Leadership Is Not Dead: The Importance Of Leadership In Guiding Their Organizations To Success - Term Paper Example

? Leadership is not dead: The importance of leadership in guiding their organizations to success September Leaders are under fire, as scholars examined their relevance in organizations that have flat organizational designs and empowering organizational cultures. Some scholars believe that leaders are fundamental to organizational effectiveness (Hillman et al., 2005), especially considering traditional theories of leadership (Allan, Gordon, & Iverson, 2006, p.43). Traditional theories of leadership underscored the value of leadership traits that help leaders influence and guide their followers to collective endeavors, and ultimately, to organizational success (Allan et al., 2006, p.43). Social power theories, however, insist that leaders are important in relation to their ability to influence their followers (Allan et al., 2006, p.43). Without sufficient social power, they cannot contribute to organizational success. Transformational and transactional leadership theories convey different views and means of leadership, though they essentially agree that leadership strongly shape organizational outcomes (Allan et al., 2006, p.43). Despite these theories on leadership, other scholars question the relevance of leadership in networked and flatter organizations (Kellerman, 2007, p.86). For them, leadership is contested terrain that may be losing importance, especially for knowledge-intensive industries and economies (Kellerman, 2007, p.86; Pfeffer, 1977). Leadership is seen as not the only means to organizational ends. Leadership is important, nonetheless, because leaders are the people who have the training, skills, influence, and knowledge to make important decisions for their organizations or groups. Moreover, not all people can spur and support changes and motivate themselves and/or others in the long run. Leaders step up and lead their organizations toward greatness (Collins, 2001). During crises, leaders also help keep the organization together. Leadership makes a difference in attaining organizational success because they can perform significant functions, particularly coordinating functions within and among organizations and other stakeholders, motivating people to reach organizational goals, mission, and vision, building morale and confidence, and leading and enabling organizational changes. Effective leaders, however, should be chosen and promoted using empirical criteria that support theories on leadership and the practical needs of their organizations. Other scholars believed that leaders are irrelevant to modern organizations with motivated employees. Pfeffer (1977) questioned the importance of leaders for organizations in his seminal article, “The Ambiguity of Leadership.” He noted that leaders get the credit or the axe for the success or failures of their organizations, respectively, and are believed to be indispensable to organizational life. He argued, however, that leaders are not that critical to organizational success, because of the following reasons: the ambiguity in defining and measuring the concept; leaders have little power to attain excellent results; and their environments severely delimit their actions. Furthermore, Pfeffer (1977) lamented that the selection criteria of leaders are not empirical. Organizations sometimes use selection criteria that either diverge with actual managerial practices, or use criteria that do not have objectivity and validity in choosing the right leaders. Many leaders get selected and promoted because of social connections, for instance. Then again, Pfeffer (1977) also found leadership competence as hard to define and measure. For him, empirical studies showed anyway that administrative action has little effect on organizational outcomes (Pfeffer, 1977, p.107). Another scholar explored the impact of changing environment on the roles of leadership. In “What Every Leader Needs to Know about Followers,” Kellerman (2007) stressed that followers have increasingly maximized the “level playing field” that equal civil rights and freedoms and technology provide them. He supported the claim of Peter Drucker in his 1967 book The Effective Executive, where he said that during times when knowledge workers dominate the workplace, their expertise undermine leaders and blur the lines between leaders and followers (Kellerman, 2007, p.86). As a result, they can perform duties and show leadership expertise that undermines the essence of their own leaders. Pfeffer (1977) and Kellerman (2007) agreed that leadership in the new world of knowledge and technology is under siege. As more and more followers act more like leaders, leaders may soon be unneeded in modern knowledge-intensive workplaces. Indeed, leaders and followers experience a blurring of roles and boundaries due to the formation of teams and groups in many organizations, but empirical studies provided evidence that not all people are born and can be trained to be leaders because people have different sets of talents and predispositions. In the article “When Failure isn’t an Option,” Hillman et al. (2005) talked about their diverse leadership approaches and organizational success stories. Robert Murgailis is a training specialist for the Emergency Incident Policy and Analysis Programs at the National Fire Academy in Maryland. He explained that fighting fire is a condition that can be managed through “learned” “insight” (Hillman et al., 2005, p.44). Learning intuition comes from “training, reading, responding to emergencies, and talking