Issues on Leadership Theories, Leadership Styles, and Visioning - Research Paper Example

?There remains a great debate on how the growth of information and communications technology (ICT) is influencing how the world is doing business. Bartz (2009), CEO of Yahoo, said that information and communications technology is both the hero waiting to be summoned and the villain that could destroy the world. Bartz believed that the ones who will benefit are the ones who are willing embrace it. Less than five years ago, for example, Larry Page and Sergey Brin shook Silicon Valley and the world over when their management style caught the eye of the media. Eric Schimdt, Brin, and Page provided their employees with unimaginable facilities within the Google office such as a spa, a gym, cafeteria with free food from different continents, free cars, laundry, turned every employee into a project manager, allowed employees to work from home once a week, and other benefits. This generosity and unconventional style has been adapted by many ICT companies. Facebook has the same casual office lay-out and also provides employees with free food. Viximo has a “come and go as you please” policy and actually encourages their employees to establish their own business. The question now is whether this leadership styles are really borne of the technology or a modification of the classic ones. Servant Leadership As early as 1977, Robert Greenleaf already came up with Servant leadership theory. He argues that great leaders are the ones that serve his constituents. Yet, earlier thinkers like Socrates and Xenophon (Adair, 1989) believed that leaders should lead by serving and even earlier than that is St. Paul who publicly declared that his strategy in ruling other people and making them follow him is by serving them. This is the same strategy used by Jesus Christ. Though many may question his persona as God, no one can question the greatness of his leadership style (Cross, 1998). Ken Melrose, CEO of Toro Company, explained that servant leadership is all about conditioning people’s mind that the leader is the one person who will provide their needs. It is the same strategy used, unconsciously or consciously, by mothers to their babies or masters to their dog. When they are hungry, the leaders provide the food. In an organization, physical hunger is replaced by other needs like recognition, opportunities, and validation. These things allow the employees to grow and learn and do their jobs (Dess and Picken, 2000). The test of whether or not servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) is effective lies in the productivity of the people within the organization. Servant leaders prove the system is working when people are more independent and able surpass the quality of work expected of them. It can be argued that an organization with a servant leader actually serves a purpose, not the person. Some examples of servant leaders are Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They all rule their nation but put their cause front and center instead of relying on their persona. This allows the people to hinge their faith on a dream instead of a person. It strengthens their faith in a vision instead of a person (Zohar & Marshall, 2001). Action-Centred Leaders Adair (1973) also developed the Action-Centered Leadership theory. This leader clearly demarcates three levels of leadership: the team, the job, and the person. These three elements require separate strategies but also overlap as each cannot be operated in a vacuum, one must be operated in consideration with the other two. This theory argues that there is no leadership style that may be considered the best kind and that several styles may actually be used in a single organization by one person. The key is in determining what kind works best for a certain situation. If servant leadership puts the members’ need in front and center, ACL believes that the task is the most important element in leading an organization (Adair, 1989). Leaderless Theory This is, perhaps, the newest of the new theories that are emerging and also the one that is directly influenced by ICT. Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom (2008) examined two emerging organizational trends, one that involves the leaders bequeathing the power to every member of the organization. Many will argue of its validity or its validity as a leadership theory. However, this is precisely why it warrants a review. The nature of this theory revolves around the nature of information technology, one that is impossible to have emerged before the rise of the internet as we know it today. Brafman and Beckstrom compare a leaderless organization to a starfish. The leaders set up a decentralized network where there is no clear leader and the system is set up to make it easier to replicate and run. Such a leader makes his organization almost invincible because once you cut off any of the parts, it will only grow itself back to produce a new whole organization. This is the style used by Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholic Anonymous (AA). There is only one thing constant in every chapter of AA, the 12 steps. However no one is in-charged of making sure the 12 steps is upheld but everyone is in-charged of making sure it is upheld. Joining the organization is free and leaving is free. This is the same principle that makes it impossible to stop. Removing one element, doesn’t kill the others. Craiglist, Wikipedia, and Google use the same principle. The founders set up the skeleton of the system. Google wrote a code that searches the internet but everyone can put their