Two Different Approaches to Theorising Leadership - Essay Example

?Critically compare the strengths and limitations of two different approaches to theorising leadership as sources of prescription for good managerialpractice in organizations. How - if at all - might either or both of these two theoretical approaches inform good managerial practice in organizations, and why (or why not)? 1. Introduction The importance of leadership and the use of appropriate leadership styles in different situations enable the organisations to enhance communication, collaboration, coordination, cooperation, relationship building, motivation, job commitment, satisfaction, employee confidence on employers and individual performances. For instance, a leader is a person with charismatic qualities, vision, critical thinking skills, encourager, team member, and ability to look into future. Indeed, the aforementioned attributes enable a person to lead his / her organisation and ensure a harmonised and shared value-based internal culture. Leadership refers to the capability of strategic planners, policy- and decision – makers to direct employees / organisation to accomplish business plans and mission. In addition, leadership is all about identifying potential in employees, to polish individual abilities and to train them in a way they could portray optimal performance and achieve defined targets. Idris & Ali (2008) had thrown light over the fact that leadership helps a business organisation in gaining competitive advantage by ‘out – performing’ rivals in the same business sector. For this purpose, the leaders keep themselves updated about general and task environment, which is then analysed and evaluated for new policy formulation, modifications and amendments in existing policies. The internal managerial structure could be adjusted to ensure greater flexibility, mutual accountability and adaptability, which later enhances internal efficiency and performance. Chan (2010) has argued that business success and sustainability of an enterprise is dependent on the strengths and leadership qualities of strategic planners and top management. He highlighted that there are various leadership styles such as “autocratic (which focuses on internal control and stability), bureaucratic (it is more democratic in nature but also pays special attention to task accomplishment and overall performances), laissez-faire (which focuses on extreme level of flexibility, tolerance and adaptability to changes), democratic (which focuses on employee empowerment, continuous learning and experimentation), participative (focuses on enhancing employee contribution and participation in business affairs through mutual collaboration, interaction and communication), situational, transactional, and more recently transformational” styles. This paper will throw light in detail over Transformational Leadership and Path – Goal Leadership approaches. The researcher will critically evaluate and compare the strengths and limitations of two different approaches to theorising leadership as sources of prescription for good managerial practice in organisations. In other words, the researcher will assess how the concepts and understandings of two aforementioned leadership theoretical approaches will help strategic planners to formulate and implement good managerial practices that would benefit in conflict resolution, internal peace, socio – emotional and instrumental cohesion and harmony, low absenteeism and employee turnover rates, high motivational level, job commitment and timely achievement of goals. The researcher has chosen the Path – Goal Leadership approach because it focuses on task / performance and relationship – orientation as both are quite necessary for overall organisational success. For instance, the approach was developed after contributions of many renowned theorists during 1970s and 1980s such as Robert House, Ralph Kartz, Yukl, Shamir, R. Mitchell and other authors (House, 1996). In addition, the researcher has also chosen Transformational Leadership theory, a relatively new approach, which focuses on to the use of charismatic personality, expertise and referent power by the leader to motivate, induce and encourage subordinates to utilise organisational resources in the most efficient and effective manner in order to accomplish assigned business goals. For instance, transformational leaders have innovative ideas, have flexible and adaptable personalities, and have charismatic traits that distinguish them from other managers and / or leaders. The main contributors to the development of this theory include Podsakoff, Ahearne, MacKenzie, Moorman, Fetter, James McGregor Burns, Bernard Bass, Bruce Avolio, Jim Collins, Noel Tichy, Mary Anne Devanna, Ronald Riggio, Daniel Goleman and others etc. (Podsakoff et al, 1990). 2. Compare and Contrast Analysis 2.1 – Transformational Leadership It is worthwhile to mention that the modern leadership approach is known as The Full – Range Model of Leadership that has been developed by Bass and Avolio. The researchers proposed that leadership behavior changes / varies from a continuum of laissez – faire (which focuses on extreme level of flexibility, tolerance and adaptability to changes) to transactional to transformation leadership. However, the meta-analysis of Bass and Avolio revealed positive relationship of transactional and transformation leadership styles with employee attitudes and behaviours (Kousez & Posner, 2007). Therefore, the researcher will describe transformational style as well as present the major differences between transactional and transformational styles in this chapter. It should be elucidated that Transformational leadership is different from transactional leadership