Leadership as a Concept and Its Classifications - Assignment Example

Leadership styles Introduction Kotter (1990) defined leadership as the process of making people pursue a common goal without employing coercion. Similar definitions have been presented by various contemporary and archaic authors in this regard, which have contributed significantly towards development of literatures on leadership. Leadership is highly subjective in nature and takes different form with respect of organizational requirements (Zakkai, 1994). Sufficient information regarding specific period when leadership development initiated may not be available but studies suggest that leadership based theories became well-known around 1950s and during the same period leadership interaction, implication and classification was done. It was also determined that so far significant research has been pursued for establishing relationship between leadership and performance (Allio, 2012). The paper is a critical assessment of leadership as a concept and its classifications. Moving on, the role of various kind of leadership has been elaborately discussed in the paper with respect to organizational behavior. Similarities and dissimilarities between various leadership styles have also been discussed followed by an overview of charismatic leadership, its features and implications in organizational framework. Leadership, especially charismatic leadership was considered appropriate for this paper because the study will help in developing a clear understanding of roles and characteristics of leaders played within an organizational framework. Leadership and classification It has already been highlighted that the concept of leadership is highly subjective and as a result, several definitions has been developed thereof. Leadership has been defined as the technique of influencing other individuals for developing agreement and understanding regarding things that are to be done and the process of achieving these objectives in a collaborative manner. Other definition suggests that leadership is to influence an individual or a group to achieve common goals by means of shared objectives. Based on these definitions, several components of the phenomenon of leadership can be recognized, such as, it is a process, it involves influencing individuals logically and it provide shared goals and objectives to them (Allio, 2012). Regarding leadership and leader, different authors have presented a variety of views some of which are also conflictive in nature. For instance, a group of researchers argued that leadership qualities are acquired by leaders since birth while other group of researchers argued that leadership can be developed under certain circumstances. In other words, leadership has been defined under the purview of trait approach as well as the process approach. Moving on with this notion, leadership has often been evaluated from the perspective of assignment and emergence. Assigned leadership is referred to formal delegation of responsibilities of a leader on an individual while emergent leadership implies that an individual assumes the role of a leader as a result of the way group or team members react to that person (Allio, 2012). Different authors have defined several leadership styles. For instance, Lewin’s leadership styles comprises autocratic, democratic and laissez faire style while Behavioral theories in organizational framework have resulted in classification of strategic leadership styles in three categories – situational or transactional leadership, transformational leadership and charismatic leadership (Sarros & Santora, 2001). The paper is mainly focused on charismatic leadership but to have a clear understanding of the selection, the other leadership styles have also been discussed briefly. Transactional leadership In transactional leadership, the leaders assume that employees and workers are motivated by rewards and scope of making error is reduced by punishment. Transactional leadership is considered as highly responsive and can be observed to be prevalent in most organizational setups. Transactional leaders are task oriented and believe that objectives can be best achieved by means of clear chain of communication. Another prominent aspect of transactional leadership is that team leader or manager has the utmost authority in a chain and employees must obey the manager’s direction. Under the leadership and management theory in this regard, transactional leadership was determined to be more oriented towards management instead of leadership (Sarros & Santora, 2001). Transformational leadership Transformational leadership assumes that leaders should be inspirers for followers and they must have passion and vision for achieving greater objectives. Transformational leadership is proactive in nature and focuses on employee empowerment. Transformational leaders are relatively less oriented regarding circumstances; instead, they are more focused on their role and responsibilities. Transformational leaders are unconventional in nature and they do not treat mistakes with punishment; for them, mistakes are pillars of learning. One of the essential roles played by transformational leaders is that of motivators. They are consistently involved in motivational activities for enhancing employee’s commitment towards the organization (Sarros & Santora, 2001). Charismatic leadership Charismatic leadership has no specific definition with respect to features and is probably the most unconventional leadership style among the others. Charismatic leadership style was developed as a remedy to issues such as organizational restructuring, redundancies and competition which was significantly demoralizing employees. Charismatic leaders are known for possessing skill and talent to recreate or redevelop employee motivation and morale. Confidence and positive attitudes are considered important characteristics of charismatic leaders (Fiol, Harris & House, 1999). Impact of leadership styles on organizational commitment Organizational commitment has occupied an important position in the management literature as the chief link between organizations and its employees. Khurram Shahzad, Kashif-urRehman and Muhammad Abbad (cited in Raja & Palanichamy, n.d.) argued that organizational commitment is a significant element that plays a vital role in enhancing attachment of employees towards the company. In this regard, they posited that employees that express willingness to continue organizational behavior and citizenship are considered as committed to a firm only if they devote positive effort towards organizational development. Organizational commitment is of significant importance because high level of dedication on the part of employees results in quality performance and organizational effectiveness. Organizational commitment has been defined differently by different authors and negligible level of mutual consensus can be observed in this regard. Most authors however argued that organizational commitment are important measure of employee’s work performance (Morris & Sherman, 1981; Meyer, et al., 1989). Overall, organizational commitment reflects several things, such as, acceptance of organizational goals and values, effort commitment, intra-organizational cooperation and retention commitment. There are several factors that have considerable amount of influence on employee commitment within a corporation. The commitment can also be possibly towards management structure, manager’s personality, scope for development and others (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Walumbwa, et al. (2005) established that commitment as an organizational outcome is significantly related with leadership in the organization. Yousef (cited in Zakkai, 1994) established a positive correlation in this regard as well. Simons (cited in Zakkai, 1994) argued that transformational leadership style is essential for implementing change management in an organization successfully. Continuing on this notion, Lee & Yu (2004) established that organizational