create visible performance improvements and reward involving employees. g. Consolidating Improvements and Producing Still More Change -in this step you should use your increased credibility to change systems and so on, which do not fit the vision. And, develop employees who can implement it and reinvigorate the process with new projects. h. Institutionalizing New Approaches -in this last step you should clarify the connection between the new behaviour and corporate success as well as develop means to guarantee leadership development. However, Kotter [75] pointed out some common errors that are usually made during a change process. Kotter noticed that many change agents do not exhaustively put emphasize on the first step (i.e. the examination of important market opportunities and potential crisis). Moreover, creating awareness that this change is urgent through communicating information is very important in order to motivate people to help. Sometimes, some managers take too lightly the problems in making people leave their comfort zone and lack patience to carefully discuss with people how the first step should work. Kotter further assert that when the current business is successful it becomes more difficult to convince people the need for change. Moreover, it will make the current situation to appear more dangerous than the change itself. According to Kotter [75] leaders need to persuade about 75% of their managers that this change is needed.
Besides, İkinci [3] also mentioned that Kurt Lewin, who was one of the first people among others to examine the organizational change process, stated that there are three main stages of change such as: a. Behaviour analysis -in the process of starting change, the behaviour Analysis stage in which information is collected about a new case is used. In this stage the expectations of the workers are found out and they are enlightened, the possible resistances are determined, and the convincing period is undergone. The leader's intuition and ability to take precautions becomes important to inspire confidence to the workers who are happy with the current situation and thus worry about the uncertainty that will come along with change. b. Transition stage -this is the maintenance stage which take account of bearing in mind the organization as whole, determining how the changes will affect the organization. Also, sharing with the workers the information on the potential results of the change, as well as the targeted structure. In this way, it will be possible for the workers to participate in the process and give their support. and; c. Refreeze stage-this stage is the anticipated case that includes the attempts to provide permanence as it is aimed to provide the continuance of the case achieved after the change and to make the change continuous.
Training and support activities are conducted to make the workers adopt the policies, rules and methods accompanying the new case and to make them behave in accordance with the procedures. The underlying reason for this is the impossibility of predicting the results always earlier during an organizational change process and the need arising for a better analysis of the organization to remove this uncertainty. This is accompanied by a need for a leader to transform the organization and it is of great importance that this leader should clearly and accurately express the necessary strategies, policies and applications [15]. The UNDP capacity development resource capacity development group developed change interventions that fall into three main typologies [76]: a. Top-down change management is based on the assumption that if managers plan things properly, change can be executed smoothly. The only obstacle may sometimes come from resistance from some employees, hence; focus is on changing the culture of an organisation or the 'way we do things around here'. b. Transformational change management relies on transformational leaders setting a personal example and challenging people to think 'outside the box' and innovate, while providing a safe environment for doing so. c. Strategic change management is based on a certain recipe and are in contrast with the top-down models in that they aim to introduce a new behaviours at work, allowing people to witness the benefit for the organisation and, thus, based on the evidence, internalise the change in their 'ways of working'. Any of these styles can be operational, contingent on the situation even though it is by and large acknowledged that the first group is often the group that fails the most. 'All approaches highlight the importance of leadership, communications and involving people in the change process.' Therefore, the main trial for most organisations is to equate the model to the circumstance. However, the top-down change management interventions which, Hill et al., [77] style as the two types top management communication (TMC) that carry the day in organizations. According to Hill et al., [77] top-down communication approach is use to spread information about the change process and, the bottom-up communication approach is use to get information from the lower level employees in the organisation. They further stated that TMC to some extent arbitrates the undesirable relationship between hierarchical distance and commitment to change, suggesting that 'bi-directional communication' is essential to lessen the perception gap about a change thinning out down the organizational ladder. However, the top-down communication approach is commonly used in most organizations, even though bottom-up communication is essential in collecting feedback from employees that will give the opportunity to the workforce to influence the change process, especially throughout the introduction period. During this period feedback usually help to break the emerging resistance. Regardless it 'role in determining an organization strategy and vision, TMC is remote from frontline employees and hence cannot interact directly with them'. So far this setback is concern, the dissemination of key decisions to lower level employees' centers on the middle managers to a large extent.
