Applicability of Leadership Theories in Organization's Leadership Model - Research Paper Example

Leadership Introduction Leadership elements that management can adopt and incorporate in the organisational practices have far reaching implications with regard to the objectives of the organisation. Incorporation of leadership in organisational management is mainly due to the premise that leaders have influential capacity which enables them to have people do what they would otherwise not do (Bratton et al, 2006, p499). Different leadership modes have been formulated by various theorists with an aim of unravelling the role of leadership in management. Some leadership theories may be incorporated in conjunction with others for the synergy of management benefits depicted under each regime. It is rare to find a purely single leadership model in operation within the management of an organisation, but a combination of more than one model is common. In this study, two leadership theories are critically analysed for their applicability inside an organisation’s leadership model. Situational and contingency theories will be highlighted in detail, in assessing the most appropriate theory to rely on in setting up an organisational model of leadership. Leadership insights are apparently inevitable in the management roles that an organisation’s executive have in steering the organisation towards realisation of its objectives. From these two approaches, the theorists assist in understanding the relevant connection to be made between leadership and management, under the inspiration of the organisations’ mission and vision focuses. On one hand, situational theory, Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard contributions to the effect that styles of leadership styles are not fundamentally important than or superior to the leadership’s response to varying situation is examined. On the other hand, Fiedler’s contingency theory has been visited in conjunction with the situational theory to illustrate the importance of leadership in formulation of organisational leadership practices (Kreitner, 2006, p452). 1. The Question that I am Trying to Answer In this discourse, I will attempt to find solutions to the question whether an organisation can adopt several leadership perspectives to sustainably tackle all of its challenges. A position held up to the generation of the question is that the organisation faces pretty too many leadership challenges such that it cannot be possible to be reliant on a single approach. The choice of these theoretical approaches of leadership was deliberately done to demonstrate the need for the model of organisation to depart from retrogressive leadership designs that rigidly fixates the organisation to conservative systems inhibiting initiatives. Under the opposing theories of leadership, it is difficult for organisations to respond to the rapidly changing market but reacting to the market only leaves the organisation in a poorer condition. The comparison of these two theories which lie under the larger contingency class of theories will therefore point at the strengths that initiative and openness bring to the organisation if they are applied in leadership style. 2. How Far is there Backing for My Claims Leadership approaches need to be in tandem with the reality on the ground, with sufficient flexibility that can facilitate withstanding the organisation’s difficult and bearable moments alike with ease. This stance is favoured by the realisation that organisational rigidity and strict conservative practices of leadership can result in unpleasant results, especially in the rapidly changing times and situations. A lot of emphasis is given to the perspective that the leadership takes of the organisation, particularly on the employees, role and potential (Godin, 2009). According to the common objective of all organisations to achieve success in their undertakings, the internal leadership and workforce must be brought on board for the purpose of implementing the laid out success plan. It is therefore not the responsibility of the management alone to ensure success but that of every stakeholder to develop a sense of leadership in response to issues arising along operations (Blackwell, nd, p2). To respond to changes in the operation life of the company, flexibility will be invaluable to ascertain the actual operation potential of the organisation. Tasks and relationships within the organisation must be inclined to the objective formulated prior to operations. Leadership style embarked by the management team complements to the situation at hand, such that a particular leadership model can succeed in a certain situation while another could fail in exactly the same situation (Northouse, 2009, p114). The nature of organisational leadership is generally depicted by the need to organise, control and bring some order within the operations laid out, illustrating the need for some plan. Different problems require different approaches in order to handle them; but there could also be different ways of handling a single problem depending on the conditions and available resources. Leadership tasks should be unstructured such that the various situations and environments prevailing at different times are handled comfortably by involvement of more than one managerial style. 