content. Wikipedia set up codes to create an online encyclopaedia but everyone can put contents and everyone can police them. The leaders are more catalysts rather than an officer within an organization. They introduce a vision and encourage subordinates to take part of the vision and then leave the subordinates to execute the vision. Psychodynamic Theory This theory believes that a leader’s success depends on the how the psychodynamic works between the leader and the members of the organization. It argues that even though the leaders set the direction, the power to set the direction actually comes from the members. Thus, the more the member trusts the leader, the greater the power the leader will have. This theory puts more importance on the relationship of the leader and the members and the characteristics of the leader and the followers. The theory emphasizes the need to examine a leader’s relationship with each of the member as a separate causation. Differences in human nature ground the development of unique relationship dynamics. Thus, having 100 members will most likely form 100 different leader-member relationship (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen, 1976; Graen et al., 1977). It is very individual instead of the usual social elucidation (Stech, 2004). This style is supposedly very prevalent in countries or organization with complex political and social synthesis such as China. Social system such this inspires the conceptual formation of an individual’s need to look inward and emphasize inner peace and individuality as they feel no power to control elements outside of themselves. Karlgren (1950) emphasizes that leaders under this theory must be decisive despite the emphasis on leading each person according to the personality of the employee. This decisiveness, however, must be communicated with gentleness to veer it away from authoritativeness. There should also be a guiding principle that contains rules that each member of the organization, including the leader, must follow. Contingency Theories Under the Contingency theory are four kinds of leadership theories. All of it, however, accentuates the necessity of a leader’s ability to evolve and revolve around the natural requisite of different event that may affect the organization. It promotes that an effective leader must learn how to adapt and change to fit the situation and the personal constructs of the person being led. Often, a leader must balance and find the meeting point between the behavioural need, the situational need, and the historical need (Hodgson & White, 2001). Fiedler Theory Fred Fiedler (1969) first published his theory in the 60s. He suggested that there are three elements to consider when a leader is making decisions or setting directions: The contextual dynamics of the members of the organization The leader’s amount of influence over the visible and invisible links of an organization The power that the members allow the leader to have When the dynamics between the employees and the leader, employees and employees, and employees and situation are clearly defined, then the leadership will have the ammunition to maximize the organization architecture. When the situation is too complicated, this kind of leadership calls for the change of the leader rather than the style (Wright, 1996) which Bryman (1992) criticizes because it directly contradicts what a contingency theory stands for. Path–Goal Theory The path–goal theory promotes the use of reward to motivate members of an organization to move towards a more productive working process (Evans, 1970; House, 1973; House and Mitchell, 1974). The theory work under the belief that people work in accordance to the outcome they expect or reward they expect. When someone believes that the outcome or the reward will be beneficial on a psychological, financial, emotional, or physical level, the harder they work. The leader under this theory should, therefore, use the result as the primal motivation. It could involve increasing the value of the reward or creating a cloak of a greater need or urgency to push members of an organization to perform better. The process by which leaders create a framework of urgency and value may differ in procedure. They can be supportive by physically helping and participating in the task. They can also show confidence by giving their employees space and walking away while the task is being performed to demonstrate how much they trust the subordinate. The determination of which strategy to use fully depends on the judgment of the leader. Bryman (1992) also criticized this theory for its lack of ability to set a clear tone of an organization. It provides the leader with unclear identity which could shake the organization. Situational leadership Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard (1969, 1993) developed this theory. It clearly divides leadership into four styles: Directional – one that knows what he or she wants and gives clear direction Consultative – always makes the subordinates a part of the decision-making process Participative – works on the level of the subordinates Delegating – divides the work and the credit among the subordinates None of these is independent. In fact, the theory believes that a leader applies different models as needed by the situation. The New Leadership Another new theory on leadership that is highly based on three, almost immeasurable things: vision, charisma and transformation. This kind of leadership is inspired by the many revolutions on many organizations and nations that give birth to new social systems (Downton, 1973). This leadership is ignited