Microsoft and John Lewis: Comparison of Leadership - Coursework Example

Microsoft and John Lewis: Comparison of Leadership Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Discussion 3 A. Effective Leadership 3 B. Benefits 5 C, Comparing Aspects of Leadership in John Lewis and Microsoft 6 III. Conclusion 8 References 9 I. Introduction A comparison of the leadership methods and styles between Microsoft and John Lewis Partnership can be a fruitful exercise in gaining insights into what effective leadership means in various settings and contexts. Though modern contexts of leadership equate it with management, or with the actual leaders of an organization, there are also references to leadership being separate from authority positions, as a set of traits that motivate others to follow and to pursue a set of goals, guided by a vision. Leadership, from one perspective, goes beyond the teachable skills and knowledge that is management, and is something that can only be acquired through the help of a coach, and in actual situations and contexts that require the exercise of leadership (Careers and Employability Service 2011; Mind Tools 2014; WebFinance 2014). This essay will show that both Microsoft and John Lewis Partnership have developed and continue to employ leadership styles and strategies that are effective and that suit their own unique needs, and that both by their success demonstrate the need for effective leadership that looks at specific challenges and contexts out of which organizations strive and compete (Reuters 2014; Hoovers 2014; John Lewis Partnership plc 2014). II. Discussion A. Effective Leadership Defining effective leadership entails looking at various aspects not only of the personal qualities of people in leadership positions but also at the contexts out of which leaders operate. Those contexts include cultural contexts, as well as industry and other relevant environmental contexts within which the leader strives to make sense of his role and of the expectations that the organizations and others have on him and his work. The literature seems to suggest that environmental contexts matter as much as personal qualities such as emotional intelligence, charisma, excellent communication skills, and other trait-based aspects when it comes to determining whether leadership is effective or not (Riggio and Reichard 2008; Palmer et al. 2001). Moreover, the literature also seems to suggest that contexts can dictate whether certain leadership styles and strategies are appropriate, to the point where strategies and traits that are effective in some contexts are totally ineffective in other leadership contexts (Harris and Chapman 2002; Bell and Kozlowski 2002; Dorfman et al. 1997). One can surmise, moreover that leadership styles that work in one industry, such as high technology as represented by Microsoft, may not be as suitable in other industries and in other organizational contexts where the organizational culture and the dynamics of the industry, as in retailing and as represented by John Lewis (Wood 2006; Bass et al. 2014). Moreover, speaking generally, the focus in some organizations may be on tasks and the achievement of certain objectives, or effective leadership may be gauged by other metrics in other organizations where the culture has a strong emphasis on people and relationships over short term gain (Yukl 1999). On the other hand, a confluence of factors that also include social intelligence is also seen in the literature as having profound impact on the effectiveness or the ineffectiveness of leaders in various organizations. The take seems to be that effective leadership cannot be pinned down to a single set of factors, but are rather the result of a number of factors working together, including personal traits and capabilities that include social and emotional kinds of intelligences, alongside a complex array of environmental contexts, including organizational history, organizational culture, type of industry, and other environment-driven factors (Riggio and Richard 2008; Harris and Chapman 2002; Yukl 1999). B. Benefits The benefits of effective leadership are obvious and many. One of the big benefits of effective leadership of course is organizational success stemming from members of the organization agreeing to work towards common goals, guided by a common vision made clear by the effective leader. A large part of this organizational success of course stems from the way the effective leader is able to enlist support and to generate enthusiasm and buy-in from a large potion of the organization. In the case of John Lewis Partnership, for instance, effective leadership translates to high levels of employee commitment and sense of ownership of the firm, which in turn translates to sustained profitability for John Lewis and a sustained excellent reputation among members of the industry and the general public. The highlighting of the way John Lewis Partnership has parlayed employee ownership of the firm as a successful point of differentiation as well as a way for the company to generate profitable loyalty and high levels of productivity from employees all point towards success for the organization. Effective leadership in this regard translates into the successful achievement of organizational goals (Wood 2006; John Lewis Partnership plc 2014; Yukl 1999; Dorfman et al. 1997). Another benefit of effective leadership is organizational excellence. In many organizations with effective leadership organizations tend to become excellent in their core businesses, regardless of the larger social culture. While social culture influences leadership styles, where leadership is effective, organizations thrive and tend to become very good at what they do over time. This is the case with both Microsoft and John Lewis (Wood 2006; Dorfman et al. 1997; Bass et al. 2014). C, Comparing Aspects of Leadership in John Lewis and Microsoft In Microsoft one can say that the style of leadership is more hierarchical and traditional in that a set of leaders at the top of the organization, led by top management and the board of directors, deliberate and set strategy, as well as direct the course of the organization on a day to day basis. In the case of Microsoft this top management has traditionally been made up of its core founders, Bill Gates as well as Steve Ballmer, a select group of individuals who make up the board, and top managers led by its new CEO Satya Nadella. This is more of a top down leadership style, where direction and orders come from the very top and are executed by the people at the operational management level, form research to marketing to product development and sales and support. This kind of leadership style seems to work for Microsoft given its large scale of operations and the many businesses that it competes in (Bass et al. 2014; Reuters 2014; Yukl 1999). John Lewis on the other hand has a more