3. What are the Theorists Trying to do? In these two leadership theories, the theorists were contemplating on a relatively similar challenge to tackle, which prompted them to formulate the relatively similar perspectives. On the Situational Leadership Theory formulated separately by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, there was concurrence that one leadership approach is not adequate to cover all the challenges of management in different situations. According to Godin (2009), there is a variety of situations in the ordinary operations of an organisation. Leadership models should be responsive of the situations presented by the variety of challenges that they present to the operations. The author projects that there is a high probability of applicability of synergism effects in the various leadership styles that succeed in various situations, but do not necessarily succeed when applied in isolation in a management model. Operation systems for instance, according to the author, have to deal with the competence of the employees in an area on one hand, as well as the commitment that they demonstrate towards their work on the other hand. Almost similar sentiments are held by the provisions of the contingency theory as developed by Fiedler, in that leadership choices made are dependent on some situations. As it will be observed, leadership options are presented in both theories as task or relationship intensive. According to Srivastava (2005, p26) n the Fiedler’s work outlines the importance of leaderships’s mastery of the situations that the organisation is experiencing in order to make the best responsive decision. The theorist generally identifies two types of leaders; those concentrate on tasks on one side and those who concentrate on people. Tasks and people are the main target in the leadership styles that the theory proposes, in two different situations. In an appropriate environment, leadership should concentrate on both elements since intensifying one at the expense of the other could pose as a loophole in objective achievement. The operational decision that the leardership should contemplate on should depict consideration of the prevailing relationships, task structure as well as position authority or power (Appendix 1). Comparing Hersey and Blanchard’s model to that of Fiedler’s, there is a third element missing in the former but present in the later. Aspect of power in the leadership suddenly changes the weight of the situational theory with a modification that acknowledges the role of authority in the leadership of an organisation. In contingency, the situation of the challenge that the leadership attempts to solve is approached by considering three aspects of the organisation in order to make a flexible approach on the challenge. Both theorists favour the common ground that situations determine the leadership style that the management should adopt; proponents of a single style cannot be heard to say that any one of the styles can adequately handle real organisational needs. Different levels of favourableness are attached to various situations that face the organisation at certain periods of time. There are; favourable, unfavourable and intermediate levels of the situations that the leader experiences, depending on the leadership style adopted in exclusion of the rest. For a successful encounter with any of the situation facing the manager, different leadership styles become appropriate in order to offer the right response to each of the situations. Fiedler therefore postulated that situation favourability to a leader is influenced differently to both task oriented leaders and leader-follower relationship oriented leader (Srivastava, 2005, p15). Hersey and Blanchard Situational Theory of leadership postulated a matrix that demonstrates the impact of leader-follower relationship in terms of the tendency to offer direction and support by the leader to the followers (Singh, 2009, p293). Leadership behaviour to be adopted by the manager falls in different levels of styles as developed from the matrix. Leadership styles developed include; S1/telling (task oriented with a low relationship emphasis), S2/selling (high task focused complemented with high relationship emphasis), S3/participating (low task orientation and a high relationship emphasis) and S4/delegating (both task and relationship focus are high). The author prescribes that the leadership style applied should always correspond to the maturity of a particular follower or group of followers. In different follower situations, the leader adopts the appropriate style that the follower feels most motivated and productive. Situation element n this case is represented by the condition of the follower, who responds to the leadership input made by the leader. In management, the manager will have to consider the level of employee orientation in order to implement the best options in leadership. Suitable approaches could be in form of; giving directives or instructions to the employee, adopting support intensive approach, engaging the employee in a participative approach or employing achievement oriented mentality in ensuring results. According to Godin (2009), there are four possible development levels that the follower is subjected to in Situational Theory of Leadership. The author considers two development scores that are depicted in the four categories discussed by Singh (2009, p293). In the style S1 (telling) the management is keen to set out the tasks as well as strictly implement them. At the same time, communication is compromised and is largely one way. For development, as Godin (2009) outlines, there is high commitment just as it is with competence in the Telling style/ S1, also denoted by D4. Under the second