Leadership in Austerity - Thesis Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxxx Title: Leadership in Austerity Date: xxxxxxxxxxx Leadership in Austerity Introduction Effective leadership entails the ability to successfully influence people towards the accomplishment of different sets of tasks. It also entails one’s ability to effectively integrate and maximize on the available resources so as to attain organizational goals (Rost 1993). The tumbling of the global financial system has brought about many challenges to leadership in both the private and public sector since it has brought about a prolonged period of enforced austerity. One of the major challenges that face organizational leaders especially in periods of austerity revolves around how to maintain the performance and cooperation of a work force. Periods of austerity are often characterized by policies on deficit cutting, lower spending and reduction of benefits (Parks 1983). For instance in 2011, the economy in the United Kingdom experienced a drastic slow-down. Consequently, the public sector experienced a pay freeze, there was a 4% increase in inflation, a significant increase in taxes and up to 10% cases of unemployment. As a result of these cut-backs the work force in any given organizational is bound to become demoralized and de-motivated. Nevertheless, through an effective leadership approach, better outcomes can be realized in the face of austerity. This paper seeks to critically evaluate the process of an individual’s leadership approach in an organization that is affected by austerity. Moreover, it will highlight the outcomes of this leadership approach in the organization. A different range of organizational development theories and leadership theories will be depicted so as to illustrate on the employed leadership approach. Challenges of leadership in Austerity Following the enforcement of austerity measures in the United Kingdom, Hampton University, a government sponsored institution has been affected adversely. As a result of the austerity measures taken by the government, the university had to downsize its workforce, over 100 employees in the institution were retrenched from work and the remaining staff succumbed to cut-backs in their incomes and benefits. Furthermore, government funding to the University was halted and thus the university was forced to function on a low-budget. Despite of the major cut backs that the University has faced, the vice-chancellor of the University has exercised commendable leadership so as to ensure effective functioning and performance of the Hampton University. In the face of austerity, one of the main challenges of the vice –chancellor of the University has been on finding ways to maintain the performance and cooperation of a demoralized and de-motivated work force. As a result of the enforced austerity measures, it is a challenge to the Chancellor to compensate the teaching staff for increased duties, limited assistance, inadequate supplies, books, resources, public criticism and low income. In addition, it is a challenge for the Chancellor to lead a workforce with employees with a low morale towards their vocation. A survey conducted among the teaching staff in the University indicated that 40% of the teaching staff would not again choose teaching as their vocation whereas 57% of the respondents intend to leave the teaching vocation if anything better comes along. Parks (1983), observes that in periods of affluence, tangible rewards such as benefits, salary, supplies, books and trips may be used freely. However, during austerity leaders are forced to minimize on tangible rewards that are monetary and focus their attention on teachers by giving intangible rewards such as opportunities for development and growth, consideration, warmth, friendship, recognition and appreciation. These intangible rewards may serve as short-term substitutes for the tangible rewards nevertheless the deprivation of tangible rewards together with an in conducive work environment over a long period of time may lead to increased dissatisfaction , militant activities and demoralization among the teaching staff (Parks 1983). Leadership in Hampton University The leadership approach employed by the Chancellor of the Hampton University in the period of austerity is grounded on motivational psychology. It rests on five key assumptions about the teaching staff and how they relate to their work at the University. The first assumption is that people want to feel good about themselves. Secondly, people want to live free from economical worry, thirdly people want to work and live in an environment that is free from hazards to mental and physical health. The fourth assumption is that people want and to be free to exhibit and create their own creations and the last assumption is that people want to love and be loved. These assumptions are embedded on Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs motivation theory. Maslow’s theory of Hierarchy needs suggests that in order for people to feel motivated they must meet the needs of each level in the hierarchy. According to this theory, there are five hierarchical levels of needs (Maslow 1943). The first level includes physiological needs such as food, shelter and clothing. The second level in the hierarchy include safety needs such as; protection from harm, security and over-all well being. The third level of need entail social needs such as love, a sense of belonging and friendship. The fourth level incorporate esteem needs which entail a need for status, recognition from others and self-respect. The highest need in the hierarchy is self-actualization, it entails a point of realizing one’s potential and is often characterized by a need to completely excel (Maslow 1948). The five assumptions made by the Chancellor, based on Maslow’s theory of Hierarchy needs were translated to leadership practices that the Chancellor employs in the management of the Hampton University in a period of austerity. For instance, based on Maslow’s physiological needs, the Chancellor ensures that the teaching staff gets a fair salary that ensures that the basic needs of the teaching staff are met. Based on safety needs the Chancellor ensures