commitment bears positive correlation with transformational leadership style. Hayward, Goss and Tolmay (cited in Zakkai, 1994) highlighted that transactional leadership and transformational leadership has moderate level of positive relationship with emotional commitment. The authors appended that relatively low level of relationship coefficients was determined between transformational leadership style and persistence, and normative commitment. According to Arnold, Barling and Kelloway, transformational leaders are prominently responsible for improving team efficacy, commitment and mutual trust. There are other researchers, namely, Kent and Chelladurai articulated that normative commitment and emotional commitment shares positive relationship with individual consideration. In a similar manner, positive correlation was noted between both kinds of commitment and intellectual stimulation. Bass and Avolio established that transformational leaders with capability of encouraging others (employees) for thinking creatively and critically can have constructive impact on employees’ dedication towards the firm. The notion was further advocated by Walumbwa and Lawler by suggesting that transformational leadership can have motivational impact on employees and can enhance their commitment and motivation by leaders participating in problem solving activities in a creative manner and understanding various issues associated with employees. Furthermore, employees express greater level of commitment towards the organisation when they have trust and confidence in their leaders (cited in Raja & Palanichamy, n.d.). Buchanan (cited in Raja & Palanichamy, n.d.) and Steers (cited in Raja & Palanichamy, n.d.) concluded from their researches regarding organisational commitment that the level of commitment is affected by four prominent factors, namely, personality, pay structure, nature of job and work experience. The outcomes that are generated as a result of organisational commitment are high performance and output, low or negligible turnover, low attrition rate and demand and willingness for retention. Focusing on relevant theories, Steers put forward the cause effect relationship suggesting that organisational commitment can be considered as an intervening variable that has significant impact on an employee’s behaviour, attitude and value within an organisation. Characteristics of charismatic leadership and its impact on organisational commitment The term charisma is moderately mystical for most researchers with no clear information regarding its origination. In strategic management, more specifically in leadership, charisma was brought in by Weber to indicate exceptional and rare capabilities in leaders. Charismatic leadership has undergone strong debate with respect to the factor that whether the charismatic qualities are developed by leaders by birth or are acquired from a situation. Authors such as Aaltio-Marjosola and Takala supported it as personal characteristics while Larsson and Ronnmark argued it as perceptual phenomenon (cited in Fiol, Harris & House, 1999). Zakkai (1994) underlined that progressive development of charismatic leadership style within organisational framework is associated with development of certain circumstances that diverges from organisational routines (cornerstone of transactional leadership). Most of these deviations are related to crisis situations or major structural changes within the organisation. Such situations are denoted by uncertainty, anxiety, intense process of projection, transference and attribution that demand strong involvement of charismatic leaders. Different authors have presented different views in this regard: some author supported the sociological viewpoint while others related it to psychological orientation. Few authors argued that charismatic leadership is a distinct component of transformational leadership and is relatively narrower than the same (Jayakody, 2008). Research suggest that charismatic leadership style is moderately associated with five main factors such as ability to generate new ideas regarding future viability of the organisation in a consistent manner, capability to recognise new physical and social opportunities in the existing environment which may contribute towards organisational objectives, inspirational capabilities and ability to articulate organisational activities in an effective manner, influence on employees by means of mutual linkage and respect and developing strategic organisational goals (Jayakody, 2008). Charismatic leaders are essentially unconventional in nature and their futuristic measures are considered as exciting for other employees which often act as source of positive motivation for them. Charismatic leaders are strongly involved in taking personal risk to pursue organisational objectives. Many authors argued that crisis situation are most appropriate for nurturing charismatic leadership for enhancing organisational commitment. Unconventional behaviour by charismatic leaders is often held responsible for presenting challenging situations to employees and boosts their self-esteem. However, cross-national studies suggest that culture plays an important role in this regard as well and not all attributes of a charismatic leader may be visible in all organisational frameworks (Jayakody, 2008; Fiol, Harris & House, 1999). Conclusion and recommendations The paper presents a clear assessment of various leadership theories and leadership styles underlying the theories. In respect of leadership and management theory, three major styles namely, transactional leadership, transformational leadership and charismatic leadership have been discussed in the paper. It was determined that transactional leadership is task oriented while transformational leadership is people oriented. However, charismatic leadership was determined to be relatively unconventional in nature focussing primarily on situation as well as people. The paper has evaluated impact of both conventional as well as unconventional leadership style on organisational commitment and it was established that leadership is essential for enhancing employee commitment. However, little insight was gained regarding appropriate role played by charismatic leadership in organisational commitment. Therefore, scope of future research is very high in this regard. Additionally, scope of charismatic leadership often results in manipulative practices. Hence, it is recommended that leaders must adopt ethical tactics in organisational framework. References Allio, R. J. (2012). Leaders and leadership–many theories, but what advice is reliable?. Strategy & Leadership, 41(1), 4-14. Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 449-482. Jayakody, J. A. S. K. (2008). Charismatic leadership in Sri Lankan business organizations. Journal of Management Development, 27(5), 480-498. Kotter, J. (1990). What Do Leaders Really Do? Harvard Business Review, 103-111. Lee S. K. J. & Yu, K. (2004). Corporate culture and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(4), 340-359. Meyer J.P., Paunonen S.V., Gellatly I.R., Goffin R.D. & Jackson D.N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that the counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. London: Sage. Morris, J.H. & Sherman, J.D. (1981). Generalizability of an organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 512-526. Raja, S. & Palanichamy, P. (no date). Leadership styles and its impact on organizational commitment. The Journal of Commerce, 3(4), 15-23. Sarros, J. C. & Santora, J. C. (2001). The transformational-transactional leadership model in practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 383-394. Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. J. (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and US financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 235-256. Zakkai, E. (1994). Transactional, Charismatic and Transformational Leadership:: Conditions Conducive to their Predominance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 15(6), 3-7. Read More