Nevertheless, Cummings and Worley, [78]; Senior and Swailes, [79] pointed out that resistance to change has become a recurrent theme in the change management literature. The way resistance to change is defined is contingent on the selected theoretical viewpoint. According to them two main viewpoints can be identified: a. conventional change management literature; and b. Critical perspectives on change management. Based on the 'shared core assumptions' conventional viewpoint considered change as vital 'i.e. change is good and stability is bad' therefore; change should be managed and controlled [80]. Sturdy and Grey, [81] in addition, postulated that the 'models and approaches for managing change are framed in the interest of management'. On the contrary, Kanter et al., [82], stated that 'critical change management literature questions whether change and stability are two mutually exclusive and objective states'. The explanation of this assumption 'might depend on the perspective and position of the person defining it'. According to Brown and Humphreys, [83] stability can mean 'unnoticed change'. Likewise, 'change is not idealised, as it is unlikely that all organisational members will be enthusiastic about the change project'.
In the conventional change literature, resistance to change is usually observed as "collateral damage" of change events. Resistance to change can have numerous poles apart appearances, 'varying from foot-dragging, withdrawal, material sabotage and whistleblowing [84]; to strikes, working to rule and symbolic sabotage' [85]. Equally organisational change is considered to be desirable and unavoidable, people can only resist it if the outlined action is unreasonable. Therefore, this outlining must bring about that resistance should be managed and overcome [86].
Ka¨rreman and Alvesson, [87] observed that in the critical change management literature, two themes dominate the debate when resistance to change is discussed: a. power; and b. discourse. Thus, the first subject equates resistance to change to that of an unequal power relations. Critical change management authors therefore, pointed out that in conventional change management theory, power is sidestepped by using softened views such as 'leadership, governance and empowerment'. However, Pfeffer, [88] warned that spectators should not disregard the social realities of power. They should focus their attention to power dynamics so that different perspectives on resistance to change can be brought to light. Thus, the main term in this perspective is "discourse" ( [81,89]). According to Sturdy and Grey, [81], discourse analysis make available a substitute approach for studying organisational change management and resistance. Moreover, it has become an essential practical position in organisation studies ( [90][91][92]).
Nonetheless, organisational discourse can be defined as "the structured collections of texts embodied in the practices of talking and writing that bring organisationally related objects into being as these texts are produced, disseminated and consumed" [92]. However, this view is built on the idea that organisations are fashioned out of discourse [89]. That is to say, 'organisational communication leads to stories, which are made and remade, and are combinations of "talk" in formal (e.g. meetings, public discourse) and informal (e.g. coffee breaks, sub-public discourse) settings'. Language is therefore, considered as a 'vehicle to construct meaning instead of a medium to transmit information' [93]. As a result, language is an important 'part of individual and collective sense-making processes. Talks, conversations, and use of language are expressions of one's beliefs and reflect the social community to which one belongs'. In actual fact, each professional cultivates 'his own professional language based on education and experience and develops his language further by interacting with peers' [94].
In a similar perspective, Gerwing [8] opined that resistance to change can be one of the many reasons for the failure of change initiatives. For this reason, it is vital to make deeper this field while discovering organizational change. It is essential to understand the variance or the relationship between the terms, resistance and readiness to change, which is essential while dealing with organizational change. Since, they may appear to be clear opposites of each other. Yet, according to Self [95], "resistance and readiness are not polar opposites on a linear continuum. Instead, resistance and readiness represent complex states impacted by numerous individual and organizational factors". This definition explains in a nutshell 'why individuals resist to change, how individual resistance to change can be managed and how to create readiness for change will be explain in terms of resistance and readiness for change. As expressed by [96] people do not just resist change as such. It may synonymous to the term resistance to change. It can be 'more likely that employees resist against the unknown or the implementation of change that is not feasible from the employee's standpoint'. Since change is 'disruptive and awakes fear about the future and unknown many individuals resist to it and "organizational change efforts often run into some form of human resistance"' [97], despite the fact that change initiatives that might be positive or rational can consist of loss and uncertainty.