that he provides safe and conducive work environment. In a bid to meet the social needs of employees as dictated by Maslow, the Chancellor ensures that work social events are organized so as to help employees experience a sense of belonging. Moreover, the Chancellor meets the esteem needs of the teaching staff by providing feedback to his staff through appraisal, affirmation and noting the achievements of his employees. In addition, the Chancellor meets the self-actualization needs of teaching staff by allocating more stimulating and challenging responsibilities to employees so that they can experience a sense of accomplishment (Wahba & Bridgewell 1976). One of the main challenges of leading in times of austerity, involves substituting tangible rewards with intangible rewards. In order to maintain the cooperation and performance of the teaching staff, the Chancellor capitalizes on intangible rewards such as feelings of satisfaction that come as a result of participating in crucial social functions or the good feeling that comes from the achievements of their students. Further, in austerity the University Chancellor capitalizes on the freedom of creating better and news ways of doing work as an intangible reward. These intangible rewards have been made more apparent by the University Chancellor through regular student and teacher award ceremonies that recognize and publicize the outstanding accomplishments of students and the teaching staff. Moreover, the university Chancellor capitalizes on making work tasks and the overall work environment more attractive. In addition, he capitalizes on providing challenging work tasks and opportunities for growth and development so as to create a sense of accomplishment and esteem following the accomplishment of these tasks (Parks 1983). Nevertheless, in criticism of Maslow’s sentiments Hofstede (1984), notes that the hierarchy of needs theory fails to illustrate on the difference between social and intellectual needs of people from individualistic societies and people from collectivists societies. Hofstede argues that Maslow’s theory was developed from an individualistic perspective since he was from an individualistic nation. Given the fact that the needs of people from an individualistic culture greatly varies from people from the needs of people from a collectivist culture, we can argue that Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs does not fully epitomize the human needs. Therefore, the assumption and leadership practices employed by the university Chancellor based on Maslow’s sentiments may not fully motivate the teaching staff (Hofstede 1984; Cianci & Gambrel 2003). In reference to the Neoclassical Organization theory, the Chancellor of the Hampton University employs an organization management approach that encourages individual growth, motivation creativity and a genuine concern for human needs rather than rigidity and over-conformity. In most cases, the organizational structures of institutions of higher learning such as Hampton University function under an authoritarian leadership characterized by a set of rigid procedures and policies. Nevertheless, the enforced austerity measures have caused the University Chancellor to adapt a different approach. For instance, based on the findings Elton Mayo (1971) monetary or tangible rewards are not the only motivating factors in the workplace. Mayo’s findings were based on a series of social experiments carried out in the Hawthorne factory of Western Electric Company in Chicago. In these social experiments Mayo separated, two groups of employees in the factory and examined their levels of productivity after changes in their working conditions and lighting were made. He expected that the productivity levels of these employees would reduce after the alterations in their working conditions were made (Pervin, 1968).  Nevertheless, he later observed that despite of the changes in the working conditions or the productivity levels of the employees was not affected. Mayo therefore concluded employees are better motivated when their social needs are met in the workplace. He established that employees can be motivated through better work relations and communication with their employers or employees. Mayo’s theory accentuates on a paternalistic approach to management and motivation (Mitchell, 1982).  Furthermore, Mayo established that repetitive and mundane tasks in the work place may result to reduced motivation. Mayo believed that employees feel motivated when they are considered as important and their social needs are acknowledged. In their book, “Essentials of organizational behaviour”, Robbins and Judge (2007), identify recognition programs as key to motivating employees. They identify five leadership practices that make recognition programs effective when it come to motivating employees. Among these five practices include; recognising the unique abilities of employees, allowing the participation of employees and connecting rewards to performance (Robbins & Judge 2007). Based on Mayo’s premise, the University Chancellor employs a management approach that accentuates on better employee and work relations. In this period of austerity, the chancellor motivates the teaching staff and ensures cooperation and performance by maximizing on self-rewarding and intrinsic management and leadership approach. Among the things that he does so as to ensure that the teaching staff are motivated to work despite of the financial cut –backs include; treating the teaching staff as professionals by respecting their competence and abilities in planning and executing effective instructional strategies and avoiding consistence supervision. Secondly, the chancellor provides clerical assistance and aides by increasing the numbers of volunteers. He also rewards the teaching staff for going an extra mile by providing them with opportunities for developing their careers and skill in work shops and organised community training programs. In addition, the Chancellor acknowledges the unique contribution made by the teaching staff in their various departments (Parks 1983). Leadership outcomes As result of the leadership approach employed by the Vice Chancellor of the Hampton University