as the former refers to the use of charismatic personality, expert and referent power by the leader to induce subordinates to give up and sacrifice personal interests for greater welfare and success of organisational goals. For instance, transformational leaders exhibit self-sacrifice and serve as moral agents, thereby focusing themselves and their followers over on objectives that transcend more immediate need of a work group (Mullins, 2007). In addition, transformational leaders provide guidance, mentorship and coaching to their followers so that their intrinsic motivation level increases, thereby driving them to utilise organisational resources in the most efficient and effective manner to accomplish assigned business goals. In fact, transformational leadership is necessary for implementation of transactional leadership because the latter is more performance and task – oriented and talks about the economic side of the equation (Dvir et al, 2002). Idris & Ali (2008) supported the explanation of Bass & Avolio (1994) who argued that transformational leadership focuses heavily on personality influence, workers’ inspiration and satisfaction followed by individual attention to every employee and creation of cohesion (we-feeling) between leaders and followers. In addition, the leadership style also considers the intellectual and psychological, mental and physiological development because it induces employees to participate in core business affairs and fulfill job duties. In short, the leaders with transformational styles are visionary and have ability to communicate their aspirations with the followers. In turn, the organizational members accept the assigned tasks and put efforts to achieve those targets. Omar et al (2009) have endorsed the analysis of Den Hartog et al. (1997) by pointing out that transactional leadership style is different from transformational style because it is an ‘exchange process between leader and followers’ in which leader assign tasks whereas the follower accepts those jobs, accomplishes them and then receive accolades and extrinsic rewards for rendering services and fulfilling duties. It should be emphasised that tangible and intangible rewards (such as promotions, pay increase, fringe benefits, shares’ ownership, additional paid vacations and holidays, insurance cover, accommodation, conveyance, rental etc.) are provided to and disbursed among employees so that they ensure need fulfillment and motivate workers to enhance their individual as well as team - based performances. Hence, transactional style is more about extrinsic motivation through rewards and punishments to employees in different circumstances. Judge and Piccolo (2004) also conducted a comprehensive meta – analysis study so that they could identify how a blend of transformational and transactional leadership styles / behaviors could affect members’ commitment, motivation, satisfaction level, loyalty and morale, which subsequently impacts organisational performance. Their study have revealed that both transformational and transactional leadership positively affect followers’ job commitment; however, transformational strongly impacts job satisfaction and motivation level whereas the reward and performance appraisal in transactional leadership affects goals accomplishment and the individual performances. Indeed, workers portray excellent performance in anticipation of future promotions and rewards; hence, this positively influences on the organizational performance. Podsakoff et al (1990) have expanded the key - behavioral indicators for transformational leaders originally developed by Bass (1985), which could be considered as an expansion of four leadership (Four I’s) behaviors. They suggest six key behaviors that would better explain the scope and validity of transformational leadership style. The first behavior is that effective leaders are those that focus on mission and vision statements because they direct employees about the actual goals and the long – term aspirations. For instance, workers become positive and determined if leaders identify what their destinations are. The next behavior is about setting a role model in front of employees so that they could follow the steps, enhance performance and accomplish expected goals. The third behavior is about team – based work and mutual cooperation. Indeed, the leaders now focus on mutual accountability rather than assigning individual responsibilities. The fourth behavior throws light directly over actual results, performances and underlying weaknesses so that rewards could be provided and excellence could be ensured. The fifth behavior is about providing feedback and personalised ‘support’ so that followers could identify their shortcomings and make necessary adjustments / rectifications in their behaviors and tactics. The last behavior is about challenging the internal state of the organisational members so that they could make self – evaluations and appraisals. Usually, this includes time management, methods of implementation and routine work practices that employees or followers use (Barling et al, 1996). Samad (2009) cited Yammarino & Dubinsky (1994) and argued that leaders should adopt the transformational leadership style rather than transactional style because relationship building and self – sacrifice of leaders will intrinsically motivate workers, lead to need fulfillment and greater on-the-job satisfaction of workers / followers because of very few conflicts and ambiguities regarding leaders. Samad (2009) ruled out the arguments of other researchers such as Omar et al (2009), Barlin et al (1996) and Podsakoff et al. (1997) who claimed that transactional leadership style is a prerequisite of effective leadership; therefore, good leaders adopt and practice both styles in different scenarios because transformational style leads to superior performance when it adds to transactional leadership. 