Leadership and management - Essay Example

? Leadership and management: Evaluating Drucker’s belief in self-management BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Leadership and management: Evaluating Drucker’s belief in self-management “Drucker got it right. Managers cannot be expected to know what their teams are doing in detail. Give individuals some clear objectives and teams will manage themselves to get the work done.” Introduction According to Drucker, if a manager provides clear objectives it will promote teams to effectively get tasks completed without direct managerial intervention and supervision. Drucker believed in the concept of a decentralised organisation, one in which knowledge-sharing moves horizontally rather than vertically, central to his philosophy that employees are assets within the business model and not a liability (Buchanan 2009). In the 1940s and 1950s, many companies operated with very rigid, top-down hierarchies and business leaders at this time were rather annoyed at the concept of giving workers autonomy and decision-making power (Buchanan 2009). Today, however, decentralised business practices focus more on leadership as a primary trait to build followership, which include inspiring employees, building a communal vision and mission, and motivating others using a variety of psycho-social techniques. This is a major break from the traditional role of management, which is defined as planning roles and operations, organising employees and establishing appropriate evaluation methodologies and controls to ensure compliance and productivity (Nickels, McHugh and McHugh 2005). Thus, did Drucker get it right? It would seem so considering that his early conceptions of participative work environments have now become respected models within a variety of domestic and international businesses. However, Drucker’s assessment focuses on the management function, which differs significantly from theories of leadership that are more humanistic in nature, negating the importance of traditional managerial function to gain employee dedication and commitment to achieve organisational goals. This essay makes relevant comparisons to different models of leadership and management in order to understand whether Drucker’s viewpoint is accurate or whether this belief holds little relevance to the contemporary business organisation. The project identifies a real world industry example, along with a personal evaluation of the necessity to maintain strengths in leadership, in order to identify a definitive model of modern business practice that would be most pertinent in dynamic and ever-changing business environments. Did Drucker actually get it right? In order to address this effectively, one must understand the differences between management and leadership and how they are applied in the contemporary organisation to improve productivity and engage employees to complete tasks according to strategic expectations. Leadership versus management One should consider the management practices in the technology industry, one that is dynamic and where change is constantly present in order to produce innovations that meet time-to-market expectations. Google, a leader in this industry, promotes a highly decentralised business model that provides workers with unique working conditions, including ping pong tables to facilitate collaboration, flexible working hours, and where team-working is a primary goal with minimal managerial supervision (Weber 2007). Google’s team philosophy and this decentralised business model continue to bring the company significant competitive advantages by achieving faster launches of innovative products and services in an environment with very limited managerial presence. Respected models of psychology and sociology strongly iterate that establishment of social belonging in the organisation is a fundamental motivator leading to performance (Maslow 1998; Morris and Maisto 2005). This model defies traditional controlling management practices, instead taking a transformational approach which inspires shared decision-making, building a shared mission and vision, and role modelling behaviours to gain subordinate commitment and dedication (Fairholm 2009; Schlosberg 2006). The transformational leadership model was developed according to the aforementioned models of psychology which recognise the psycho-social characteristics of employees as being integral to gaining their commitment (Fairholm 2009). However, other business practitioners would strongly disagree, suggesting that traditional management approaches are more viable to achieve effective and productive worker outcomes. Deming, a renowned business researcher and theorist, clearly states that nearly 85 percent of all problems occurring within a business are a direct product of managerial incompetence related to oversight (Deming 2002). Deming believed that managers should be more engaged with such activities as monitoring performance of employees, setting rewards and punishments for non-compliance, and establishing relevant controls to avoid problems, which is absolutely aligned with the traditional definition of management. Deming would be a staunch advocate for refuting the notion that simply listing objectives would be enough motivation to ensure task completion whilst also producing productive and efficient work outcomes. There are, of course, limitations to the transformational approach to leadership. One must first assume that the leader is equipped with the knowledge of fundamental human needs and motivational drivers to be an effective transformational role model. The model assumes that a leader using this model is capable of making emotional appeals to employees, is capable of inspiring others, and understands how to develop cooperative team strategies to improve the internal social condition. Using Google, again, as the relevant business model, the founders of the organisation already maintained these sensibilities and were advocates for cooperative working conditions and, therefore, maintained the competencies necessary to role model and appeal to employee needs. A less-educated manager, if assigned to govern an organisation such as Google, might receive considerable change resistance or lack of cooperation if they attempted to utilise traditional control systems within this organisational culture. Thus, when assessing whether Drucker got it right, it cannot concretely be determined since there is a plethora of mitigating psychological and sociological needs that are unique in contemporary organisations that will directly impact willingness to complete tasks productively whether supervised, given autonomy, or forced to comply with established managerial controls. According to Den Hartog et al. (1999), cultural characteristics found within the organisational model will determine the type of leader that subordinates find acceptable, engaging or worthy of followership. Some cultures, such as those that function well with considerable power distance between ranking members of the business, find decisive and aggressive leaders to be appropriate. There is another differing management model that seems to negate cultural and psycho-social characteristics as influencers of gaining productive and motivated worker outcomes. The management by objectives management model, one that is transactional where rewards are contingent with completion of specific performance tasks, establishes controls and monitoring systems by which to measure performance and punish for failing to meet agreements set up between manager and subordinate (Drucker 1986). Under this model, rewards that are granted are highly contingent on observed or statistically-supported performance and compliance that are measured directly by the intervening manager (Antonakis, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam 2003). This model was developed with an assumption that tangible rewards are a powerful motivator for employees, whilst still holding onto the notion that employees need controls to be