with veterans” (Hillman et al., 2005, p.44). These trainings and interactions embed the ability for high-performing firefighting teams, so that they become proficient in determining visual cues and signals that can help them make rapid, but right, decisions (Hillman et al., 2005, p.44). Moreover, leaders can withstand intense pressure and are quick to learn in challenging circumstances. Reality shows that some people crumble in the face of threats. They can hardly fit the leadership profile. Murgailis narrated how the New York City Fire Department asked support from the National Fire Academy after the 9/11 attacks, because the former lost many of their top leaders. He noticed that one of the department’s leaders struggled. He assessed that this leader did not have the confidence and skills to handle the demands of his organization, and so one of their top performers rose up to the challenge (Hillman et al., 2005, p.45). Murgailis is saying that leaders have what it takes to perform in extraordinary events and this trait or expertise is something that not all people have and can easily develop at critical times. Another example shows that people have different personalities and their personalities also shape their ability to lead others and achieve group results. Elizabeth K. Allen is the founder of Elizabeth K. Allen Inc, an event-planning company that organizes and prepares society weddings, charity galas, and corporate events in America. Allen manages highly creative and brilliant people, who tend to have different visions of how events should look like and how they should be properly organized (Hillman et al., 2005, p.46). She explained that effective leaders can make sure that the team moves along, while reducing the effect of “drama” and personal differences on team outcomes (Hillman et al., 2005, p.46). She provided examples of talented individuals, who are too self-centered that they derail team efforts (Hillman et al., 2005, p.46). These examples demonstrate anecdotal evidence that not all human beings have what it takes to lead others, including creative and gifted team members. Leaders, however, are skilled and brilliant in inspiring their members, so that they can use their individual talents to achieve astounding collective results. Leadership is not concentrated on a single approach only, but depends on the needs of organizations, followers, and other conditions. Leadership is not necessarily solo leadership; especially nowadays that team leadership and collaborative approaches to leadership are prevalent, both in public and private sectors. In “Re/thinking Practices of Power: The Discursive Framing of Leadership in The Chronicle of Higher Education,” Allan et al. (2006) examined how leadership is framed in the discourse of The Chronicle of Higher Education. In their review of literature, they asserted that leaders are no longer traditional ones who believe that they alone can steer their organizations to success. Transformational leaders specifically shun the idea of narcissistic leaders. Instead, transformational leaders are willing to collaborate with others and to make compromises, because in real life, organizations possess value and interpersonal conflicts that will impact how and what decisions are made in daily and strategic bases (Allan et al., 2006, p.44). Transformational leaders share power and decentralize decision-making processes, in order to integrate different stakeholder needs, interests, and aspirations (Allan et al., 2006, p.44). Thus, good leaders are aware that they are limited human beings, but they have the talents, skills, knowledge, and experience to stimulate others to work together and achieve collective interests. Leaders know how to negotiate and build networks to attain organizational success. Allan et al. (2006) showed findings that successful leaders have built successful alliances (p.57). Leaders, who have excellent communication and negotiation skills, can attain win-win results, despite potential existence of conflicts and differences in ideologies. These conceptions of leadership assert that leaders are not solo artists in painting the directions of their organizations. They paint with their followers and let their followers lead in their own space and abilities too. Leadership’s importance to organizational outcomes deserver further argumentation, and it is argued that leadership is critical to organizational success because they perform the important responsibility of coordinating functions within and among organizations and other stakeholders. Philippe Dongier served as the former Manager for Afghanistan Reconstruction at the World Bank in Washington, DC. He emphasized the urgency of attaining tangible results in Afghanistan (Hillman et al., 2005, p.43). He explained that leaders of private and non-government organizations worked hard with Afghan government officials to understand community needs and determine suitable community projects (Hillman et al., 2005, p.44). Managing stakeholder relationships is one of the most important functions of leaders, especially in sensitive situations like Afghanistan. Dongier also explained the role of coordinating with other sectors involved in the development efforts: “The group focusing on the health sector needed to remain in contact with those focusing on water supply, for obvious reasons. As overall team leader, one of my roles was to ensure this communication took place” (Hillman et al., 2005, p.44). Organizational members are often embroiled already in their everyday tasks and they do not always have the time or skills to ensure communication