Critique of the Value of Traditional Leadership in Contemporary Organizations - Coursework Example

Critique of the value of traditional leadership in contemporary organizations Introduction Leadership provides support and guidance to subordinates or followers and helps steer the led groups towards attaining anticipated outcomes by working on achieving set goals and objectives (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994). Effective leadership is the basis of improved performance, operational efficiency, improvement of quality capacity production and improving the morale and motivation of subordinates or followers (Bono & Judge, 2004). There are varied styles of leadership. Varied leadership styles influence on aspects such as adaptability, accountability, principles, rewards and incentives, organizational climate, commitment, participation and operational clarity differently (Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Xiao, 2006). Different organizations, institutions, cultures and industries have diverse styles of leaderships as highlighted by (Bass, 1990). There are various types of leadership styles that include the transactional, transformational and situational leadership styles, which are used in traditional and contemporary organizations (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000). Whether an organization is traditional or contemporary depends on a number of factors (Segon and Booth, 2007). This report will critically analyze various leadership styles in a bid to assess which leadership style best fits and is the most appropriate as an overarching leadership approach in a contemporary organization. In addition, the report will analyze what constitute a contemporary organization A contemporary organization The style of leadership practiced within an organization impacts greatly on essential aspects of an organization such as group work processes and the social environment, which directly or indirectly determines the levels of innovativeness, output and inventiveness of the labour force (Day & Lord, 1988). More often, traditional and contemporary organizations uses different styles of leadership (Uma and Glenice, 2006). A contemporary organization is more flexible, less rigid and accommodating systems and structures unlike a traditional organization that has bureaucratic systems that are associated with dictatorial leadership, conformance to set regulations and structured legal systems (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Additionally, strict policies and guidelines, a top-down decision making protocols, articulate structured hierarchy of powers, specialization of labour and high anticipation of adamant obedience from workers as mentioned by (Bono & Judge, 2004) Contemporary organizations allow a mixture of horizontal and vertical hierarchies of power where creative ideas can be, generated from top down or down up structures of the organization while problem solving and decision-making processes involve active collaboration and participation of all concerned stakeholders (Odom & Green, 2003). That is, the management and the labour forces are involved in the processes where the views and ideas from both parties are, welcomed. Regular consultations among various structures of an organization are common in a contemporary organization (Bryant, 2003). Contemporary organizations are founded on perception that the organization needs to be adaptable and yielding to accommodate the environment as indicated by (Bryant, 2003). This is because; the environment is coupled with changing social, technological, economical, ecological, legal, financial and cultural forces (Borman & Brush, 1993). In contemporary organizations, the focus is placed on developing the best fit between the formation, size, technology needs of the organization and the needs of the internal and external environment of the organization (Bono & Judge, 2004). It is important to note that, contemporary type of organizations differ from traditional type organizations in that the former is founded on the view that an organization needs to fit its structures and systems to the external and internal environment that comprises of the society, competitors and the government (Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002). This is in order to be able to foster high performance, improve productivity and achieve set goals and objectives in both short term and long term (Kahai & Sosik, 1997). Traditional organizations have the view that the environment will adjust to fit into the organization systems and not vice versa as discussed above where contemporary organizations place emphasis on being adaptable enough to fit into the existing turbulent environments and changing accordingly when the environment does so (Odom & Green, 2003). Various types of leadership styles Transactional leadership style/ traditional leadership style It is important to mention that there are no wrong or right leadership styles, however the effect they produce on performance, productivity and commitment are what distinguishes them apart and make an organization prefer one leadership style to the other (Kahai & Sosik, 1997). In transactional leadership also referred to as traditional leadership style, the leader has the power to reward or punish a team member in respect to their individual level of productivity and performance towards the project or attainment of set targets, mission or goal as mentioned by (Kanungo, 2001). To illustrate the traditional style of a leadership, a manager who expects high work performance in order to reciprocate it with a reward is a transactional leader. This means in a transactional environment, an employee or an individual is offered a reward based on what they have to offer as highlighted by (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). A politician mobilizes for more votes by stating the gains of their political agenda and manifestos to the electorate. Transactional leadership deals with needs, setting conditions and stipulations, rewards and retribution. According to (Bass, 1990), Transactional leadership pursues a cost gain and economic substitution in a bid to satisfy the physical, emotional and psychological needs of the employee to reimburse services offered (Zaccaro, Rittman & Marks, 2001). In addition, a leader relates with the subordinate in a give and take type of relationship. This type of leadership has the positive impact of making the follower or the subordinate more accountable in their conduct and actions since, a wrong move or an ethical act is reprimanded accordingly (Bono & Judge, 2004). It elicits a high degree of discipline among the labour forces. In addition, the style is characterized by intensive negotiations and lucid recognition of set relationships to ensure achievement of both short-term goals. In traditional