Importance of Leadership Style for the Success of John Lewis - Coursework Example

Importance of Leadership Style for the Success of John Lewis Introduction John Lewis is a chain of department stores that operates in UK. It was begun in 1864 when the first John Lewis was opened in Oxford Street in London (John Lewis , 2014). It has a total of forty three stores across Great Britain. The biggest store is in Cardiff. The firm has ever since acquired a lot of achievement over the years and has grown to be one of UKs best shopping facilities (BBC News, 2015). It also focuses on customer happiness as well as the happiness of its employees (Confino, 2012). Given the competitive nature of the business environment that the firm operates in, and the importance and magnitude of leadership positions, leadership, and leadership style is very important for John Lewis. This will determine how John Lewis is going to be successful in the future as it continues to be an even more important business in the economy. Leadership is the process of coordinating and organizing people, in such a way that they work together as a focused team to accomplish a common goal. Leadership style refers to the philosophy of a leader and how he or she implements his or her leadership. According to BBC online news, the leadership style that a leader chooses to use, either consciously or unconsciously, has a fundamental impact on his efficacy as well as success. In this article, the leadership style of John Lewis is placed evaluated to determine its efficacy and what John Lewis may need to improve to become a better leader. When it comes to leadership, there are significant differences between leaders and managers. One of the main differences between managers and leaders is that leaders have followers while managers manage employees (Quinn, 2011). Unlike a leader who creates and implements change, managers react to change and sometimes it can be too late for them. Managers unlike leaders are also likely to be focused on taking credit when they achieve something even if they achieved it through their employees. A leader who focuses on leadership and not management on the other hand gives credit to his team and takes responsibility when things do not go as planned or in the desired way. A manager may be focused on developing his career while a leader is takes a group or shared focus where nobody, not even the least import person, in the team is left behind. Managers may be the source of good ideas, but a leader is the one who makes these ideas transform from just being ideas into actual real life solutions that benefit everyone. In other words, leaders make things happen while managers are just conveyor belts (Briggs, 2011). Leadership in any team of people, regardless of whether it is made of just two people is very crucial in that it helps people to achieve a common goal (Briggs, 2011). Without leadership, not team can ever be effective. Leadership brings cohesiveness in a team and makes the team to be more focused on what they are doing thus making them stronger. It is necessary to note that a group of people, even when they are working on a common goal, only remain to be a group of people, until and unless they have a unifying factor. It is only when they can cohesively work together and focus on tasks that they can be called a team. The problem is that people, regardless of them being social begins do not always agree with each other and in most cases are likely to pursue their own interests. However, when there is effective leadership, such a group is able to overcome their differences and start working together as a team as opposed to working as a group of people (Burn-Callander, 2014). In other words, leadership is the engine that keeps a team of people going until they accomplish something they could not have accomplished alone, or as an un-cohesive group without a shared focus (Briggs, 2011). Leadership provides the synergetic energy that is required in a team of people who want to work together to achieve a common goal. Douglas McGregor theory X and Y managers These kinds of leaders believe that people are intrinsically evil and unmotivated. They believe that people hate to work and that unless they are closely monitored and pushed, they will not be productive (Briggs, 2011). They assume that all people are generally irresponsible, un-ambitions and do not have self efficacy. Punishment is therefore a major tool for such a leader and he or she may keep dishing out forms of punishment to his subjects. Theory Y managers on the other hand are the opposite of theory X leaders. They tend to believe that humans are generally good and that if given the right environment that is supportive, they will be hardworking and productive without having o be pushed (Burn-Callander, 2014). They believe that people are intrinsically motivated and responsible and that with the right positive support, such people will reach for their ambition, both for their own good and the good of the groups (team) they are in. Types of leadership styles Authoritarian style of leadership is a type of leadership style where the leader never considers the opinions or ideas of his subjects. He keeps strict control over his or her subjects and any signs of rebellion against the leader are likely to be heavily punished (Briggs, 2011). The subjects are given structures and procedures for everything so that they do not have to think for themselves. They have to implement to the letter the ideas and thoughts of the leader. The other leadership style is paternalistic leadership and it is the closest to authoritarian leadership. However, the main difference is that unlike an authoritarian leader, a Paternalistic leader takes care of his followers and treats them like a loving father would to their children. However, the fact that a paternalistic