across different stakeholders. Leaders assume this position of a project manager, who can interact with concerned stakeholders and departments, so that target goals can be achieved within deadline, or at least near it. Perhaps this is why Pfeffer (1977) find leadership as a contested field. It defies a clear definition, precisely because leaders often go beyond what is expected of them to do their jobs and to work with others, whom they influence to be good at their jobs. Motivation is also decisive to successful organizations and effective leaders motivate people to attain organizational goals, mission, and vision. Michael R. Hillmann is the deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and the commanding officer of the department's Special Operations Bureau, including the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team. He argued that the success of the SWAT team depends on committed members and skilled and knowledgeable leaders who can make the right decisions despite pressure and exhaustion (Hillman et al., 2005, p.43). He stressed that they have formed a formal criteria for selecting leaders, while choosing those who leadership traits, specifically “self-discipline, perseverance, maturity, loyalty, and, crucially, the ability to work as part of a team” (Hillman et al., 2005, p.43). These traits can be found also in followers, but only leaders can use these traits to influence others to become committed to team and organizational goals. Another scholar examined the role of engagement for followers and how leaders engage different kinds of followers. Kellerman (2007) provided a typology for followers based on their level of engagement. His typology divides followers into: isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards. He offered recommendations on how leaders can motivate these different followers, so that they can maximize their skills and align their personal needs with the needs of their organization. The characteristics of isolates and bystanders, in particular, assert the significant role of leaders in determining why these followers are unmotivated and do not perform at optimum levels. Leaders can help these kinds of followers to change and to become good followers, who can act and think ethically, so that they can perform their jobs with a clear conscience and positive drive (Kellerman, 2007, p.91). Ray Evernham offered tangible examples of motivating a dedicated crew. He acted as the crew chief for driver Jeff Gordon from 1993 to 1999, where Gordon won three NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) championships. Evernham noted the distinct ten-month season of NASCAR, where people often burn out easily (Hillman et al., 2005, p.50). Their team managed to stay motivated; however, through leaders, who know how to build their morale and confidence during the race’s most challenging times (Hillman et al., 2005, p.50). Thus, leaders inspire their followers toward common directions. They know how to present visions, missions, and goals in terms and images that acknowledge the contributions of every member to team success, so that followers will not waiver in their determination as part of their teams and organizations. As part of motivating people, great leaders are also excellent morale builders. Mary Khosh acted as a career coach for the Cleveland Browns in the late 1980s and early 1990S. During this time, she helped players deal with both work and life concerns. She stressed that “great coaches” are aware of their players’ individual needs and concerns (Hillman et al., 2005, p.45). This knowledge helped coaches find the best motivational strategy for each player. She presented a psychological approach to coaching, where she conducted interview sessions to know more about the players as players and human beings with different backgrounds, needs, dreams, and insecurities (Hillman et al., 2005, p.46). Khosh argued that great leaders are similar to great coaches because they value self-confidence in the success of individuals, teams, and organizations (Hillman et al., 2005, p.46). They know how to motivate people, where they connect the performance to the job and not to people’s identity, so that when performance is low, people’s self-confidence is not easily shattered (Hillman et al., 2005, p.46). Leaders help poor performers to understand their game and find solutions that recover the top of their play (Hillman et al., 2005, p.46). Leaders do not only build morale, they also lead and enable organizational changes. When organizations are performing badly or on the average, leaders will make the difference. In “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve,” Collins (2001) argued that good companies can be great companies when under the Level 5 Leaders. He and his research team studied good companies that became great ones and determined common variables. They also examined companies that were not able to make the shift. They used stock market data from the University of Chicago Center for Research in Security Prices. They also explored almost 6,000 articles, interviewed 87 key executives, examined companies' internal strategy documents, and went through analysts' reports. They found out that Level 5 management consistently steered mediocre organizations to become high-performing organizations. Furthermore, the “absence of Level 5 leadership” existed for comparison companies (Collins, 2001, p.70). Level 5 leadership is not easy to understand, however, because as Collins (2001) admitted, it is a “counterintuitive” and “countercultural” concept (Collins, 2001, p.68). Level 5 leaders are