leadership, the managers are keen and they understand the connection between performances and reward (Odom & Green, 2003). This is critical in ensuring hard-working workers and productive and high performing employees are, recognized and appreciated accordingly. On the other hand, lazy, redundant, non-performing and lowly productive employees are not able to ride on the success of others. Traditional leadership is receptive and entails tackling current challenges where the manager depends on regulated reward systems, retribution and actions as a means to manage and control the labour forces (Bass, 1990). This form of leadership is beneficial in saving time wasted on to and fro consultations present in other form of leadership styles. The style ensures things are done promptly and efficiently at minimal cost and time. Be it as it may, the applicability of traditional leadership in current global environments where the human resource is the most reliable and valuable asset to an organization is questionable and raises concern. (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) disapproves of traditional leadership because it does not favour organizations that seek to develop and enhance interrelationships between the organization and its external and internal environment. In addition, the transactional leader place more emphasis on designing work and reward systems as it supposes that employees perform their duties effectively and efficiently for the mere reason they will be rewarded. This notion is far from truth as workers may work in order to generate self-gratification and improvement, to help support others and gain more skills and knowledge. This type of leadership does not help establish and sustain relationships between the organizational structures and in creation of long-term working climate. This is because the leadership style is temporal-centred and focused on achieving short-term goals as implied by (Bass, 1990). In an organization with traditional leadership, employees are more likely to work as individuals rather than as a team, develop worker rivalry as workers compete to get the rewards and workers are more often than not unmotivated compared to alternative leadership styles. Additionally, it hinders creativity and innovativeness from the labour forces and the group members have little or no power to enhance their levels of job satisfaction as highlighted by (Odom & Green, 2003). According to (Bono & Judge, 2004), traditional leadership is more suitable to a traditional organization where the labour forces are expected to follow the directives of the leader without question and there is no flexibility to accommodate emotional and psychological needs of the employee. However, the report does contradict such sentiments since a contemporary organization may decide to adopt the leadership style and offer financial or other incentives relevant to the employee to improve their capacity of production and work performance. Transactional/ traditional leaders conform to the organizational culture and traditions and prefer to maintain the status quo (Bass, 1990). Situational leadership style Situational leadership is a type of leadership style that involves the leader possessing varied leadership styles and being able to administer each depending on the situation (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979). This means a leader is able to analyze the current need of the circumstance they are in, select the suitable style of leadership, and use it accordingly (Lars, Fuat, Simon, 2008). Situational leadership is beneficial in that a leader can use it while addressing different employees who have different needs, competencies and level of commitments (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979). Alternatively, a leader is able to lead one employee using various leadership styles to deal with the employee in varied situations and occasions. Situational leadership style allows versatility where the leader is able to offer support and direction to an employee or a subordinate wherever and whenever it is needed. The success of this style of leadership lies on the commitment and capability of the employee. A situational leadership involves directing, delegating, supporting and coaching. According to (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979), during directing, the leader focuses more on the task and less on developing a relationship with the employee by establishing the roles the employee has to carry out as they offer close supervision. In this situation, the leader gives all the directions and makes all the decisions. This scenario is more common in a work situation where the workers has high level of dedication to work and are motivated to do it but they lack adequate skills and abilities to do the work. In coaching, the situation is characterized by increased attention on the task and on initiating a relationship where the leader assigns the roles but gets views and opinion of the employee (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979). Despite the fact that the leader makes the final decision, active participation by both parties is encouraged. This scenario is depicted when an employee has some skills and abilities but have minimal or no commitment and confidence (Aguirre, 2008). The leader regularly praises the employee to generate interest, commitment and self-confidence. In supporting, the attention is more on sustaining relationship than on tasks. (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979) mentions that although the leader delegate and co-ordinate duties and pass decisions, the employee has the control. This is more evident in situations where the employee has high level of skills and abilities but has low confidence and is less motivated and therefore, they are offered control to help improve their self-confidence and morale. In delegating, there is minimal focus on tasks and sustaining relationships. Although the leader participates in making decisions and solving problems, the employee has all the control, as they are able to dictate how and when the leader is consulted (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979). This is suitable in situations where there is need for minimal or no supervision, as the employee is capable, committed, motivated and has confidence to execute their tasks effectively and efficiently. Despite the flexibility of the situational leadership style and its focus on important element of work systems such as commitment, competence, motivation and confidence, it does not fully generate high performance and productivity in employees. (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979) criticizes it by highlighting that this style of leadership does not define leadership and management and it fails to note that leading an employee is not all