Command Style of Leadership in Traditional Versus Contemporary Leadership Styles - Case Study Example

The command and control style of leadership is out d and irrelevant in the 21st century, especially in the context of organisations that: are dealing with complex rather than simple conditions; and facing dynamic rather than static change. Critically evaluate this assertion in relation to traditional versus contemporary leadership styles and the current business environment. Introduction In most groups, whether big or small, there somehow emerges a leader who takes charge of various situations. In organizations, leadership is an important aspect to ensure that the organization moves forward. The leader facilitates the movement towards accomplishing organizational goals. Several types of leadership have been identified over the years, with traditional approaches before the 21st century characterized as “command and control” styles. From this description, the leader assumes a strict, firm, “no-questions-asked” stance, with his word considered as the law by his followers. Such an approach is not appropriate anymore in these contemporary times. This essay shall discuss the various leadership models conceptualized by theorists, scholars and researchers as observed in different settings. It will also associate the relevant leadership approaches to a large corporation, RasGas Company Limited in Quatar. Body Clark (2008) defines leadership as “a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills” (para.3). To a great leader his destination is clear. Thus, he maps out the directions for his members to navigate towards that vision. He works with others on strategies to achieve their goals and not pull the limelight to himself. This is very empowering for his followers, and they develop the needed confidence in their abilities which pushes them to embrace challenges and opportunities. Their leader’s positive influence earns him the respect he deserves, so everyone follows him in the pursuit of a shared mission for the growth and development of their organization (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). In work environments, leadership may be distinguished from management. Leadership is the provision of direction to the organization, sharing an overview of the plans they share, coming up with organizational standards and making decisions for the welfare of the whole organization. Management, on the other hand, management is concerned with setting up and managing systems (Harris, 2003). Leadership is about “development, vision and growth. Management is about attending to the status quo and ensuring that systems work” (p.5). From Blake & Mouton’s (1985) managerial grid, the Authoritarian leader comes closest to the command and control style of leadership that characterizes traditional leadership. The Authoritarian leader has been evaluated to be high on task but low on relationship with people. This means that he may be able to reach high productivity levels due to his style of leadership, but does not get along so well with his subordinates. This is because his main concern is the work involved more than the welfare of the people under his leadership. Driven to achieve the goals he has set, he ably moves toward his targets regardless of how it may affect other people. For example, this leader is strict with policies, expecting people to follow them with no questions asked. In the event that plans do not go as planned, he finds blame in others rather than focus on what went wrong or reflect on his own shortcomings. The authoritarian or autocratic leader is intolerant of dissent to his ideas that is why it is difficult for subordinates to contribute and express their own ideas to the group. (Blake & Mouton, 1985). Traditional leader-centered approaches may work better in systems that are stagnant and routinary without much need for dynamism unless it springs from the leader himself. Followers who do not mind a system of input and output and regurgitating information mechanically can thrive in such an environment. An example is the case of the dictatorship of Hitler where no soldier was expected to disobey his command no matter how ruthless or inhumane it was. Hitler’s leadership was centered on his power and influence and led to detrimental results in the end. Such kind of leadership is not deemed to work in contemporary settings especially in huge corporations where there are several leaders and managers tasked to lead the company towards success. An example is RasGas Company Limited, a leading global energy supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as well as oversees and manages a number of operations in various facilities and global commercial partnerships (RasGas .com). Involvement with a large population of employees connected to various networks will need dynamic and efficient leaders who can entrust their able subordinates with important decisions and empower them with significant roles in order for the company to thrive and manage all its other projects. At RasGas, the Chief Executive Officer has the top position in overseeing the company’s over-all management direction and operations. The Board of Directors review the projects, budgets and makes important decisions together with the senior management. They create committees to focus on specific areas of the corporation. Its organized management systems have made it possible for the company to continuously improve on its various activities and programmes, “from enhanced business integrity controls to refining its safety, health and environment processes and procedures” (RasGas Sustainability Report, 2013, para.3). RasGas leaders have been trained to comply with high company standards in the establishment of a high-performance culture and the provision of clarity in how jobs should be done. They implement standard processes that aid in their planning, managing and reviewing employee performance. Communication is kept open with their subordinates, and these employees are supported in the achievement of not only their professional but also their personal career goals (RasGas.com). Zooming in on the nature of leadership in a complex business setting such as RasGas’, it is apparent that more contemporary leadership strategies are needed rather than traditional ones. RasGas deals with a multitude of stakeholders coming from different cultures, and their ever-evolving products necessitate constant creativity and innovation. Hence, a dictatorial leadership is out of the question because it severely limits the employees from seeking new ideas and deciding on new innovations. Several scholars have done vast research on leadership and various approaches to leadership have been identified. Yukl (2006) summarized some approaches that have prevailed throughout the decades. One leadership approach is based on traits. It is premised on the belief that some people are born leaders, endowed with certain traits not possessed by other people. One example is the “Big Five” Personality Traits identified by Hogan, Curphy & Hogan (1994) as present in effective leaders: surgency, dependability, agreeableness, adjustment and intellectance. Surgency is an individual’s energy and activity level that manifests his outgoing and assertive character. Conscientiousness refers to one’s dependability, personal integrity and need for achievement. Agreeableness is one’s cheerfulness and optimism, nurturance and need for affiliation. Adjustment is his emotional stability, self-esteem and self-control. Finally, intellectance is the individual’s curiousity, inquisitiveness, open-mindedness and learning-orientedness (lecture slides, Leadership