when the leaders and the followers rise to the same level of purpose (Burns, 1978). The leaders make the members a part of the vision (Sashkin, 1988). Burns argues that this leadership elevates the self-esteem of the followers that they start looking beyond the obvious rewards. The leaders are able to do away with negotiating with the members. By making the members a part of the higher or bigger purpose, members imbibe the desires of the leader and do as the leader wishes without feeling they are simply following (Ciulla, 1999). New leaders also has charisma, one characteristic that is pretty hard to explain but obviously present. Bass (1992) said that leaders have the ability to make themselves credible and are able to command respect and trust the minute they walk in the door. The trait is most likely inborn. Unfortunately, having outstanding skills in a certain subject does not necessarily gives you charisma (Flynn and Staw, 2004). Conclusion Stating that organizational trends and organizational structures will evolve is a universal truth. Things change, trends change, technology change, and it exercises influence on how people work which calls for adjustments of an existing social system. Some leadership styles and theories may remain true but would have to be contextualized as it will render itself less relevant to other factors that affect an organization or a culture (Whipp and Pettigrew, 1993). Theories that focus on the personal characteristic of a leader, for example, fail to figure in the evolution of the employees that are getting empowered more and more with the growth of ITC (Korman, 1966; Kerr et al., 1974; Schriesheim and Murphy, 1976; Katz, 1977; Schriesheim, 1980). Some scholars may continue to reject new theories and new styles despite the evident success it is gaining. However, denying it doesn’t mean it will not continue to persist. It may evolve to operate in an even more evolved contextual framework but it will continue. New organizations that aim to thrive in this day and age, where customers are soon going to be dominated by people who have never known a life with ITC as we know it, must study these new theories and, perhaps more importantly, study the cases by which these theories are put to test. This internet domination makes exercising complete control over organizations as dead as an analogue phone. Every member is finding it easier to become a leader and if they are not given that opportunity, it will be harder to keep members and losing members is the sure fire way of killing a leadership. References Adair, j (1989). Great Leaders. London: Talbot Adair Press Bartz, C. (2009). Leadership in the information age The best bosses will be those who learn to swim amid all the information swirling around them. 13 November. The World In Bernard M. Bass (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, Free Press. Bernard M. Bass (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 3rd Edition, Free Press. Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio, Editors (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Brafman, O. & Beckstrom, R. (2008). The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, Portfolio Hardcover Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London, Sage Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Ciulla, J. B. (2005). The state of leadership ethics and the work that lies before us. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 323-335. Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. In J. B. Ciulla (ed.), Ethics, the heart of leadership, (2nd Ed.). (pp. 3-24). Westport, CT: Praeger. Ciulla, J. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 5-28. Dess, G.G. & Picken, J.C. (2000), Changing Roles: Leadership in the 21st Century. Organizational Dynamics Greenleaf, R. (1977), Servant Leadership, Paulist Press Goo, S.K. (2006). Building a ‘Googley’ Workforce. Washington Post. 21 October. Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (2001), Connecting With Our Spiritual Intelligence, Bloomsbury Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46 –78 Evans, M.G. (1970). The effect of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277-298 Flynn, F. & Staw, B. (2004), Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 309-330 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 219 –247. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1963)Management and Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall Hodgson, P. White, R. & Crainer, S. (1996) The Future of Leadership, A White Water Revolution, Pitman Publishing House, R.J. (1973), A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339 House, R.J. and Mitchell, T.R. (1974), Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business, 3, Fall, 81-98 Karlgren, B. (1950), The Book of Documents. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities. Pettigrew, A. and Whipp R. (1991). Managing change for competitive success. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Pettigrew, A. and Whipp R. (1993). "Managing the Twin Processes of Competition and Change: The Role of Intangible Assets." Implementing Strategic Processes: Change, Learning and Cooperation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Popper, M. & Mayseless, O. (2003), Back to basics: applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership, Leadership Quarterly Sashkin, M. (1988) The Visionary Leader in J.A. Conger, and R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 122-160 Stech, E. (2004), The Transformed Leader, Trafford Publishing Wright, P. (1996) Managerial Leadership, London: Routledge Read More