about making decisions but motivating them to be more creative and flexible to changes. The situational leadership places more emphasis on the conduct and the actions of the leader rather than focusing on the conduct, capability and actions of the employee (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979). The random shifting among varied leadership styles develop organizational loopholes as employees may opt to act and behave in a certain way to manipulate the situational leader. The situational leadership style is easy to comprehend and to use in a work environment. Transformational leadership style Transformational leadership style redefines the visions and goals of the employees by helping renew their commitment and reform the work systems in order to attain anticipated outcomes (Bono & Judge, 2004). It is more, focused on building strong communication networks and interrelationships between the leader and the employees. This is in a bid to make followers into leaders and leaders becoming agents of change, effectiveness and fostering good morals, ethics and ideals among workers (Bass, 1990). In this style of leadership, the leader becomes the servant and at the same times a role model. Leaders and employees see each other as team members working towards a common goal with the intention to satisfy the needs and expectations of the organization and those of the individual workers. According to (Bass, 1990) Transformational leaders motivates, develops and put the needs and the interests of the employees before their own with the intention of attaining high work performance, creativity, teamwork, commitment, eradication of job dissatisfaction and minimize employee turn over rates as highlighted by (Kanungo, 2001) . A transformational leader seeks what the employee really needs based on the Marslow’s hierarchy of needs and satisfying them as stated by (Bono & Judge, 2004). According to (Simic, 1998), transformational leadership style alters the culture and tradition of the organization and it challenges the status quo. Since a transformational leader act on the moral needs of the employee, the use of transformational style should be done with precaution, as a leader with bad intentions is likely to spread negative ideologies among workers and thus, corrupt the morals, beliefs, and ethics of the employees and advance their own selfish social ends. Additionally, lack of oriented partners to support the transformational leader has the potential to lead to non-accomplishment of the day’s tasks (Bass, 1990). Lack of a charismatic leader in an organization makes it hard to generate commitment and motivation necessary to inspire employees. Regardless of the positive gains associated with transformational style of leadership, (Feinberg, et al., 2005) mentions that there is increased likelihood of abuse of power as the leader has all the charisma and skills to make employees comply with practices that contravene their rights and liberty. It is important to mention that this style of leadership has insufficient checks and balances appraising the welfare, powers and control systems that are essential in preventing autocratic tendencies, discrimination and stereotyping among heterogeneous working groups (Martin, Catherine, and Joanna, 2008). To fully, understand the positive impact of transformational leadership to an organization, it is vital to highlight the four aspects of the leadership that includes idealized influence; where the leader is the role model that helps boosts confidence and trust in employees (Simic, 1998). inspirational motivation; the leader strategically plans for the future, build teamwork, make employees appreciate what they do and offer them more challenging tasks (Bono & Judge, 2004). This helps employees feel they belong to the organization (Gibney Copeland and Murie, 2009). Intellectual stimulation; the leader develop the employee’s ability to make critical decisions, solve problems, encourage creativity and innovativeness and allow employees seek better ways to improve performance and deal with issues. All workers are encouraged to actively, participate in work processes and business systems (Kanungo, 2001). In individualized consideration, the leader reacts to particular needs of the employees to ensure they are committed and flexible enough to accommodate organization change, employees are encouraged to develop and exploit their skills and talents to the highest potential and leaders recognize high performance (Simic, 1998). This involves work-related activities such as career training, guidance and counselling and employee development personally and professionally. Appropriate overarching leadership approach in a contemporary organization Contemporary organizations are reliant on flexible structures and systems of work and business operations, different compared to traditional organizations as highlighted by (Bass, 1990). For this reason, contemporary organizations require a different style of leadership from that practiced in traditional organizations. Due to technological advancement, increased cutthroat competition, increased demand and supply of goods and services globally, increased costs of energy and fluctuating rates of inflation and demographic systems, the environment has become more unsteady and aggressive causing a great need for change in work processes, systems and structures of contemporary organizations (Michiel and Jan, 2005). These reforms and restructuring has had a negative impact on employee job satisfaction and has disintegrated the traditional long term employment contracts to retain workers, and instead contemporary organizations has had to devise new methods for accommodating organizational change while improving the level of worker loyalty, commitment, teamwork and motivation (Bass, 1990). This has meant implementing a style of leadership that is able to not only plan and co-ordinate workers, but also one that is able to inspire, commit, develop, collaborate and encourage creativity and innovativeness among employees and within various levels of organizational structures in order to retain them as suggested by (Vroom, 2000). Transactional/traditional leadership allows employees to do their expected duties effectively and efficiently. Nevertheless, (Feinberg, et al., 2005) mentions that it limits the level of motivation for workers and it discourages teamwork as individual employees are focused on achieving their own success to be able to receive promised rewards (Frey, Kern, Snow & Curlette, 2009). Additionally, traditional leadership conforms to culture, traditions and limits the employee’s ability to improve their job satisfaction through creativity. For a contemporary organization where the need to be flexible to changes is high, transactional leadership style is unsuitable (Bass, 1990). Situational leadership is