According to Gerwing [8] managers who are sometimes change agents are every now and then conscious of the above facts but do not have time to evaluate the situation before executing organizational change. And, they do not at times think about employee's resistance to change initiatives and what are causes. In many change situations employees might think that they are going to lose something they cherished. In this case, they will rather 'focus on their own interests instead of the interests of the organization. Resistance to change also occurs when employees do not understand the implications of change and consider that their benefit is less than their effort'. Whereas managers recognise employees' resistance to change, organizations have to deal with the resistance as well as manage it.
However, Dent and Goldberg's [96] in their reviewed theory discovered 'common strategies' to overwhelmed resistance to change, which includes: 'employees' education and participation, facilitation, negotiation, manipulation, coercion or discussions'. In similar manner, Erwin and Garman [98] also carried out a deep research on how managers and change agents can deal and manage employee's resistance to change. They observed that Managers and change agents need to take note of resistance to change and develop plan how to deal with it. Moreover, they need to provide extra 'support in terms of building trust and understanding the need and requirement of change'. In contrasting resistance to change, Armenakis and Harris [99] have a preference to the term readiness for change as it "fits better with a positive approach framing change" Additionally, Block, [100] considered resistance in the organisational environment as presenting 'an expression of reservation that occurs as a natural response or reaction to change'. Based on the situational view of Bareil et al., [101], resistance to change is a variable that hinge on the state of affairs of the change. Simply put, employees will respond in a different way to different changes. All conditions of an organisational change are generally determined by its content and by the process of change implementation; that is, by the way it is done. Moreover, there are as well many circumstantial factors specific to a single organisation that may improve 'the impact of the process and content factors of the change. To be exact, the resistance to a specific change expressed by individual employees will be contingent on the degree to which the content and process of the change are suitable and desirable for them in a given context.

Conclusion
Leadership has become an essential component for a successful change in any organization in facing the ever contentious market competitiveness. In view of that leaders in organisations are recognized as supporters of change.
Since, one of their duties as top management is to keep the process of change on going in their organisations in order to sustain the organization's operational credibility. Moreover, the role of leaders should be to guide their employees towards the achievement of organizational goals. It is therefore, fundamental for the leadership to always try to communicate and motivate employees in order to get an acceptable outcomes that can increase workers commitment and loyalty to the organization. Even though, change has become very difficult for humans to embrace because; it at times take away certain privileges and opportunities they use to enjoy which, can in some cases force them to change their lifestyles and make them very much uncomfortable.
In order to investigate which leadership style can be used more effectively in the change management processes; several leadership styles were reviewed in this paper: ranging from authoritarian leadership, transformational leadership, laissez-faire leadership, servant leader, transactional leadership, democratic leadership, strategic leadership, bureaucratic leadership, to consultative and participative leadership. Thus, most exponents identified transformational leadership as the most famous leadership style that will be in position to address the trials and difficulties of the emerging administrative practices. To them a transformational leader has the potential to stir his group to deliver more than anticipated by the organisation. Moreover, a transformational leader can mobilize separate incentives for performance and, can nurture and inspire workers to be intelligently and innovatively balance (as the leader is always familiar with their needs). Because of these qualities, transformational leaders are considered as role models since, they generate a sense of empathy with a common vision. A transformational leader can also, indoctrinate pride and faith in groups, as well as inspire and empower groups. Thus, in my opinion, transformational leadership style can help to reduce resistance to change. As, resistance to change can be one of the many reasons for the failure of change initiatives. Hence, it is crucial to go deeper in this field while observing organizational change.