Health and social care for leadership and management - Essay Example

Good managers and leaders A technical focus on the characteristics of good managers and leaders is important not only in terms of a philosophical understanding of what defines effective management and leadership, but also in terms of a practical application of one’s knowledge about achieving goals as an organization. While some theories about management and leadership may look to ancient wisdom for guidance (Wren, 1995), others look to more modern concepts of what works and what does not in the context of business and politics (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). Regardless of one’s focus, the ultimate goal is the same: the accomplishment of results. A number of different ways of describing leadership have developed in the research literature, including names like “situational leadership,” “transformational leadership,” “charismatic leadership,” and “results-oriented leadership.” These terms vary slightly in the underlying strategies and concepts; however, they each refer to the general sort of desirable leadership qualities and actions. More importantly, each one of these leadership concepts seem to be focused on the achievement of results, which is the fourth category mentioned above. By surveying the definitions and evidences for these different forms of leadership, we will come to identify them all as facets of the fourth category: results-orientation. Situational leadership refers to the equal importance of the task and the consideration for others (Wren, 1995, p. 144). In other words, there is no single ideal theory about how one should lead; rather, it is context-dependent on the task and the group of individuals one is trying to rally around the achievement of that task. The best leader is one who adapts his approach and skills to the context, which is a highly functionalist approach to describing the activities of leaders and managers. Knowing that the effectiveness of one’s leadership is dependent on one’s style of leadership and the maturity level of the people being influenced, it is difficult to derive an abstracted view of good leadership from a case study. Declaring the appropriate leadership style as context-dependent and highly variable is a desirable view to take, because it alleviates the epistemological problem of trying to generalize good leadership practices to many different situations that may have nothing in common. Despite this desirability, the theory faces criticism from C.L. Graeff, who claims that there is conceptual ambiguity that limits the practical application of the theory’s prescriptive model. One such problem is the situational leadership theorist’s argument that a motivated person without ability is less mature than an unmotivated person with ability is, against which a number of logical arguments could be made (Graeff, 1983, p. 287). Situational leadership, which attempts to impose categorical classifications onto people and groups, often fails in empirical support as well. Task-relevant maturity suffers from conceptual ambiguity and thus offers little help in a real-life approach to solving management and leadership problems (Graeff, 1983, p. 290). Escaping the kinds of theoretical problems with situation leadership, some theorists prefer to discuss a notion of “transformational leadership.” Transformational, in this case, refers to the idea that leadership should inspire and cause change in individuals as well as institutions. This notion of transformation first arose in 1978 with the writings of James MacGregor Burns, who defined the concept as “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents” (Wren, 1995, p. 102). Defined in another way, transformation means not only instilling a new idea and motivation in one’s followers, but to empower them to become leaders (and proselytizers) themselves. In addition, leaders are turned into “moral agents,” by which Burns means they advance from one stage of development to another, fulfilling their higher human needs for esteem and self-actualization (Wren, 1995, p. 103). It is thought that inspiring others to be champions of a cause will bring about a more effective, efficient result. Transformational leadership differs in a very concrete and readily identifiable way from situational leadership with respect to its assumptions. The assumption of situational leadership is that good management is context-dependent, meaning that leaders themselves have no idea in the abstract of how to bring about organizational outcomes most effectively. The assumption of transformational leadership on the other hand, is that leaders can develop the tools and skill set they need to become great leaders without worrying about the specific aspects of the environment that situational theory focuses on. According to Burn’s original concept of the transformational leader, the leadership itself has certain nobility that ascribes moral value to the characteristics of the person who demonstrates this kind of leading style. Adaptability may be one of these desired traits; however, it is not as strongly desired or emphasized as it is in situational leadership models. An idea closely related to transformational leadership is “charismatic leadership,” which is making use of one’s personality or charm to motivate others to achieve some outcome. Unlike situational or transformational leadership, this kind of leadership is wholly dependent on the construction and portrayal of an image of oneself. By taking personal risks in pursuit of shared values with those they are trying to lead, charismatic leaders develop a trust relationship that is maintained and cultivated by the image of trustworthiness that the leader is conveying. Charismatic leadership is common among politicians especially, where it is necessary to distract followers away from the weaknesses of particular arguments and policy positions. However, charismatic leaders are also common in business contexts as well, where they attempt to establish a firm sense of group identity—dissociating itself from other groups and unifying around some concise set of goals (Clawson, 2006). Like situational and transformational leadership, charismatic leadership is a means toward achieving a result. James MacGregor Burns, who again is famous for developing the concept of transformational leadership, is quick to distinguish that concept from a notion of leadership very similar to charismatic management (which he names “heroic leadership”) (Wren, 1995, p. 103). Heroic leadership, in contrast to charismatic, involves