an easy style to understand and use but it supposes that leadership is about making decisions and it puts more focus on the actions of the management rather than on the employee as affirmed by (Blanchard & Matemeyer, 1979). For contemporary organizations where the human resource is the most valuable and reliable asset to the organization, more focus and emphasis is placed on the employee. For this reason, situational style of leadership is not eligible for practice in contemporary organizations. Transformational leadership style challenges the status quo, it is adaptable to changes, and it focuses on inspiring the employee, aligning the goals of the employee with those of the organization, motivating, developing, challenging, committing and collaborating the employee as affirmed by (Goleman, 2000). For contemporary organizations, transformational leadership is the best-fit and appropriate leadership style (Campbell, 1990). This is because, contemporary organizations are able to accommodate and be flexible for change which is mandatory for such organizations and at the same time, retain employees who are not only skilled and qualified, but also, motivated, creative, innovative, committed and who have confidence and enough job satisfaction to effectively and efficiently execute assigned duties as highlighted by (Simic, 1998). This is essential in improving the quality, competitiveness, efficiency and effectiveness required in contemporary organizations as mentioned by (Bass, 1990). Conclusion The report has critically analyzed various leadership styles and has established the appropriate style of leadership appropriate in a contemporary organization. Additionally, the report highlighted what a contemporary organization is. A contemporary organization is more flexible, less rigid and has accommodating work and business systems and structures. The most appropriate style of leadership for contemporary organizations is transformational leadership owing to its adaptability to change and the great focus given to the human resources to improve their job satisfaction, commitment, confidence, participation, creativity and their personal and professional development. Fishbone analysis The best fit of leadership style in a contemporary organization is determined by specific factors that includes flexibility to change, employee inspiration, employee development, innovativeness and creativity, effective interrelationship among organizational structures and teamwork. References Aguirre, A. 2008. Diversity, social capital, and leadership practices: building inclusive learning organizations. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 526-542 Bass, B.M.1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 13, pp. 26-40. Blanchard, K.H. & Matemeyer, W.E. 1979. Situational leadership, Perception, and the impact of power. Group organization management, vol. 4, pp. 4418-428. Doi: 10.1177/105960117900400404 Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 901-910. Borman, W. C., and Brush, D. H. 1993. More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-21. Bryant, S.E. 2003. The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 32-44. Campbell, J. 1990. An overview of the Army selection and classification project. Personnel Psychology, vol. 43, pp. 231-240. Day, D. V., and Lord, R. G. 1988. Executive leadership and organizational performance: suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 453-464. Feinberg, B.J., Ostroff, & Burke, W.W. 2005. The role of within-group agreement in understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 78, pp. 471-488. Frey, M., Kern, R., Snow, J., and Curlette, W. 2009. Lifestyle and Transformational Leadership Style. Journal of Individual Psychology, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 212-240. Gibney, J., Copeland, S., and Murie, A. 2009. Toward a `New' Strategic Leadership of Place for the Knowledge-based Economy. Leadership, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5-23 Goleman, D. 2000. Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, vol. 78, no. 2, Hogan, R., Curphy, C. J., and Hogan, J. 1994. What we know about leadership: effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 493-504. Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity.  Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 755-768. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., and Gerhardt, M. W. 2002. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 765-780. Kahai, S. & Sosik. J.1997. Effects of leadership style and follower’s cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Personnel Psychology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 121-147. Kanungo, R .N. 2001. Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 257-265. Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. 2006. Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 590-621. Lars, C., A. Fuat, F., and Simon, T. 2008. The organisation of integrated communications: toward flexible integration. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 42 no. 3/4, pp. 423 – 452 Martin, C., Catherine, B., and Joanna, B. 2008. Leadership development: making a difference in unfavourable circumstances. Journal of Management Development, vol. 27 no. 8, pp. 824 – 842 Michiel, S. and Jan, J. 2005. Managing intangible assets: An essay on organising contemporary organisations based upon identity, competencies and networks. Journal of Management Development, vol. 24 no. 6, pp. 506 – 518 Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., and Fleishman, E. A. 2000. Leadership skills for a changing world solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11-35. Odom, L. & Green, M.T. 2003. Law and the ethics of transformational leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol. 24, no. 1/2, pp. 62-69. pp. 78-90. Segon, M., and Booth, C. 2007. The Concept of Ethical Leadership in Organisations. International Review of Business Research Papers, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 362-381. Simic, I. 1998. Transformational leadership - the key to successful management of transformational organizational changes. Facta Universitas, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 49-55. Uma D., and Glenice J. 2006. The role of leadership theory in raising the profile of women in management. Equal Opportunities International, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 236 – 250 Vroom, V. 2000. Leadership and decision making process. Organizational Dynamics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 82-94. Zaccaro, S. J. 2007. Trait-based perspective. American Psychology, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 7-16. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., and Marks, M. A. 200). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 451-483. Read More