people-focused and democratic organizational setup, that at least on paper considers the opinions of all employees, with the arrangement of the partnership implying that every employees voice is important. This is in stark contrast to the top down hierarchy in Microsoft. In John Lewis there is a greater emphasis on relationships as a lever for future success (Wood 2006; John Lewis Partnership plc 2014; Yukl 1999; Dorfman et al. 1997). In keeping with the top-down leadership model in Microsoft, leadership transition is very important for Microsoft, and heavy emphasis is placed on making sure that the right people are occupying the most sensitive positions at the very top of the hierarchy. This has been true from the days of its founder Bill Gates, and all the way to the present, where the new CEO was screened from a number of high-profile candidates and vetted for their technical and managerial excellence in tech (Bass et al. 2014; Reuters 2014; Yukl 1999; Bass 2014). In stark contrast, leadership at John Lewis, at least on paper, is more about institutionalizing a democratic and participative culture. There is an emphasis too on governance and on making sure that decision-making involves not just people at the top but every member of the organization. While top management of course is critical, in John Lewis this concern for getting excellent people at the top is tempered by an equal focus on the democratic culture and ground up decision-making (Wood 2006; John Lewis Partnership plc 2014; Mind Tools 2014). Thirdly, in Microsoft there is an emphasis on passing the baton from a group of powerful leaders on to the next generation of powerful leaders, with the position of leadership being a position of great power. This is the case for Nadella, and for the board where Gates and Ballmer hold enormous clout. Behind the scenes, the jockeying for power and influence is intense, with a lot riding on the personalities on top of the management pyramid is (Bass et al. 2014; Reuters 2014; Yukl 1999). To contrast, in John Lewis there is the sense that culture, governance systems, and continuity of a democratic way of decision-making seems to trump concerns about perpetuating a powerful leadership hierarchy. While hierarchy exists, the partnership arrangement serves as a counterweight, making sure that power and leadership transitions do not have as much bearing on future strategies as they do for Microsoft (Wood 2006; John Lewis Partnership plc 2014; Yukl 1999). III. Conclusion While leadership in Microsoft is top down, with a heavy emphasis on hierarchy and the determination of power and strategy making at the top, in John Lewis the emphasis is on participative, democratic decision making, Both have foundations in the unique circumstances and cultures of the two firms, and the unique environments and industries where they operate. Both illustrate two contrasting but effective forms of leadership (Bass et al. 2014; Yukl 1999; Wood 2006; John Lewis Partnership plc 2014; Bass 2014). References Bass, D. (2014). Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella shakes it up at the top. The Vancouver Sun. [Online] Available from: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Microsoft+Satya+Nadella+shakes/9573723/story.html [Accessed 11 March 2014] Bass, D. et al. (2014). Microsoft CEO Nadella inherited legacy of Ballmer board division. The Seattle Times. [Online] Available from: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023067398_msftnadellaboardxml.html [Accessed 11 March 2014] Bell, B. and Kozlowski, S. (2002). A Typology of Virtual Teams: Implications for Effective Leadership. Cornell University ILR School. [Online] Available from: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=hrpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Deffective%2Bleadership%26btnG%3D#search=%22effective%20leadership%22 [Accessed 11 March 2014] Careers and Employability Service (2011). How to find out your style of leadership. University of Kent. [Online] Available from: http://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/sk/leadership.htm [Accessed 11 March 2014] Dorfman, P. et al.(1997). Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Differences in Effective Leadership Processes Across Cultures. Leadership Quarterly 8 (3). [Online] Available from: http://www2.seminolestate.edu/falbritton/Summer%202009/FHI/Articles/Dorfman.%20Leadership%20in%20Asian%20and%20Western%20Sciencedirect%20110405.pdf [Accessed 11 March 2014] Harris, A. and Chapman, C. (2002). Effective Leadership in Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances. National College for School Leadership. [Online] Available from: http://collection.europarchive.org/tna/20060731065549/http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media-416-80-effective-leadership-in-schools-facing-challenging-circumstances.pdf [Accessed 11 March 2014] Hoovers (2014). John Lewis Partnership plc Company Information. Hoovers.com. [Online] Available from: http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.John_Lewis_Partnership_plc.5de0952dbf193c00.html [Accessed 11 March 2014] John Lewis Partnership plc (2014). About Us. John Lewis Partnership. [Online] Available from: http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about.html [Accessed 11 March 2014] Mind Tools (2014). Core Leadership Theories. MindTools. [Online] Available from: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/leadership-theories.htm [Accessed 11 March 2014] Palmer, B. et al. (2000). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 22 (1). [Online] Available from: http://www.carmineleo.com/files/3713/5946/8640/ei-leadership.pdf [Accessed 11 March 2014] Reuters (2014). Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O) Company Profile. Reuters.com. [Online] Available from: http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?rpc=66&symbol=MSFT.O [Accessed 11 March 2014] Riggio, R. and Reichard, R. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23 (2). [Online] Available from: http://people.westminstercollege.edu/students/rtm0701/GRADUATE%20SCHOOL/Exec%20Development/The%20emotional%20and%20social%20intelligences%20of%20effective%20leadership%20journal%20of%20manageral%20phycology.pdf [Accessed 11 March 2014] WebFinance (2014). Leadership. BusinessDictionary.com. [Online] Available from: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/leadership.html [Accessed 11 March 2014] Wood, Z. (2014). John Lewis overtakes Marks & Spencer as darling of high street. The Guardian. [Online] Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/06/john-lewis-overtakes-marks-spencer-high-street [Accessed 11 March 2014] Yukl, G. (1999). An Evaluative Essay on Current Conceptions of Effective Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8 (1). [Online] Available from: http://www.docsinbox.net/MGT5830/Yuklleadership.pdf [Accessed 11 March 2014] Read More