and Organisational Change Module, 2014) The behavior approach of leadership studies behaviors exhibited by leaders – their typical pattern of activities and how they manage it. Examples of this leadership approach include Participative Leadership and Adair’s ‘Action-Centered Leadership’. Participative leadership, as the name implies, is the engagement of the leader in the tasks, bridging power and behavior approaches to his leadership. Participation helps the leader come up with a more appropriate and acceptable decision which he can justify with his experience. Adair’s (1973) ‘Action-Centered Leadership’ pins the effectiveness of the leader on 3 needs namely the need to achieve a common task, the need for team maintenance and the individual needs of the group members. Bass (1990) differentiates two basic styles of influence leaders use namely the transactional and transformational styles. The transactional style is based on an exchange that one gets for something he does while a transformational style is based on building engagement and participation, in effect, leading them to perform better altogether. Den Hartog et al (1997) contend that transformational leadership has four dimensions. Charisma is the first one, with the leader providing vision and mission while instilling pride in his followers thereby gaining respect and trust for himself. He has the ability to increase their optimism. Second come inspiration, wherein the leader is deemed to be a model who communicates a vision and sets the corresponding standards. Next is individual attention to each member. The leader coaches, mentors and provides feedback to each of his followers making sure they are led to the right path. Lastly, dimension of intellectual challenge gives a leader’s followers a flow of challenging new ideas aimed at rethinking old ways of doing things, challenge flawed systems and promotion of careful problem-solving behaviors. The power-influence approach to leadership takes on a more leader-centered perspective in that power is used not only to manage subordinates but also to influence peers, superiors and even people outside the organization. It explains how effective a leader is in using his power. French & Raven (1959) identified various effects power has on followers. Legitimate power springs from the follower’s belief that the leader is authorized to request and the follower has an obligation to comply. Reward is also an instrument of power in eliciting compliance to the leader’s requests. When the follower is just pressured to comply, it manifests the coercive power of the leader which makes a follower comply due to the leader’s ability to punish. Expert leadership is termed as such because of the belief in the leader’s expertise, competence and information. Lastly, referent power stems from the follower’s admiration or identification with the leader and wants to gain his or her approval. The situational approach sees leadership as affected by contextual factors such as characteristics of followers, nature of the work performed, type of organization and the nature of the external environment. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) enumerate the key variables affecting situational leadership. The first is the variable of the leader. His personality and style directly affect the followers. The second is the led, or the needs, attitudes and skills of the subordinate. Thirdly, task determines the requirements and goals of what needs to be done. Finally, the context variable refers to the organization and its values and prejudices. Finally, the integrative approach involves more than one type of leadership variable and incorporates other perspectives of leadership as well (Yukl, 2006). The “Contingency” theory contends that there is no one best leadership style because it depends on a number of variables. Directive leadership is not bad in itself. It can actually be effective in some situations. Lorinkova et al. (2013) volunteered that one situation is that of newly formed teams. Guided by directive leaders in the short term and in situations wherein they do not have the experience nor the confidence to respond to the challenges of the situation, such directive leadership is welcome. Otherwise, it is more ideal to empower members to think for themselves and find ways out of a difficult situation. Where directive leaders fail to teach independence to its members, empowering leadership bestows to its leaders the skill and confidence for conflict resolution and the habit of collaboration and shared understanding (Lorinkova et al., 2013). A good leader does not rest on his laurels. He continuously seeks ways to make things better for the organisation he is committed to. According to De Vries (1998), charismatic leaders display dissatisfaction with the status quo; they are restless and energetic; they are action-oriented; their discontent pushes them into searching for new opportunities; they are entrepreneurial, impatient, and gifted at articulating a strategic vision, making the big picture seem within reach of their followers. They are also very gifted at building alliances and making people feel special. For such leaders, change is one constant thing in their life and they are quite comfortable welcoming it. Large companies like RasGas have huge responsibilities to their stakeholders necessitating constant assurance of their dependability, safety and efficiency. Since growth and development can be rapid, several changes in the system may be expected, calling for strong leaders that can manage the change and sustain the company’s success. Leaders who are commissioned to oversee changes in an organization need to learn to visualize the new situation that the changes it will result in, involve the people in the organization in the change process, assist in the learning of new skills and roles of the people, and oversee as well as manage the transition. They cannot just dictate what people will do and expect them to obey right away because people need time to adjust. Contemporary change leaders understand that they may be dealing with feelings of ambiguity and uncertainty so these people are made to feel more connected to the organizational changes being done. Commitment to the change is crucial to its implementation by organizational followers. Leaders need to clarify to their followers the direct benefits of the change effort to encourage them to move out of their comfort zones and pursue the changes together. Change leaders should always behave with integrity and develop their followers’ trust despite the transformations going on around them (lecture slides, Leadership and Organisational Change Module, Session Three, 2014). Because RasGas Company is involved in a series of innovative projects it needs people who are independent and creative. Amabile (1998) suggests that for leaders to foster creativity among their subordinates, they must establish an organizational environment wherein subordinates feel safe contributing their ideas and trying out innovative approaches without fear of punishment for failure. Transformational leaders stimulate their followers to think ‘out of the box’ by enhancing generative and exploratory thinking (Sosik et al., 1998). Such leaders push their followers to bravely think about old problems in new ways, to question their own values, traditions and beliefs, as well as the leader’s beliefs and assumptions (Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass, 1988). Diehl & Stroebe (1991) illustrate that when group members brainstorm to generate innovative and creative approaches to solve problems at hand, their leader’s intellectually stimulating Read More