not boastful of their accomplishments, but they show robustness to target goals and standards, however unpopular their decisions may be (Collins, 2001, p.68). Collin’s main example is Darwin E. Smith, the chief executive of Kimberly Clark for twenty years. Collins (2001) explained that Smith illustrated the essential characteristics of Level 5 leaders. He has humility and tenacious will (Collins, 2001, p.70). Collins (2001) stressed that Level 5 leaders have “dual” personalities. They are “modest and willful, shy and fearless” (Collins, 2001, p.70). Smith is a shy individual, but he made unpopular choices that steered Kimberly Clark from a mediocre company to a powerful firm that surpassed its foremost competitor, Procter & Gamble. Leaders are also not afraid of starting organizational changes, no matter how radical they may be, or how they may oppose existing organizational social patterns. A good example is George Cain, CEO of Abbott Laboratories. During his time, Abbott is slow giant, a family-controlled business that promoted nepotism (Collins, 2001, p.72). Cain is a Level 5 leader who may not have a charming personality like other charismatic leaders, but he has the obstinacy to steer his organization toward adopting “inspired standards” (Collins, 2001, p.72). He is part of the family, the son of a former president, but he did not approve of nepotism as a way of managing the firm (Collins, 2001, p.73). For him, family is separate from organizational duties and standards: “Family ties no longer mattered. If you couldn't become the best executive in the industry, within your span of responsibility, you would lose your paycheck” (Collins, 2001, pp.72-73). These Level 5 leaders are not leaders who made the company on their own. In fact, they are the opposite. Collins (2001) provided compelling empirical evidence that Level 5 leaders share power with others who believe in the same great vision of themselves in a high-performing company. These leaders are proof that leadership is about followership and launching and sustaining organizational changes that improves individual and organizational performance simultaneously. Effective leaders should be chosen and promoted using empirical criteria that support theories on leadership and the practical needs of their organizations. Pfeffer (1977) is right when he said that social connections are not sufficient criteria for hiring effective leaders. Collins (2001), Allan et al. (2006), Hillman et al. (2005), and Kellerman (2007) are on the same page on what great leaders are. Great leaders are not tyrannical and egoistic leaders. They are leaders who have the traits and readiness to lead their organizations toward greatness. They shun mediocrity because they believe in the talents and dedication of their followers and all levels of management. In order to find effective leaders, organizations should have a system and culture that supports the selection, training, and career development of Level 5 leaders. This hiring and training system includes valid and testable measures of performance and prepares leaders for diverse leadership and management functions. These leaders are prepared to make and sustain organizational changes too, when needed. They inspire the right individual and organizational changes because they are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the company and their competitors and the threats and opportunities in the market. The leadership hiring and training system is not perfect and amenable to changes, but essentially, it is a system that follows industry standards, academic empirical studies, and pragmatic ideals. Leaders are sometimes born or made, and they are just as essential to knowledge workplaces today as to manufacturing industries hundreds of years ago. They might seem unimportant in flat organizations, but even within them, they have forms of leadership that direct projects and teams. On the one hand, critics of leadership argue that leadership is dead in light of empowered organizations. On the contrary, leadership remains fundamental to both empowered and disempowered organizations. They have what it takes to lead their organizations. They are no longer solo leaders, but are leaders who empower their followers to make positive contributions to their organizations. Leadership makes a difference in attaining organizational success because they can perform important functions, particularly coordinating functions within and among organizations and other stakeholders, motivating people to reach organizational goals, mission, and vision, building morale and confidence, and leading and enabling organizational changes. Effective leaders, however, should be selected and promoted using empirical criteria that support theories on leadership and the practical needs of their organizations. Without these conditions, Level 5 leaders cannot be hired or trained. Hence, effective leadership is not dead, if the means of hiring and developing high-performing leaders is not killed off too. References Allan, E.J., Gordon, S.P., Iverson, S.V. (2006). Re/thinking practices of power: The discursive framing of leadership in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Review of Higher Education, 30 (1), 41-68. Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 66-76. Hillman, M.R., Dongier, P., Murgallis, R.P., Khosh, M., Allen, E.K., & Evernham, R. (2005). When failure isn’t an option. Harvard Business Review, 41-50. Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard Business Review, 84-91. Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2 (1), 104-112. Read More