based on motivational psychology better outcomes of are bound to be realized. Some of the common challenges that are bound to occur following the enforcement austerity measures include; a high employee turn over, a demoralized workforce , decline in cooperation and performance and at worse militant activities (Parks 1983). However, by employing a leadership approach based on motivational psychology quality cooperation and performance can be maintained despite of the financial cut-backs. Using a leadership approach that focuses on motivating employees in times of austerity is a key factor towards maintaining productivity and success of an educational institution. Without using a motivational leadership approach in such times can result to cynicism and demoralization this in turn can lead to decreased efficiency. The leadership approach used by the Chancellor is bound to accrue various benefits to the overall performance and achievement of the University of Hampton. In a work place whereby employees are appreciated, acknowledge and supported there is bound to be a high level of employee engagement and commitment towards their work. Employee engagement can be described as the emotional and intellectual commitment of an employee to an institution and the success of the institution (Richman 2006; Shaw 2005). It can also be regarded as the extent in which employees believe in the vision, values and purpose of their organization and demonstrate their commitment through their actions and attitudes towards their employer, their work and work mates (Cook 2008).Employee engagement is reflected through a natural enthusiasm and passion for an organization and its functions. Engaged Employees experience a compelling meaning and purpose in their work and put their best effort so as to actualize the goals of their organization (Frank et al 2004). Several studies suggest that there is a close link between employee engagement and organizational performance (Baumruk 2004).For instance, Federman (2009) holds that employee engagement can help to enhance employee performance and increase productivity. Therefore, the leadership approach used by the Chancellor is bound to enhance employee engagement thus enhancing the overall performance and achievement of the University of Hampton in times of austerity. In addition, the leadership approach employed by the Chancellor is bound to lead to employee retention and minimize high employee turn over. In times of austerity, the hiring and training process can be very costly particularly for a learning institution that hopes to minimize its expenditure. An institution that is able to retain its employees and minimize turn over can minimize on its expenses. When employees experience a sense of belonging, fulfillment love and appreciation in their workplaces the chances of them seeking an alternative employment is minimal (Lauby 2007). Thus and the leadership approach used by the Chancellor is bound to lead to employee retention and minimize high employee turn over. Conclusion The austerity measures enforced in the United Kingdom have been characterized by policies on deficit cutting, lower spending and reduction of benefits. Following the enforcement of this measure, Hampton University, a government sponsored institution has been affected adversely. It is a challenge to the Chancellor to compensate the teaching staff for increased duties, limited assistance, inadequate supplies, books, resources, public criticism and low income. In addition, it is a challenge for the Chancellor to lead a workforce with employees with a low morale towards their vocation. In addition it is a challenge for the Chancellor to find ways to maintain the performance and cooperation of a demoralized and de-motivated work force. The leadership approach employed by the Chancellor of the Hampton University in the period of austerity is grounded on motivational psychology. This leadership approach is bound to accrue various benefits to the overall performance and achievement of the University of Hampton. It is also bound to lead to employee retention and minimize high employee turn over. Bibliography Baumruk, R., 2004, “The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success”, Workspan, Vol. 47, pp. 48-52. Cianci, R. & Gambrel, A., 2003, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist culture, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 143-161. Cook, S., 2008, The essential guide to employee engagement: better business performance through staff satisfaction, Kogan Page Publishers, New York. Federman, B., 2009, Employee engagement: A roadmap for creating profits, optimizing performance and increasing loyalty, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Frank, D., Finnegan, P. & Taylor, R., 2004, “The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 .No. 3, pp. 12-25. Hofstede, G., 1984, The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept, Academy of management Review 9(3): 389-398. Lauby, S., 2007, Motivating employees, American Society for Training and Development, New York. Maslow, A., `1943, A theory of human motivation, Psychological Review Vol 50(4), pp. 370-396. Maslow, A., `1948, “ Higher” and “Lower” Needs, Journal of Psychology, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp. 433-436. Mitchell, T., 1982, Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7, 80-88. Parks, D.,1983, Leadership in times of Austerity, Educational Leadership, Vol 40, No. 5, pp.11-13. Pervin, L., 1968, Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit.    Psychological Bulletin, 69, 56-68. Richman, A., 2006, Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?”, Workspan, Vol. 49, pp. 36-39. Robbins, S. & Judge, A., 2007, Essentials of Organizational Behaviour, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Rost, J., 1993, Leadership in the twenty-first century, Greenwood Publishing Group, New York. Shaw, K., 2005, “An engagement strategy process for communicators”, Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 26-9. Wahba, A. & Bridgewell, L., 1976, Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need of hierarchy theory, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance (15); 212-240. Read More