leadership style (Selling/S2) a development level denoted by D3 exists, characterised by, high competence but commitment is variable. The third level of follower development is D2 (also S3/ Participating), there is some competence but commitment is generally low. Finally, D1/S4 (Delegating) has the least competence as well as commitment and development is consequently low. Apparently, the intensity of main focus of implementation in the four styles determines the level of development in an inverse relationship. Interpreting these postulates outlines the situational elements of development of an individual employee under the various leadership styles, which are largely situational as well. A balance must be stuck by the management team in ensuring that the corresponding leadership style (S1-S4) fits in the right employee development for the good of all the stakeholders. This implies that the leadership style adopted will carry elements of consideration of the main focus of employee development in order to raise competence and commitment. Alternatively, in similar revelations, Fiedler found out that the orientation of the leader with regard to leadership styles is determinant of the effectiveness of the organisation (Bratton et al, 2006, p493). As mentioned earlier, situations vary as presented by relationships, the available structures of carrying out a task and the power position or authority of the leader in the organisation. These variables will necessitate flexibility in the choice of leadership style adopted by the manager in an organisation. In terms of task structure, the organisation could be structured or unstructured regarding the operation processes followed in the course of work. Leadership power position can be rated as strong or weak depending on the level of control and supervision exercised over the employees or followers. Relations within the organisation can be defined as good or poor by terms of communication or accessibility of the leader by the follower or employee (Penn, 2009, p3). Fiedler explains that situational results arise if these variables change to alter the system. Just as in Situation Leadership Theory, the management will weigh the style to adopt in the circumstances availed by the situation. A leader is in a favourable situation to deliver if leader-follower relationship is that of acceptance and free interaction. Task structures must be favourable if the decisions taken are correct, understood, has flexibility in ways of completion and if there are different correct solutions. Unstructured organisations as well as less knowledge on leadership compromise the situation making it unfavourable even if the employees are committed and competent. A leader’s position of power depends on the punishing and rewarding authority over the employees under him; the more the capacity to perform these roles, the favourable the situation is. 4. How certain and Generalised are the Authors’ Claims? In terms of certainty and specificity, the authors represent the organisation as a unit that can be dissected such that the situational issues are identifiable. Identifying the various aspects of leadership as well as followers dynamics accurately defines the role of management leadership in the specified areas for instance commitment, competence, delegation and participation within the critical eye of leadership. Certainty here proposes the position held that there are various issues of leadership that face the organisation at one point in time. The lack of identification of contribution of the management team as a manager or as a leader in the organisation appears to be a serious generalisation. It is uncertain when the manage acts as a leader and as a manager. Another generalisation appears in the prevalent assumption that the organisation is only consisted of internal factors alone; the employees and the leaders. Third parties are apparently the most influential force that comes from without the organisation. 5. How Consistent are Claims with my Experience? Relating the two theories, it is clear that there are different approaches of exercising leadership either regarding task oriented approach or relationship oriented approach. Leaders and followers are important in both cases and determine the outcome of operations depending on the combination of different situations. Apparently, both techniques represent the reality that a single style could only be applicable in ideal situations, but a combination of several styles represents a more realistic option. Leadership is therefore a factor of several factors under consideration in line with the three situational elements (Kreitner, 2009, p444). 6. What is Relevant in the Authors’ Text in My Quest for a Solution It is easy to understand the organisation in the given limited scope, rather than in adopting models of leadership that are complicated and with a scope too wide to implement. Management is about offering practical solutions to some real troubling situations. These theories have adequately attempted to do that. It is also easy to use the models that the theories have outlined in a real management situation. These theories are predictive which makes appropriate leadership alignments to be formulated from an informed perspective. Alternatively, these theories recognise the presence of incompetence of people in different areas and do not launch attempts to change them since it could be futile and needless. Nobody could have every desirable attribute by being forced or compelled to gain them; every ones’ maturity determines what leadership response will be against incompetence. 