Copyright 2020 By Jones Bartlett Learning LLC

Copyright 2020 By Jones Bartlett Learning Llc An Ascend Learning

Analyze the Penn State case study to identify the resistance faced by leaders during the transformational change, the strategies employed to mitigate this resistance, and recommend additional strategies. Examine the environmental constraints affecting change agents within this context. Determine which leadership style—transformational, transactional, or servant—best aligns with initiating the change described, supporting your arguments with details from the case study and relevant theories.

Paper For Above instruction

The Penn State University scandal of 2012, which involved the conviction of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for child molestation, created a crisis that shook the foundation of the institution and its football program. The immediate aftermath saw the firing of prominent leaders, including legendary coach Joe Paterno, the athletic director, and the university president. Despite the severity of the scandal, Penn State's recovery and subsequent thriving status exemplify a successful transformational change process. This paper explores the resistance faced during this change, the strategies used to address it, environmental constraints present, and the leadership style most suitable for such transformational efforts.

Resistance Encountered by Penn State Leaders

Leading change in the aftermath of such a scandal inevitably involves overcoming significant resistance from various stakeholder groups, including students, alumni, staff, and the broader community. One primary form of resistance stemmed from tradition; Penn State's storied football history and deeply rooted cultural identity created a challenge for leadership seeking to implement reforms and cultural shifts. Many stakeholders refused to dissociate the school's values from the celebrated figure of Joe Paterno, even after his involvement in the cover-up came to light. This emotional and cultural attachment often results in cognitive resistance, where stakeholders perceive change as a threat to their identity and tradition.

Moreover, some alumni and notable supporters attempted to rehabilitate Paterno’s image, complicating efforts to shape a new, ethical culture for the program. Resistance also manifested through skepticism regarding leadership changes, with concerns about whether new leadership could genuinely reform the institution and restore its moral integrity. The fear of losing the cherished traditions and the pride associated with Penn State's football heritage further compounded the resistance, especially among long-time supporters apprehensive about radical shifts.

Strategies Employed to Mitigate Resistance

Leadership at Penn State employed several strategic approaches to mitigate resistance and foster transformational change. A cornerstone of their strategy was effective communication—clarifying the need for change and articulating a compelling vision of a reformed, ethically sound program. The new leadership, including President Eric J. Barron, Athletic Director Sandy Barbour, and Coach James Franklin, prioritized transparency and open dialogue with stakeholders, which helped to reduce skepticism and build trust.

Another critical approach was stakeholder engagement, involving key groups in decision-making and fostering a sense of ownership over the change process. Franklin’s focus on shifting from a transactional, win-at-all-costs culture to a family-style, relationship-centered environment exemplifies efforts to reconnect with stakeholders’ values and address emotional resistance. By emphasizing the importance of creating a positive culture and shared values, leaders aimed to realign stakeholder expectations and reduce resistance rooted in cultural preservation.

Leadership also made use of institutional reforms recommended in the Freeh report, such as overhauling governance policies, improving ethics and compliance, and establishing dedicated programs for child protection. These tangible actions demonstrated authentic commitment to change, serving as signals to stakeholders that the institution was serious about reform. Moreover, progress was communicated through consistent messaging, reinforcing the vision of a healthier, more ethical future while respecting the institution’s proud traditions.

As an additional strategy, implementing training programs to embed new values and ethical standards within the culture proved effective. Franklin’s emphasis on creating a supportive environment and fostering relationships contributed to overcoming resistance from individuals fearful of losing identity or status associated with the previous culture.

Additional Strategies for Resistance

To further mitigate resistance, leadership could adopt strategies like change ambassadors—respected stakeholder representatives who advocate for the change and help influence opinion leaders. Establishing feedback mechanisms, such as surveys and town hall meetings, would provide ongoing channels for stakeholder concerns, fostering continuous dialogue and adaptation. Additionally, recognizing and rewarding behaviors aligned with the new values could reinforce the desired cultural shift. Developing a phased implementation plan that demonstrates early wins can build momentum and convince skeptical stakeholders of the legitimacy and benefits of the change.

Environmental Constraints on the Change Process

Several environmental constraints affect change agents in this context. One prominent constraint is the institutional resistance rooted in tradition and the emotional attachment to Paterno and the legacy of football success. Cultural inertia, especially in a highly revered athletic program, hampers swift change and requires persistent effort. External scrutiny from the media, regulators, and the public presents pressures that can impede authentic reform, as external demands may conflict with internal change initiatives.

Economic considerations also serve as constraints; the university’s financial reliance on football revenue and donor support may incentivize retaining traditional practices. Additionally, legal and compliance constraints following the scandal impose restrictions and oversight that complicate independent decision-making and may hinder rapid cultural shifts.

Finally, stakeholder resistance rooted in the community’s collective identity creates an environment where change efforts must balance respect for tradition with the need for ethical reform. The interconnectedness of these constraints necessitates a strategic, patient approach to transformational change.

Leadership Style Best Suited for Initiating Change

The most suitable leadership style for initiating the type of transformational change depicted in the Penn State case is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers by establishing a compelling vision aligned with core values. Franklin exemplified this by shifting from an NFL-style culture focused on winning at all costs to fostering a family-oriented, ethical environment grounded in mutual respect and support. His ability to communicate a compelling vision, build trust, and motivate stakeholders toward shared goals aligns with transformational leadership principles.

Transformational leaders are also effective at overcoming resistance to change by engaging followers emotionally, fostering commitment, and inspiring confidence in the future. Given the scale of change required—cultural overhaul, ethical reforms, and reputation rebuilding—transformational leadership is best suited to catalyze and sustain such profound transformation.

While transactional leadership, characterized by structured exchanges and rewards, could support implementation, it lacks the visionary and motivational qualities essential for fundamental cultural change. Servant leadership, emphasizing service and ethical emphasis, could complement transformational efforts but may not fully drive the strategic vision needed in this context.

Overall, the capacity of transformational leadership to inspire, mobilize, and embed new values makes it the most appropriate approach to lead Penn State’s ongoing transformative journey.

Conclusion

Leading change in the aftermath of a scandal like Penn State’s involves navigating complex resistance rooted in tradition, emotional attachment, and external pressures. Penn State’s leadership employed communication, stakeholder engagement, institutional reforms, and a focus on culture to mitigate resistance effectively. Environmental constraints such as cultural inertia, external scrutiny, economic dependencies, and community identity challenges require strategic patience and deliberate effort. Transformational leadership emerges as the most suitable leadership style for initiating and sustaining such profound change, given its emphasis on vision, inspiration, and emotional engagement. The Penn State case offers valuable insights into managing organizational crises and cultivating sustainable cultural transformation rooted in ethical principles and shared values.

References

• Freeh, L. E., Sporkin, M., & Eikenberry, N. (2013). The Freeh Report. Penn State University.
• Simmons, D. (2017). Penn State’s Coaching Change and Culture Shift. Journal of Sports Management, 31(4), 321-334.
• Orso, B. (2014). Penn State’s Path to Rehabilitation after Scandal. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
• Tolley, J. (2014). The Impact of NCAA Sanctions on Penn State. Sports Litigation Journal, 19(2), 45-60.
• Moses, R. (2016). Leadership Strategies in Crisis Management. Journal of Organizational Change, 29(3), 312-329.
• Burton, L. J., Kane, G. M., & Borland, J. F. (2020). Sports Leadership in the 21st Century. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Why Should Anyone Be Led by You? Harvard Business Review Press.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
• Yukl, G. (2017). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson.