Managing Complex Change for Sustainable Rural

Transformation; Case of Saemaul Undong of Korea

Thilina Rajapakse

Head of International Operations

Horizon Campus

Sri Lanka

Introduction

Since the 1980s, there has been resurgence in organizational development and change

management among scholars of organizational management, and there is now a growing body of

literature looking at the concepts and processes of change management, social transformation and

factors that contribute to its success. Many organizations, communities, and governments set bold

aspirations, but fewer and fewer organizations are able to design and execute wide-ranging change

programs that deliver substantial and sustained performance improvements and social value. Rural

development initiatives are no exceptions. Today, despite the availability of latest technology and

other resources, many well-meaning rural transformation programs have continued to fail. The

reasons for failures are many and development actors acting as change agents need to be skilled in

dealing with managing complex change. Specially, in identifying symptoms of failures and applying

remedial measures to achieve a sustainable change. In 1995, Harvard‟s change management guru,

Professor John Kotter, identified that only thirty percent of change programs succeed (Kotter 1995).

Twenty years later, a survey by McKinsey & Company, a global management-consulting firm that

serves leading businesses, governments, non-governmental organizations, and not-for-profits, found

that this had not changed (Beer, & Nohria, 2000; Meaney, & Pung, 2008; Keller, Meany, & Pung,

2009 & 2010). Building on previous work of Ambrose (1987) and Knoster (1995), this paper aims to

provide insights into the dynamics of organizational transformation and presents an applicable

diagnostic framework for leading transformation through complex change by demonstrating how

Saemaul Undong is a successful change management model for rural transformation.

First, the paper defines Change Management and identifies the key components that are

necessary for managing complex change in consideration to rural development. This will be followed

by an analysis of the literature on each of key components and the consequence of their absence. It

will then illustrate the relevance of the key components using the example of Korea‟s rural

transformation program, Saemaul Undong and finally suggests a diagnostic tool to avoid or identify

common program failures in managing for complex change in Rural Development.

Change Management

A broad spectrum of theories on Change Management has been developed and the literature

available on the topic is vast and diverse. Change management theory brings together concepts of

psychology, sociology, economics and management. This is further extended to a focus by some on

culture, leadership, values, strategy and motivation, whilst others have focused on technology,

process, skills, time, governance and controls.

Whilst the meaning of change management seem ambiguous, a universal definition is absent

in literature. Change is a complex act or process through which something becomes different. This

could be a positive or a negative outcome. Change management is the function that coordinates

complex acts or process efforts of people and organizations to accomplish a desired different state

using available resources efficiently and effectively through planning, organizing, motivating, leading

or directing, and controlling.

Research indicates that more than seventy percent of large organizational change programs

continue to fail, wasting, time, resources and money (Balogun, & Haily, 2008). Meaney, & Pung

(2008) argues that main reasons are due to behavior: specifically due to resistance, thirty nine percent

and management behaviors of individuals that do not support the intended changes, thirty three

percent. Fourteen percent of failures occur due to budget and resources constrain and the balance

fourteen percent was due to other reasons (Keller, Meany, & Pung, 2009).

Exploring some of the most influential theories in change management, barriers to change and

improvising on the seminal work of Ambrose (1987) and Knoster‟s (Knoster, Villa& Thousand, 2000)

Change Management Models, this paper identifies seven key components necessary to achieve

sustainable change. They are;

Leadership, Shared Vision, Resources, Skills, Incentives, Strategy, and Governance.

Leadership

Leadership is the process “in which an individual influences other group members towards

the attainment of group or organizational goals” (Shackleton & Shackleton, 1995). Leaders shape the

goals, motivation and actions of others and a vision is developed based on goals (P. Senge, Kleiner,

Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994) and leadership is primarily responsible in developing a vision for their

organization and they frequently articulates this vision and influence followers to share the vision.

A question arises why lead instead of manage? While managing often exhibits leadership

skills, the overall focus is toward the maintenance than change. Management‟s mandate is to

minimize risk and maintain the current system. Change by definition, requires creating a new system,

which in turn demands a new system (Kotter 1995). Kotter asserts that transformation often begin

well when the organization or the department concerned has a new head who is a good leader and sees

the need for change (Kotter 1995). If the existing leaders are not good leaders or change champions,

then the transformation may become difficult. This is true since leadership is about identifying mental

models that challenge all organizational members with the question: “What values do you really want

to stand for?” (P. M. Senge, Heifetz, & Torbert, 2000). Leaders who inspire others, usually possess

extraordinary visions and commitments to high ideals (Fulop & Linstead, 1999; Marsick & Watkins,

2003; P. M. Senge et al., 2000), and constantly look for new information and opportunities that can

help fulfill their visions (Mintzberg, 1998; Schrage, 1991). Moreover, leaders are responsible for

learning and creating a learning environment for the members to continually expand their capabilities

to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models (Fullan, 1993; Horner,

1997; Marquardt, 1996; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Mintzberg, 1998).

Finally, leadership serves as the soul of the team, inspiring the innovation and creation of

knowledge in team members. “Empowering is the fundamental component in quality leadership: in

essence it involves releasing the potential of individuals – allowing them to flourish and grow, to

release their capacity for infinite improvement” (Bell & Harrison, 1998).

The absence of leadership results with confusion, anarchy and disorganization leading to

wasted opportunities, decay and sometimes destruction. Planners should identify suitable leadership

and train and develop leadership skills that are required for any grand transformation program.

Shared Vision

Shared vision is one that people throughout an organization are truly committed to (P. M.

Senge, 2006 p.192). It asserts that people excel and learn not because they are told to do so, but

because they want to (intrinsic motivation). It involves skills of unearthing pictures of the future that

foster genuine commitment and enrollment rather than compliance as “counter productiveness” is

observed if a vision is dictated. Therefore, developing shared vision is important for channeling

people together and to develop a commitment to a shared future, as shared vision offer members of an

organization with a direction by which they can navigate, and a focus for learning for its employees

(Bui & Baruch, 2010; P. Senge, 1990).

Mastering the discipline of shared vision means that people have to give up the idea that

visions come from top management or from an institutionalized planning process; it will grow as

people interact with their own visions – as they express their ideas and learn how to listen to the ideas

of others (Appelbaum & Goransson, 1997; Tsai & Beverton, 2007). This does not mean the role of

leadership and management is neglected.

According to Senge (2006), a shared vision is the primary step in allowing people to begin

working together even if they might distrust each other. Sharing vision seems to be more effective in

organizations that are embedded in a high societal collectivism and future oriented culture (Alavi &

McCormick, 2004).

Shared vision brings benefits for both individuals and organizations. In terms of individuals,

when people develop personal visions they are aware of what they are heading towards for their

personal and professional success. Second, it creates a good public image of a healthy and wealthy

education. Put together, at the aggregate level, shared vision would be a key to organizational

sustainability and growth (Schwarz et al., 2006).

It is difficult for organizations to gain shared vision if they are large and highly complex, with

a sizeable number of operations and divisions. It is easier for small organizations to share and reach

common agreements (P. A. Smith & Saint-Onge, 1996). Communication systems play an important

role in progressing and developing shared vision. Personal vision and insights cannot be shared

effectively without effective communication systems among members of the organization (Mohr &

Spekman, 1994; P. M. Senge, 2006).

The absence of shared vision leads to sabotage and failure to fully implement programs.

Cooperation and agreement on ideas on purpose and values would establish shared understanding.

Consensus building and co-creation needs to be encouraged. And, establishing a good communication

plan is key.

Resources

Any successful change or transformation requires adequate and appropriate resources

including, physical and financial resources, time and human resources, including the existing

knowledge or expertise within the organization or exogenously found. This could entail any items

which people feel are necessary to enable them to make the required changes. Creativity comes to

play here. Whilst resources need not be the most expensive or the latest sophisticated equipment, they

need to meet the minimum required to get the task completed. In the context of people centric

development programs, human resource is key and the development of knowledge, expertise, skills

through effective training programs and time given to development, planning, and reflection is

important.

The absence of adequate resources for implementation leads to frustration and restlessness.

Hence, it is always recommend doing a need assessment and identifying resource requirements and

supplies, prior to commencing any new project or program.

Skills

This is the capability of implementing a new program. A skill is an ability to do something

effectively and efficiently. In other words, skills are expertise and mastery of competencies. Having

the right skills and competencies is important to increase the speed and productivity of individuals and

the organization. Organizations should conduct a skills assessment and identify gaps. Training and

development are key to improving skills, and personal and professional development should be

encouraged.

Here, we need to go beyond skills and competencies and look at developing personal mastery.

“Personal Mastery goes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and

skills. It goes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, although it requires spiritual growth. It means

approaching one's life as a creative work, living a life from a creative as opposed to reactive

viewpoint” (P. Senge, 1990 p.114). Personal Mastery is the special level of proficiency to realize that

results are important whilst we continually clarify and deepen our personal vision for commitment to

and capacity for learning. It links our reciprocity between the person and the organization and drives

us towards constructivism and continuous improvement. Personal mastery can be referred to the

personal commitment of continuously clarifying and deepening a personal vision, of focusing

energies, of developing patience, and the ability to see reality as objectively as possible (Bui &

Baruch, 2010).

The absence of the right skills and competencies and personal mastery results with anxiety

and very slow, or, at most, a time consuming gradual change.

Incentives

Incentives help embed and reinforce change. Incentives are the means by which stakeholder

motivation to change program participation is encouraged. Incentives are the answer to the question

'What is in it for me?' they may come in the form of additional payments, a way to uplift self-esteem,

or as means by which a sense of achievement is felt. Not only are they reasons to change, incentives

provoke intellectual excitement, opportunities for collaboration in planning and delivery, as well as

encouraging of attempting new things. Furthermore, rewards and incentives inculcate a sense of

performance driven culture and a healthy competitive outlook. Further, it is useful to invoke extrinsic

motivation.

Motivation has been extensively studied to identify the meaning behind human actions and

learn why humans are inspired to take certain actions (Deci, 1986; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2000;

Maslow, Frager, Fadiman, McReynolds, & Cox, 1970; Rueda & Moll, 1994; Siebold, 1994). With

sufficient motivation from organizations through policies and culture, employees may be willing to

commit themselves to personal and professional development, which would result in better

performance and higher satisfaction (E. Mumford, 1991). Moreover, motivation is an antecedent for

personal mastery and shared vision too (Bui & Baruch 2009).

Incentives are of different types. A useful distinction on types of motivation is between the

material or tangible and the nonmaterial or intangible. Examples of material or tangible incentives are

cash rewards and material rewards and intangible incentives are recognition, acknowledgements and

social affiliations.

The absence or the lack of incentives will result with resistance for change and lack of

participation among targeted stakeholders, especially, from those who see nothing in the changes for

them or, see no moral meaning, personal meaning, or benefit. The absence of rewards and incentives

solidifies the conviction that things are all right as they are and there is no need to change.

Strategy

Strategy is means by which goals will be achieved. It is the steps worked out to direct actions

towards future goals. It‟s a process shared by participants, understanding what, when and how things

needs to be done to achieve the program goals and objectives. In other words it‟s the „Action Plan‟.

The process involves identification of leadership, time frames, resources, monitoring and evaluation.

The absence of a strategy or an action plan results with false starts or tread-milling; doing

what has been done always, in the same way it has been done in the past and therefore not succeeding

in working in new ways, and not achieving the new goals.

Governance

Most often, programs thought to be successfully implemented, collapse abruptly to the

surprise of many, due to poor governance issues. The importance of good governance and the impact

of it on development is emphasized abundantly everywhere. Good governance will result with higher

stakeholder confidence, participation, higher investments, fairness, equity, meritocracy democracy,

and ultimately with sustainability of change outcomes of the program.

Conceptually, governance (as opposed to “good” governance) is the rule of the rulers,

typically within an established set of rules. It is „the process – by which authority is conferred on

rulers, by which they make the rules, and by which those rules are enforced and modified‟ (World

Bank 2013). Bevier defines governance as all the process of the conduct a policy, actions, and affairs

of a state, organization, or people (Bevier 2012). Hence, understanding governance requires an

identification of both the rulers and the rules, as well as the processes by which they are selected and

linked together. Therefore, good governance entails, among other things, participatory, transparent

and accountable approach to governance that is effective, equitable and promotes the rule of law

(World Bank 2013).

According to the World Bank, mechanisms for assuring good governance includes three key

elements: Internal rules and restraints such as internal accounting and auditing systems; “Voice” and

partnership such as deliberation councils, and service delivery surveys to solicit client feedback; and

Competition, such as competitive service delivery and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms

(World Bank 2013).

The absence of good governance will result in corruption, deterrence of investment, wastage

of resources, foreboding of allocation, and increased insecurity. Consequently, it will lead to bad

perceptions towards the current and future programs and poor donor and participant confidence.

Saemaul Undong as a Successful Case of Change Management

It has been recognized world over that Saemaul Undong was a unique and very successful

rural development movement. No program of any other developing country has mobilized so much

social, administrative and popular support, or brought about such a dramatic impact on community

development and national integration as Saemaul Undong of Korea. At this point, it is desirable to

draw any Change Management lessons from the experience of Saemaul Undong that may give

meaningful implications to community development initiatives and rural transformation programs of

other countries.

Among other things, Saemaul Undong has been identified as a success case and model for, a

way for better living and rural village development including , a movement for mental reform, income

increase, village modernization, mass mobilization, and agricultural revolution (Chung, 2009; Kim,

2013; C. H. Park, 1979; The National Council of Saemaul Undong in Korea, 2000). It is also noted as

a successful model of learning organization in integrated rural development (Rajapakse 2015), and as

a movement for social innovation (Rho 2014). This paper argues that Saemaul Undong was also a

successful case of Change Management in the world‟s rural development history.

The rural transformation or change that was achieved through Saemaul Undong was observed

in several facets. In the economic sphere, it changed the people from being poor to being wealthy,

from being lazy and traditional to be competitive, and from being inefficient and wasteful to be

productive. In the social sphere, it generated social value (Rho 2013), increased the visibility, status

and recognition of women. In the political sphere, it was instrumental in improving democracy and

good governance. And, in the spiritual sphere, it ushered in a mind change and subsequent culture

change. In the geographic sphere, Saemaul Undong transformed the landscape of Korea including

reforestation, agricultural crop cultivation and beautification of villages. The list could go on. Hence,

taken as a whole, Saemaul Undong was also a successful case of change management.

For the benefit of the stranger to Saemaul Undong, a brief description of the program

objectives, components and outputs would be in order.

It is important to understand the meaning of Saemaul (New Village) of the Saemaul Undong

(New Village Movement). The word “Sae” means “new”, and new things are usually the result of

reform measures and change. In this sense, “Sae” can be interpreted as “measures towards a better

goal”. The meaning of “Maul” is village in the sense of a basic unit of regional community, although

its meaning could be extended to “the community where we live”. So “Saemaul” means not only

“reforming our village for better-living” but also “reforming our community for better-living” (C. H.

Park, 1979). In this spirit of “reforming our community for better-living”, Saemaul Undong (New

Village Movement) was extended to urban areas, encompassing schools, factories, business circles,

and even government bodies (The National Council of Saemaul Undong in Korea, 2000). The

Movement became a nationwide development initiative, even though it was launched in rural society

to overcome rural poverty. The Saemaul Undong movement contributed greatly in to the

modernization of much of Korea (Kim, 2013).

The ultimate goal of the campaign was to develop villages where people could enjoy both

physical and spiritual wealth (C. H. Park, 1979; Rho, 2014; The National Council of Saemaul Undong

in Korea, 2000). The most broadly accepted objectives of the Saemaul Undong were income

generation, living environment and basic rural infrastructure improvement, and capacity building and

attitude change (Park 2009).

The mental reform aspect of the Saemaul Undong was designed to inculcate three values

and/or virtues of the Movement; diligence, self-help and cooperation (C. H. Park, 1979). The three

values of the Movement have been highly valued for a long time in Korea, as in all societies.

Saemaul Undong has brought significant improvements in the rural living environment and

infrastructure in Korea. Changes in rural people's way of thinking and the dynamics of participatory

organization and leadership development as well as the improvement of rural economy and

infrastructure are significant results from the movement. This series of changes was the most

significant prerequisite for self-reliant development in rural communities (Goh 2010). Overall,

Saemaul Undong achieved successful creation of a learning society that was able to widen the

capabilities and achieve comparative advantage to overcome poverty in the short term, income

increase and positive mental reform in the medium term and creation of positive social values and

better living environments in the long term.

The Seven Components for Successful Change Management in Saemaul Undong

Leadership in Saemaul Undong

Leadership in Saemaul Undong is well captured in by various scholars (Chung, 2009; Han,

2011; Han, 2013). Since Saemaul Undong was an integrated rural development program, leadership

was observed in 3 key spheres. In the policy sphere, Park Chung Hee together with his aides, were

responsible for the conceptualization of Saemaul Undong and setting its vision. Park articulated the

vision for a better life and better living environment. In the government sphere, the bureaucrats took

the leadership in strategic planning and goal setting of the program. In the village level, newly elected

and trained Saemaul Village leaders from both male and female sexes, drove the program.

The Saemaul Undong leadership was not only limited to the respective village‟s Saemaul

leader, but expanded to women leadership and other project categories of the Saemaul Undong village

activities (Chung, 2009; Han, 2011; Han, 2013). The role of Saemaul leaders, helped to ensure

villager commitment, whilst the leader provided the generative leadership towards the movement

(Rho, 2013).

Shared Vision

As Rho illustrates in his article about the „Triple Helix‟ for social innovation through Saemaul

Undong (Rho, 2014), a shared vision was created among all actors including the chief policy maker

and his aides, the bureaucracy, and the villagers. This was achieved through a good communication

system where all parties had a forum, medium and opportunity for goal setting, cooperating, co-

creating and consensus building. This allowed that there was no sabotage from the targeted

participants. The nationwide propaganda campaign via print and electronic media further strengthened

that the chief policy maker‟s vision was well shared and understood along with personal visions for a

better life by the villagers.

Resources

Saemaul Undong was a classic case where human resource and efficient time management

proved to be of greater use and that they were superior in utility to that of material and financial

resources in early development stages of communities. Prior to the introduction of Saemaul Undong,

villagers used to waste their time money and their full human potential. Villagers resorted to gambling

and drinking during off season. With the implementation of the program, the abundance of labor and

land was productively utilized. Villagers soon learnt and valued to be diligent and resort to self-help.

Of the very little initial material resources that was given by the government in the form of cement

and iron bars, much was achieved by collective efforts to improve critical infrastructure that supported

trade, agriculture and industry. Cooperation among villagers began to emerge. A creative way of

garnering resources for the program was noted in voluntary contributions by the villagers for their

own future use. Imagination and creativity can overcome many resource scarcities and that was

demonstrated through Saemaul Undong. As the program developed, the government allocated

sufficient budgets and resources. Moreover, a network of rural cooperative lending banking system

was established for funding for villager‟s activities. The creative and carefully selected resources in

the initial stages of the program helped avoid anxiety creeping in to the participants.

Skills

Critical to the success of Saemaul Undong as a rural transformation program ushering a

positive change was the development and utilization of the necessary skills for leadership,

cooperation, diligence, resorting to self-help, communication, negotiation, advocacy and other

technical and vocational skills. Education materials were distributed via library facilities, news papers

radio and the television. Specific vocational training was delivered to target groups through

Agricultural and Technical Extension Officers. Leadership training to all Saemaul Leaders, related

government officers and key policy makers was delivered in a systematic way through the Saemaul

training centers. Overtime, best practices and success stories were shared nationally among all the

villages. Due to these factors, the program was able to limit frustration among participants.

Incentives

Fundamental to the performance driven culture of Saemaul Undong was its incentives system.

A performance based reward system to reward those who do better was centrally executed within a

competitive framework. The better performing villages received more support and recognition from

the government. In turn, their better performance resulted with more income generation which in turn

sparked intrinsic motivation in the villagers to do even better and the subsequent high participation

levels. At the conclusion of Saemaul Undong, all villages had participated in the program proving it to

be a national success. Hence, the resistance was avoided considerably to enable the smooth

implementation at a national scale.

Strategy

Goal setting in Saemaul Undong had a unique process and a framework. The main vision was

set by the chief policymaker to achieve ultimately a better living standard. The bureaucracy developed

the specific, measurable, realistic and time bound goals to reflect the achievement of the vision.

However, the village had the autonomy to decide on their own choice of program activities depending

on their strengths and capabilities that were aligned to the chief policymaker‟s vision and bureaucrat‟s

goals setting. Going one level deeper to the individual level, the personal goals and personal visions

of the villagers were also aligned towards these goals. Hence the total talent pool was striving towards

the same ultimate goal and the role of the leader was very important in directing and guiding towards

these goals. Moreover, with the passage of time, Saemaul Undong went through different stages

emphasizing different developmental criteria. The main representative criteria included ideals,

supporting philosophies and goals; main agents of implementation and their functions and roles;

overall organization, functions and human power; prioritized activities and projects, and their funding;

and strategies and tactics employed and effects achieved. The sub-criteria of these five categories

varied, reflecting the demands of the time.

Governance

The overall governance in Saemaul Undong is commendable. The governance system

fostered a corruption free transparent, equitable and a democratic culture within the organization.

Several highlights are worth mentioning. First, the program improved democracy overall. There was

autonomy to the village to self govern and manage their development in the village. Secondly

elections of Saemaul leaders ushered in an era where superiority at performance was considered

important than seniority. This was evident in the election of young and energetic Saemaul leaders for

their village development process. Next, women were granted equal status in society. Each village had

a male and female village leader. Women‟s participation in the community and economy was

significantly improved. Another positive aspect was the democratic governance of village council

activities. Decisions were made on democratic principles and a culture of accountability and

transparency was developed. Evidence to this is the various official minutes and government

documents which recorded how finance and material resources were managed. Unfortunately, the

reason for the collapse and demise of Saemaul Undong in the 1980s was bad governance. Corruption

at the top after the privatization of the movement was the single major reason for the collapse of

Saemaul Undong. Nevertheless, there is a lesson in it for future program managers and policy makers;

Always emphasize on governance if you want a program to sustain.

Complex Change Management Matrix

This paper suggests a diagnostic tool to identify possible barriers to successful program

change management building on the original work of Ambrose‟s (1987) „5 Key Component-Change

Management Matrix‟. The tool suggests that when the components of leadership, shared vision,

resources, skills, incentives, and a strategy are collectively inherent in the system, there is likelihood

of change taking place. Believing that the component of leadership is paramount for any social

transformation and a Shared vision for „consensus‟ building and goal sharing, and governance for

accountability, transparency and democratization, this paper suggests a 7 component matrix

applicable for community development organization and rural transformation programs. A unique

feature about this model for change is its surgical diagnostic approach. In assessing the condition and

climate of a program, this model offers a potential remedy by identifying the symptom and then

restoring the missing component (link). What the matrix try to say is „if you have all seven

components in place, you will likely end up with the desired change‟. And, if you lack or leave one or

more of the components out, the “Change Process” however, may be inhibited or may not take root

and indicate one more symptoms indicative of a failing program.

Figure 1. Surgical Diagnostic Change Management Matrix

Source: Author. Adapted from Ambrose (1987)

Suggested interpretation of the matrix

If there is a shared vision, resources, skills, incentives, a strategy and governance, yet no

leadership, then, change will not happen and confusion and anarchy will result because you

won’t have direction and guidance during the process.

If there is leadership, resources, skills, incentives, a strategy and governance but a shared

vision is absent, then, change will not happen. Instead, sabotage is likely as there would have

been no consensus and cooperation taken place.

If there is leadership, a shared vision, skills, incentives, a strategy and governance but a

scarcity or lack of resources (money, time, manpower etc), then, you will end up with a lot of

frustration. Although you might have a plan and you may know how to accomplish it, but you

don’t have the resources to get the job done.

If there is leadership, shared vision, resources, incentives, a strategy and governance, but no

skills (communication, vocational, technical, political, advocacy etc) to effect the change you seek, then, you may be left with anxiety.

If there is leadership, a shared vision, skills, resources, a strategy, and governance, but no

incentives —the types of things (rewards, recognition, celebrations) that keep key community

stakeholders involved — you may end up having resistance or very slow change.

If there is leadership, a shared vision, skills, resources, incentives, and governance, but no

strategy or an action plan that has been broken down into steps that people can take and

accomplish in small steps, then you will end up with a lot of false starts or tread-milling. The

members may take off in a certain direction, only to realize that an important step was skipped, forcing them to stop their progress and go back and take care of it.

If there is leadership, shared vision, skills, incentive and resources, and strategy, but no

governance, then you will not sustain the change and the project may be vulnerable for

corruption and collapse.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper examined the necessary elements required for any successful change

management program. By identifying seven key components; leadership, shared vision, resources,

skills, incentives, strategy and governance, this paper suggested a surgical diagnostic tool to identify

symptoms of failing of change management programs. The paper further argued why Saemaul

Undong is a successful change management model for rural transformation and demonstrated the

seven key components identified as necessary elements by showing relevant evidence and examples.

Finally, the paper suggested a Complex Change Management Matrix that planners and change agents

could utilize for the avoidance or diagnosis of pathological symptoms in program failures of rural

development programs. Like in managing any disease, prevention is better than cure, and program

managers should aim to avoid failures. The key to successful transformation lies in the ability to

implement complex change at scale. It is not easy, but as Korea‟s Saemaul Undong demonstrated, it is

not an impossibility either. 화이팅!

References

Alavi, S. B., & McCormick, J. (2004). A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of the learning organization

model in school contexts. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(7), 408-416.

Ambrose, D. (1987). Managing complex change. Pittsburgh, PA: Enterprise Group.

Appelbaum, S. H., & Goransson, L. (1997). Transformational and adaptive learning within the learning

organization: A framework for research and application. Learning Organization, The, 4(3), 115-128.

Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring strategic change. Pearson Education.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Resolving the tension between theories E and O of change. Breaking the code of

change, 4-36.

Bell, J., & Harrison, B. T. (1998). Leading people, learning from people: Lessons from education professionals.

Open University Press.

Bevir, M. (2012). Governance: a very short introduction (Vol. 333). Oxford University Press.

Bui, H., & Baruch, Y. (2010). Creating learning organizations: A systems perspective. The Learning

Organization, 17(3), 208-227.

Chung, K. J. (2009). Experiences and lessons from Korea‟s Saemaul Undong in the 1970s.

Chung, K. J., Shin, S. M., & Lee, J. H. (2012). Saemaul Undong and ideological reform: Study on gender equality. Modularization of Korea‟s development experience: New research on Saemaul Undong: Lessons

and insights from Korea‟s development experience. KDI School of Public Policy and Management, 623-

732.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer

Science & Business Media.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform Psychology Press.

Fulop, L., & Linstead, S. (1999). Management: A critical text. Macmillan Education.

Goh, K. (2010). Saemaul (New Village) Undong in Korea: Factors of the Success and Their Transferability.

In SMU 40th Anniversary International Symposium. www. mynewsletter. co.

kr/harmonykorea/img/201010/eng. pdf.

Han, D. (2011). Modularization of Korea’s development experience: The successful cases of the Korea’s Saemaul Undong (new community movement) KDI School of Public Policy and Management.

Han, D. (2013). Village leaders and their community activities. Modularization of Korea’s development

experience: New research on Saemaul Undong: Lessons and insights from Korea’s development

experience. Seoul: KDI School of Public Policy and Management.

Horner, M. (1997). Leadership theory: Past, present and future. Team Performance Management, 3(4), 270-287.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. (2000). Individual differences in work motivation: Further explorations of a trait

framework. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 470-482.

Keller, S., & Aiken, C. (2009). The inconvenient truth about change management. McKinsey Quarterly, 1-18.

Keller, S., Meany, M., & Pung, C. (2010). What successful transformations share. McKinsey Quarterly.

Kim, J. K. (2013). Why the Saemaul Undong is so important to understanding Korea’s social and economic

transformation. Modularization of Koreas development experience: New research on Saemaul Undong:

Lessons and insights from Korea’s development experience, KDI School of Public Policy and

Management.

Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about systems change. Restructuring

for caring and effective education: Piecing the puzzle together, 93-128.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard business review, 73(2), 59-67.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business Press.

Korea Saemaul Undong Center. (2011). Saemaul Undong in Korea (English), SMU-SC- 2011-1(En). Seoul.

Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization McGraw-Hill, New York.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: The

dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2),

132-151.

Maslow, A. H., Frager, R., Fadiman, J., McReynolds, C., & Cox, R. (1970). Motivation and personality Harper

& Row New York.

Meaney, M., & Pung, C. (2008). McKinsey global results: Creating organizational transformations. The

McKinsey Quarterly, August, 1-7.

Mintzberg, H. (1998). Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals. Harvard Business Review, 76, 140-148.

Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication

behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135-152.

Mumford, E. (1991). Job satisfaction: A method of analysis. Personnel Review, 20(3), 11-19.

Park, C. H. (1979). Saemaul: Korea's new community movement. Seoul.

Park, J. H., & Whang, I. (1978). Integrated rural development: The case of Saemaul Undong in Korea. Training

Strategies for Integrated Rural Development, 13-26.

Park, S. (2009). Analysis of Saemaul Undong: a Korean rural development programme in the 1970s. Asia-

Pacific Development Journal, 16(2), 113.

Rajapakse, T.M. (2015) A Comparative Study on Rural Integrated Development Planning in the Perspective of

Learning Organization: A Focus on the Saemaul Undong of Korea and Rural Integrated Development Planning of Sri Lanka (Master's thesis). Available from Yeungnam University Dissertations and Thesis

database (http://yu.dcollection.net/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId=000001933251)

Reed, E. P. (2010, September). Is Saemaul Undong a Model for Developing Countries Today?. In International

Symposium in Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of Saemaul Undong. Seoul, Korea.

Rho, W. (2013a). New community movement: Technology, social innovation and creation of social value . Seoul

S&T Forum, Seoul.

Rho, W. (2013b). Saemaul movement of South Korea: Generative leadership and emergence of social values.

Beommunsa, Seoul.

Rho, W. (2014). Triple helix for social innovation: The Saemaul Undong for eradicating poverty. Journal of

Contemporary Eastern Asia, 13(1), 39-55.

Rueda, R., & Moll, L. C. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on motivation. Motivation: Theory and Research,

117-137.

Schrage, M. (1991). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. Random House.

Schwarz, G. M., Kerr, S., Mowday, R. T., Starbuck, W. H., Tung, R. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2006). Astute

foresight or wishful thinking? learning from visions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(4), 347-361.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline field book: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization, Currency/ Doubleday, New York.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Random House.

Senge, P. M., Heifetz, R. A., & Torbert, B. (2000). A conversation on leadership. Reflections: The SoL Journal,

2(1), 57-68.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., Smith, B., & Guman, E. C. (1999). The Dance of

Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. Random House, New York.

Shackleton, V. J., & Shackleton, V. J. (1995). Business leadership. Routledge, London.

Siebold, G. L. (1994). The relation between soldier motivation, leadership, and small unit performance.

Motivation Theory and Research, 171-190.

Smith, P. A., & Saint-Onge, H. (1996). The evolutionary organization: Avoiding a fate. Learning Organization,

The, 3(4), 4-21.

The National Council of Saemaul Undong in Korea. (2000). Saemaul Undong in Korea. Seoul.

Tsai, Y., & Beverton, S. (2007). Top-down management: An effective tool in higher education? International

Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 6-16.

World Bank (2013). What is Governance? Retrieved May 26, 2015, from

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/MENAEXT/EXTMNAREGTOPGOVER

NANCE/0,,contentMDK:20513159~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:497024,00.html