7. How far are Claims Supported or Challenged by Others’ Work These theories have had a lot of research to back them and the findings and results have been in the affirmative. It is therefore correct to say that these theories have been scientifically proven. Understanding of leadership within the management context cannot be better explained by theory. In comparison, the other theorists are not clearer in explaining impact of leadership on organisational results. Godin (2009) explains that situational models fail to give an elaborate difference between leadership and management. For this reason, it is difficult to clearly cut out a line to show the extent of leadership in the management role and leadership in a leadership role or create the appropriate mix or interaction. The author also states that there are several elements of organisation that should be tackled by leadership but appear to be inadequately mentioned by the theorists. Decision making is given the central position in these theories but other useful features of a leader are not illustrated. The use of Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale is used in measurement of leadership style that an individual exhibits (Sinha, 2009, p282). Although the scale has had many critics, Fiedler has demonstrated how a manager can be examined to describe what type of leadership attributes that the manager possesses. By conducting the assessment, an organisation will be able to determine the most preferred candidate in dealing with certain situations facing the organisation at a particular time (Appendix 2). 8. How far does Any Value Stance Affect My Claims In several ways, my position that several factors should be considered in ensuring a successful leadership are compromised by the following mainly minor assumption views from others. Organisations are composed of various stakeholders including shareholders, employees, managers, directors and others but the theorists limit themselves to the people in charge only. It is not correct to display the employees or followers in a lesser position as far as decision making is concerned. Leadership and management are all about handling different situations or conditions that could otherwise stand in the way of our success. These theorists rely so much on this facts which apparently appear trivial since organisations are much more than what they present. According to Hardy and Palmer (2000, p184), context specific dimensions are left out in the explanations given by these theories. Generally, the contingency perspective adopted by the contingency class of theories such as the ones discussed here leave behaviour context unexplained. In context specific approaches, the causes of the unfavourable situations are highlighted and rectified accordingly. Existence of unfavourable situations in an organisation’s operation and management fuels chaos. The outlined situations created here appear to be static and abstract. The assumptions made by the theorists could also stand in the way of meaningful interpretation of the theories. For instance, the fact that leaders ought to adapt to maturity of their followers in order to come with the best leadership style is not always a winning position. The other assumption contained in these theories is that there are a fixed number of styles that leaders need to respond to. In essence, an infinite array of possibilities should be laid available to the managers and leaders. Lack of explanation why certain individuals thrive in certain situations than others discredits these theories since management is an inclusive practice than leadership is. Where there is a mismatch between the leader or the manager and the organisational situation, there is little explanation offered (Northouse, 2007, p105). Fiedler’s theory is particularly challenged by the manner in which it fails to unravel its LPC scale issues. Other standard leadership models are not in concurrence with the LPC. 9. How Adequate are the Theories to Back My Claims These theories further support my experience and position on leadership and management, that flexibility is very important in dealing with organisational challenges. By dividing the organisation into manageable areas, it is possible to conduct surveillance and implement the necessary changes that are responsive of the situations. Although basic distinction between leadership and management is not made, the two are inseparable and conscious management should respond to all issues as and when they arise. The use of these revelations in a leadership setting is that an organisation will need to have clear objectives that the management and workforce ought to internalise in order for leadership to take effect. Motivation and commitment will be used to determine the development that employees of an organisation have with time, while results will define the combination of leadership and management roles assumed by the seniors. Creation of a balance between relationship and tasks will assist in establishment of a strategy to achieve results. 