a relationship between followers and persons they have invested themselves in because of a reputation outside of vested capacities, ideals, skills, and experiences. Those who follow a heroic leader do so because of his ability to overcome hurdles and to emerge successful, which is a cause for hope for those facing their own problems. A well-known example of a heroic, or charismatic, leader was Adolf Hitler, who inspired evildoing in an entire nation based on identifiable rhetoric and a sense of collective identity. In a way, Hitler exhibited characteristics of a transformational leader; however, few could identify with Hitler because of vested ideals, skills, and experiences. The transformation of people under a political leader like Hitler comes about through receptiveness to rhetorical appeals and a reputation, rather than identification with his skills and experiences. Yukl (1999), operating from the same critical perspective as Graeff (1983), provides some criticism to the notions of transformational and charismatic leadership on the basis of “ambiguous constructs, insufficient description of explanatory processes, a narrow focus on dyadic processes, omission of some relevant behaviors, insufficient specification of limiting conditions (situational variables), and a bias toward heroic conceptions of leadership” (Yukl, 1999, p. 286). Before having any explanatory usefulness, the theories underlying these two leadership theories must resolve their conceptual weaknesses. In addition, Yukl (1999) criticizes the theories for currents within the thinking Burns and others that the model is universally applicable, which gets back to the intuitive appeal of situational leadership, which is heavily context-dependent. Lastly, most surveys of leadership theories include some information on “results-oriented leadership.” This style of leadership is, like situational theory, dependent on context (although not to such a great degree); however, it is also like transformational and charismatic leadership in that it lays forward the a priori purpose of one’s leadership techniques. Results-focused leadership, as its name implies, is an orientation toward the achieving of desired outcomes within an organization (Clawson, 2006). First, setting forth a vision of what needs to be achieved, and second, setting forth a plan of achieving that vision comprise the procedure underlying a results-focused approach. Perrin (2002), which is a report centered around the concept of “implementing the vision,” speaks of taking attention away from system inputs (with such characteristics as charisma and adaptability) and refocusing attention to system outputs (to the actual results and impacts of organizational behaviors) (Perrin, 2002, p. 2). This is particularly important, as Perrin (2002) points out, for government agencies. Outcomes and results reflect the justifications and rationale for government interventions, which means the public sector is centered on producing meaningful benefits and results for taxpayers (Perrin, 2002, p. 4). In business contexts, results-focused leadership is equally important. For instance, business metrics (such as in enterprise resource planning systems) are becoming increasingly omnipresent in larger companies in order to track progress of individuals and groups in achieving particular goals. Because organizational systems are necessarily cross-functional, interconnected in focus, and hierarchically arranged, it is important to ensure that one task is finished in order for another organizational system to proceed in accomplishing its own goal. Leading people based on making them accountable for their responsibility in achieving an outcome is motivating in a more personal and direct way than appeals to notions of transformative and charismatic management (Perrin, 2002, p. 15). To illustrate this point, imagine a case in which a demand forecasting team within a large retail-merchandising firm is slow to achieve results. The team is not incompetent; in fact, it has all of the tools and resources it needs to effectively and efficiently complete its assigned duties. A new leader is assigned to the group. He employs a situational leadership style, inefficiently applying notions of maturity, leadership style, and competence/commitment ratios to the problem. The group does not respond to this leadership because it is too focused on solving relational problems. Another leadership style is employed: transformational leadership, which attempts to change the dynamics of the group at a fundamental level. However, the team does not need fundamental changes: it already has the tools and resources it needs. Another leadership style is employed: charismatic leadership, which the new leader an attempt to galvanize the group toward one single purpose. However, the team does not respond because no real vision exists of what the group exists to accomplish. A leader, in this situation, is far more likely to find success applying a results-focused style of leadership: delegating responsibility and then holding individuals accountable for achieving those goals. This does not require fundamental changes or group cohesiveness; rather, all that is required is an individualized focus on one’s own responsibilities within the context of an organization. Each of the leadership styles allude to the necessity of achieving goals first. However, they differ in terms of the methods and the goals themselves trying to be accomplished through each leadership theory. Transformational and charismatic leadership attempt to achieve goals by influence, without much attention to the result (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). Situational leadership attempts to achieve goals by a method adapted to the situation. Only results-focused management specifies what the goals are specifically and how effort should be spent in achieving them, which makes it the most valuable leadership model presented in the literature. References Avolio, B., & Yammarino, F. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership. San Diego, CA: The Road Ahead. Clawson, J. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Graeff, C. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical view. The Academy of Management Review, 8 , 285-291. Perrin, B. (2002). Implementing the vision: Addressing challenges to results-focused management and budgeting. Paris: OECD. Wren, J. (1995). The leaders companion: Insights on leadership through ages. New York, NY: The Free Press. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10 , 285-305. Read More