leaders act like a father towards their subsets means that they do not have democracy and such a leader will never considering the opinions of his followers. Democratic leaders give their subjects a say and listen to them. They do not push anything but make sure that the opinions and ideas as well as interests of everyone are taken to consideration. The leader however gives clear leadership as to the direction of the group. Such leaders practice social equality as a way to solve issue not only between themselves and the followers, but also among the followers (Burn-Callander, 2014). They have to have good decision making skills that help them to make decisions that each person in the group is happy with, or willing to compromise for. A Laissez-faire leader is a leader who takes democratic leadership to a new level. In such a leadership style, everybody have a right to do whatever it is that they want to do. As a result, accountability is reduced and cohesion is likely to be absent. In fact, some people say that Laissez-faire is not a leadership style at all because the leaders never seem to give any kind of leadership or focus. John Lewis’s leadership style John Lewis leadership style can be said to be democratic leadership. This can be witnessed in the many achievements that are witnessed in the firm. The CEO of john Lewis focuses on the needs of other people and wants to make sure that their interests are met and catered for. To begin with, the firm is focused on customer needs and wants (Cooper, 2010). As the boss of John Lewis said after being voted the most admired leader in UK, they always mutinously look at the needs of the customers and then act in a proactive manner in order to make sure that they stay ahead of the curve (Burn-Callander, 2014). For them to be able to achieve this, the employees in the firm have to be given a way to voice their ideas and opinions. Because customer happiness is achieved when each and every employee is able to do their part of the job which leads to customer happiness, they are allowed to always contribute to the ideas that will make the customer happy. This kind of leadership in John Lewis is important for employees because they feel valued and respected. However, democratic leadership, even with all its advantages can have some problems when not implemented well (Wood, 2012). For instance, the employees can take advantage of this kind of leadership and rebel against the leaders and refuse to do what they are supposed to do. Conclusion Leadership is an important part of any team that wants to work together and achieve a common goal. In firms and organizations, leadership style determines how successful, or otherwise, the firm is going to be. Because of this, it is always good to have a good leadership style that will take care of everything. Democratic leadership seems to be the superior of all the four major leadership styles. This is because it makes it possible to harness the skills and abilities of everyone in the team, or organization and use this for the benefit of everyone at the personal level and the firm at large. However, this kind of leadership should be taken with caution because it can lead to problems if not managed properly. It is also necessary to note that although there are four leadership styles that have been identified, this does not mean that any manager or leader will fall squarely on one of the leadership styles. The leadership styles are not distinct demarcations of leadership styles but they are a continuum from the worst or most oppressive (authoritarian) to least oppressive (Laissez-faire). It is not easy to find a leader who is completely an authoritarian leader or completely a democratic leader. When a leadership style is classified as democratic, it only means that the dominant traits of the particular leadership style are the ones associated with democratic leadership. However, within such a leadership style, there are some other traits from the other leadership styles that have been identified. Managers should also avoid being theory X managers or leaders. They must maintain a sense of leadership that allows other people to shine. Refereences BBC News. (2015, March 12). Grocery price war pushes Waitrose profits down 24%. Retrieved March 29, 2015, from BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31853959 Briggs, S. (2011, 15 April). Christian Horner keeps Red Bull running at the front with unassuming leadership style. Retrieved March 29, 2015, from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/8454887/Christian-Horner-keeps-Red-Bull-running-at-the-front-with-unassuming-leadership-style.html Burn-Callander, R. (2014, December 01). John Lewis boss voted UK's 'most admired' leader. Retrieved March 29, 2015, from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11260672/John-Lewis-boss-voted-UKs-most-admired-leader.html Confino, J. (2012, February 14). John Lewis and the search for happiness . Retrieved March 29, 2014, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/john-lewis-shared-ownership-business-model Cooper, R. (2010, September 15). John Lewis profits leap. Retrieved March 29, 2015, from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8007368/John-Lewis-profits-leap.html John Lewis . (2014, March 15). John Lewis Partnership. Retrieved March 29, 2015, from John Lewis : http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about/john-lewis.html Quinn, J. (2011, December 17). Antonio Horta-Osorio prescribes new leadership style. Retrieved march 29, 2015, from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8963210/Antonio-Horta-Osorio-prescribes-new-leadership-style.html Wood, Z. (2012, January 16). The John Lewis model and what others could learn from it . Retrieved March 29, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jan/16/john-lewis-model-lessons Read More