10. Conclusion: What Can I Make of This? Both theoretical approaches are very insightful in the adoption of leadership strategies, since both give scenarios of organisational situations with almost similar approach. Tasks and relationships have adequately been tackled in both theories in describing the leadership perspectives that a manager could make in different situations. The introduction of element of power in the Contingency Theory further supplements to the different orientations in leadership styles common in both theories. Compatibility is relatively high and the application of these two approaches in synergism could strengthen leadership options in an organisation. The fact that these theories fall under one category of theories referred to as the contingency perspective makes the view that they make of an organisation more comprehensive than a different theory outside this category could with either of them. The detailed approach given by these theories in a simplified manner convinces me that a leadership platform should have these theories incorporated in the system. The evidence availed that these theories have intensively been researched on raises the confidence level as well as possible reliance. For this reason, I propose that these theories present the best possible combination than many other models. The fact that several other studies have been conducted around this category of theories makes the two theories more applicable than several others. However, theoretical representation of leadership models could be inapplicable since all the parameters are only drawn from abstraction, particularly for these theories, like observed earlier. Idealist temptations may have crowded the thoughts of the theorists and real leadership should be independent of others’ scenarios. To increase reliance levels on these theories, real scenarios must be in place without the awareness of the stakeholders that any study is being conducted on them. This is due to the apparent bias that results when human beings know that they are subjects of a certain study, where they respond by exaggerating the parameters. In addition these two theories do not contradict themselves with regard to inexistence of a single model that can comprehensively tackle leadership or management. References Adeniyi, M. A. (2007) Effective leadership management: an integration of styles, skills and character for today’s CEO. Bloomington, ID: AuthorHouse Publishers Amstrong, S. & Stephens, T. (2005) A handbook of management and leadership: a guide to managing for results. London, UK: Kogan Page Ltd. Blackwell, C. W. (n.d) Lessons in leadership: an interview with Paul Hersey. [Online] Available from: http://www.leadershipdevelopment.co.uk/docs/LessonsInLeadership4.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2011] Bratton, J., Forshaw, C., Mills, A. J. & Mills, J. C. (2006) Organisational behaviour. Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press Darling, J. Nurmi, R. (1997) International management leadership: the primary competitive advantage. Binghamton, NY: International Business Press. Davies, B. & West-Burnham, J. (2003) Handbook of educational leadership and management. London, UK: Pearson Education. Finch-Lees, T. & Mabey, C. (2007) Management and leadership development. London, UK: SAGE Publications Godin, S. (2009) Situational leadership by Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey. [online] sayeconomics.com. Available from: http://www.sayeconomy.com/situational-leadership-by-kenneth-blanchard-and-paul-hersey/ [Accessed 26 January 2011] Gold, J., Mumford, A. & Thorpe, R. (2010) Handbook of leadership and management development. Gower Publishing Ltd. Hajdini, I. (2009) Innovation management: the leadership role of the CEO: case studies: Yahoo and Google. Norderstedt, Germany: GRIN Verlag Hardy, C. Palmer, I. (2000) Thinking about management: implications of organisational debates for practice. London, UK: SAGE Publications Herman, R. D. & Ren, D. (2010) The Jossey-Bass handbook of non-profit leadership and management. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. Kreitner, R. (2006) Management. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning Leitner, A. D. (2007) Concept of leadership and management within the manufacturing industry. Norderstedt, Germany: GRIN Verlag lil-Dirāsāt, M. al-I. & al-Istirātījīyah, wa-al-B. (2002) Leadership and management in the information age. Abu Dhabi, UAE: I.B. Tauris Manni, L. & Siraj-Blachford, I. (2007) Effective leadership in the early years sector: the ELEYS study. London, UK: Institute of Education Moyles, J. (2006) Effective Leadership and management in the early years. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Education. Northouse, P. G. (2009) Leadership: theory and practice. London, UK: SAGE Publications Northouse, P.G. (2007) Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Penn, A. (2009) Leadership theory simplified. [Online] Arkansas. Available from: http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSPSD200.pdf [Accessed 27 January 2011] Singh, K. (2009) Organisation behaviour: text and cases. Noida, India: Pearson Education India. Sinha, B. P. (2009) Culture and organisational behaviour. Thousand Oaks, OK: SAGE Publications Slater, R. (1999) Jack Welch and the GE way: management insights and leadership secrets of the legendary CEO. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional Srivastava, S. K. (2005) Organisational behaviour and management. New Delhi, India: Sarup and Sons Thornton, P. B. (2003) The triangles of management and leadership. Coral Springs, FL: Media Creations Appendix 1: Contingency Model Appendix 2: Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale 57 or less = Low LPC (task motivated) 58-63 = Middle LPC (socio-independent leaders, self directed and not overly concerned with the task or with how others view them) 64 or above = High LPC (motivated by relationships) (Srivastava, 2005, p27) Read More