2.2 – Path-Goal Leadership According to Daft (2009), Path – Goal theory was initially developed by Robert House who continued his research work along with other theorists so that he could come up with new updated versions of Path – Goal approach. Before elucidating this theory, it should be mentioned that effective leaders pursue motivational behaviour because it reduces the impediments that interfere with goal achievement. For instance, the effective leaders provide constant direction, training and endorsement to their followers who need it to smoothly and efficiently conduct routine business operations. Next, the effective leaders also emphasise the importance of performance appraisal and critical evaluation because an organisation could not be deemed successful when it fails to accomplish its objectives due to mismanagement and employees’ blunders, lack of will and failure to complete their assigned tasks / goals in a timely manner. House (1996) has pointed out that that, initially, a research was conducted to test the impact of task – orientation and relationship – orientation on employee satisfaction level and individual performance. Path – Goal theory was then developed describing how leadership effectiveness is supported with four leadership styles such as directive, supportive, participative and achievement – oriented followed by contingency factors or variables that cause one leadership’s style to be more effective than others. In Path – Goal theory, the two main groups of contingency factors were environmental factors (such as work group dynamics and independent v. dependent tasks) and employee characteristics (including locus of control, task ability, need for achievement, need for clarity and experience). For instance, it had been confirmed that employees with internal locus of control had higher likelihood of using participative or achievement – oriented styles, whereas workers with external locus of control (who have low self-esteem and self-efficacy) would prefer more directive or supportive leadership. In addition, employees with greater work experience and task ability would not require additional direction; therefore, they would disregard directive but prefer participative style. For instance, an inexperienced worker would be inclined to adopt participative style because he would seek clarifications and guidance of his co-workers and bosses (House, 1996). However, the mixed results of more than 60 research projects compelled Robert House and other proponents of Path – Goal Theory to amend current version and come up with a reformulated version with three major changes (Mullins, 2007). The first change in the revised version was the acceptance that leadership is a complex process; therefore, a leader has to adopt various leadership styles and behaviours in different situations / contexts. The theory then identified 8 types of behaviours such as Path-goal clarification, interaction, support, work facilitation, achievement – orientation, group – oriented decision making, value - based behaviour and finally representation & networking. The second major change was the greater emphasis on intrinsic motivation rather simply depending on extrinsic motivation and reward management. The third major change in the theory was that leadership is not a responsibility of bosses, supervisors or executives on key positions. Instead, leadership is shared among all employees within a corporate setting and that every employee could practice leadership provided his ability to influence, motivate, direct, train, counsel and endorse other employees. In other words, Path Goal Theory (at present) is more concerned with relationships and employee centeredness in addition to performance and achievement - orientation. As far as the limitations of reformulated version are concerned, it is worth mentioning that future research should be conducted to test how accurate the new model is. At present, there are enough direct tests and statistical methods that have confirmed the relevance of this new model; therefore, still enough work is required to ensure pertinence. Nevertheless, it should be summarised that revised Path – Goal theory has three major strengths that are as under: 1) An effective leader does not stick to a specific leadership style rather changes his leadership behaviours and try new ones when situations call for. This also proves how much flexible / adaptable a leader is to changes in environmental factors. 2) The next strength is that leaders should clarify to employees what exactly are the roads / path to success. In other words, what and how will different paths lead to achievement and how impediments have to be tackled? 3) Three employee characteristics (such as ability, need for achievement and work experience / history) and three environmental factors (autonomy, variety and significance) are pertinent situational variables. 2.3 – Transformational v. Path-Goal Comparing the two aforementioned theoretical approaches to leadership, it is worthwhile to point out that Transformation leadership is quite effective because it focuses heavily on relationship – orientation and intrinsic motivation. For instance, most of the proponents of transformational theory emphasises the need of performance appraisal and result – oriented approach for reward management and disbursements because extrinsic motivation is also equally important for workers’ motivation, morale, job commitment, satisfaction and organisational loyalty. In short, the transformational leadership behaviours include clear communication of mission and vision, role – modeling, team – based work and mutual accountability, performance evaluation for extrinsic rewards, feedback and personalised endorsement and mentorship for followers, and lastly the instigation of workers for greater self – evaluations and appraisals (Barling et al, 1996). In contrast, the revised model of Path Goal Theory also focuses on importance of intrinsic motivation for greater relationship building and inter-organisational harmony. However, unlike the previous heavy emphasis on achievements and material gains, the new Path – Goal approach now gives equal importance to employee centeredness and achievement – orientation, which to a great extent, has balanced the theory. In simple words, the reformulated version of Path – Goal overlaps with currently available version of Transformational Leadership style. Nonetheless, most of the advocates of transformational style argue that a blend of transactional and transformational styles could lead to effective leadership and management practices (Kurtz and Boone, 2003). For instance, Omar et al (2009) have supported the explanation of Podsakoff et al. (1997) who argued that there has been a relationship between transformational leadership and transactional leadership behaviour. In together, they also impact ‘organisational citizenship behavior’ because the transformational leadership touches the emotional side, while the transactional leadership focuses on the importance of motivation of employees through performance appraisal and rewards disbursement. Since, both are essential for an organisation, thus they may also affect citizenship behaviour. It is also justified to argue that reformulated Path – Goal Theory has inducted leadership behaviours that are demand of new workplace. It is worth mentioning that the new workplace is complex, unstructured and unpredictable; therefore, situational and environmental variables must be taken into consideration with respect to employee traits / characteristics so that effective leadership could be reinforced (Knights & Willmott, 2007). In other words, leadership effectiveness (which becomes evident from high workforce morale, high affective and normal job commitment, high level of instrumental and socio-emotional cohesion, high employee and work-unit performance, leader acceptance, and high employee satisfaction) could be considered a source of good managerial practices (team-based environment, empowered employees, extrinsic rewards, career counseling and advancement, experimentation and continuous learning) in a corporate entity (House, 1996) ; (Daft, 2009). 3. Conclusion In a nut shell, the Transformational leadership (augmenting transactional style) and modified version of Path – Goal theory, together, identify almost all elements and variables that could lead to formulation and implementation of good managerial practices. It should not be confused that an organisation could follow and base its management / leadership practices on either of the aforementioned theories. Rather, the research would argue that a mix of transformational and Path - Goal leadership theories (including transactional style because it is essential for overall effective leadership) is appropriate for establishing a distinctive, yet thorough and inclusive, managerial system. Nevertheless, the future research will further clarify the relevance of revised Path – Goal model followed by changes in Transformational leadership theory because new research projects are still under process. References Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, K. (1996). Effects of Transformational Leadership Training on Attitudinal and Financial Outcomes: A Field Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 6, pp. 827-832 Chan, Hup (2010). The influence of leadership expertise and experience on organizational performance: a study of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia. Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 16, Nos. 1–2, pp. 59–77 Daft, Richard (2009) “Principles of Management" South-Western College Publishers, 9th edition Dvir, Taly, Eden D., Avolio, B. and Shamir, B. (2002) Impact of Transformational Leadership on Follower Development and Performance: A Field Experiment. House, Robert (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, No.3, pp. 323-352 Idris, Fazli and Ali, K. (2008).The impacts of leadership style and best practices on company performances: Empirical evidence from business firms in Malaysia. Total Quality Management, Vol. 19, Nos. 1–2, pp. 163–171 Judge, T. and Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 755-768 Knights, D and Willmott, H. (2007). Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management. London: Thomson Kousez, James and Posner, Barry (2007) “The leadership challenge” Jossey-Bass Publishers, 4rth edition Kurtz, L. and Boone, D. (2003). Contemporary Business. The Paramount Publishers, 11th edition Mullins, Laurie J. (2007). Management & Organisational Behaviour. Financial Times Management, 8th edition Omar, Zoharah, Arifi n Zainal, and Khairudin, R. (2009). The Influence of leadership behavior on organizational citizenship behavior self-managed work teams in Malaysia. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1 pp. 196-207 Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Organization citizenship behaviour and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262–270 Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviours, and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142 Samad, S. (2009). The Influence of Emotional Intelligence on Effective Leadership Among Managers in Malaysian Business Organizations. The Business Review, Cambridge, 13(1), 164-170 Read More