productive. This is strongly aligned with the Theory X notion that employees require regulations and recurring supervision, believing that employees are, essentially, inherently lazy and unable to achieve performance outcomes without direct managerial intervention. Did Drucker get it right? The management-by-objectives model that absolutely involves a necessity for evaluation and monitoring would seem to reject the idea that simply listing clear objectives and then removing managerial intervention would motivate employees sufficiently to complete tasks autonomously. Did Drucker conflict his own management-by-objectives model with his assumption? It would appear so since this model, developed through his own experiences and observations, still demands that oversight and evaluation of performance is absolutely necessary to achieve strategic goals and complete tasks successfully. Further exploration of leadership competency Having defined the complexity of human behaviour, as well as the distinctions between leadership and management, one can explore more dynamics of leadership to understand whether Drucker’s assessment still has validity today and was accurate despite the aforementioned argument that his quotation seems conflicted by his own conceptions of management by objectives. Managers and leaders require sufficient feedback from peers in order to assess whether they have made strides in gaining commitment and inspiring others to achieve tasks either autonomously or as a direct result of controls and constant performance evaluations. One must remember that management models and leadership models, such as the aforementioned transformational models, are only theoretical. The real-world contemporary business organisation and its governing structures do not exist within a proverbial vacuum, meaning that there are certain unique complexities internally and externally that influence decision-making from managers and leaders. For instance, using the Google example, competitive innovation launches and changing consumer dynamics influence how the business is structured and how tasks are allocated with groups or individuals. Management theory, such as management by objectives, seems to refute the notion that there are any supplementary, explanatory factors that manipulate worker motivations. Leadership theory, however, absolutely takes into consideration these factors, especially human behavioural characteristics, which seems to make this a more holistic view of the organisation and the relationships between subordinates and superiors. Having identified this confliction in the real-world business environment, the necessity of feedback should again be reiterated. During the course of the module, peer feedback was generated based on an established set of criteria focusing specifically on leadership in order to recognise shortcomings or strengths aligned with modern leadership theory. When considering the elements of transformational leadership, involving role modelling behaviours and using inspirational, idealised influence to gain commitment, feedback indicated significant strengths. The specific actions aligned with this model that include acting confident and optimistic are inherent personality constructs that apply themselves when working with teams. The transformational leadership model demands that in order to gain commitment from subordinate or peers, one must lead by example. Peer feedback indicated many in-borne characteristics that manifest themselves according to transformational leadership theory, giving more clout in being able to effectively lead others and gain their commitment. It cannot be forgotten that this essay is also about refuting or supporting the notion that simply listing clear objectives and removing managerial oversight is sufficient for gaining employee productivity. Feedback showing personal strengths in leadership was not relevant for the traditional management function in which controls and supervisory oversight are necessary to achieve productive employee task outcomes. Goodnight (2004) describes the autocratic leadership structure, one that is rigid, top-down and where significant controls are present in order to ensure compliance. There are many organisations where this command and control methodology is relevant and where the external environment does not afford the business opportunities for shared decision-making. When considering feedback from peers about managerial competence, there were specific areas that need further development. These areas include better organisational skills (structuring of tasks and allocating task responsibility), governance over monitoring of individual and group performance, and avoidance of emotional responses that remove layers of power distance that are necessary under autocratic leadership models. The autocratic leadership model indicates there are times when it is necessary to negate all opinion and suggestions from subordinates (Lewin, Lippitt and White 1939). This model is properly aligned with business function and values in the 1940s and 1950s, which was identified in the essay’s introduction describing the evolution from command-and-control to decentralisation and more liberal leadership philosophy. However, in similar companies such as Boeing that works with strict deadlines for manufacture and a variety of militaristic contract agreements, autocratic leadership is a vital advantage for the organisation. Based on peer feedback, personal attributes would not be effective when attempting to utilise autocratic leadership strategies since inherent personality constructs and beliefs are more aligned with soft human resources philosophy. Conclusion Did Drucker get it right? This is the definitive question. The contemporary business organisation demands that there be a balance between authoritarianism and interpersonal relationship development in order to gain commitment and achieve task completion. Drucker believes that simply dictating clear objectives, according to the quotation, is sufficient and therefore there is little to no need for managerial oversight. As illustrated by the research, there are many models of leadership that would absolutely refute this notion. Peer feedback about personal competencies in both management and leadership had a strong lean toward the importance of transformational design that fosters emotionally-charged connections with feedback seeming to maintain a type of disdain for autocratic style with heavy controls. Therefore, it should be said that there is overwhelming evidence that Drucker did not get it right, since the human condition and behaviour requires a more liberal and interpersonal approach to achieve positive task completion. References Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), pp.261-295. Buchanan, L. (2009). The wisdom of Peter Drucker from A to Z, Inc. [online] Available at: http://www.inc.com/articles/2009/11/drucker.html (accessed 20 February 2013). Deming, W.E. (2002). Chapter Six in J.Beckford (ed.). Quality: An Introduction, pp.65-83. London: Routledge. Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. et al. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalisable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp.219-255. Drucker, P.F. (1986). The Practice of Management. New York: Harper Collins. Fairholm, M. (2009). Leadership and organisational strategy, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1), pp.26-27. Goodnight, R. (2004). Laissez-Faire Leadership: The Encyclopedia of Leadership. London: Sage Publications. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally-created social climates, Journal of Social Psychology, 10(1), pp.271-300. Maslow, A. (1998). Maslow on Management. New York: Wiley. Morris, C. and Maisto, A. (2005). Psychology: An Introduction, 11th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall. Nickels, William, McHugh, Jim & McHugh, Susan. (2008). Understanding Business, 8th ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. Schlosberg, P.B. (2006). Transformational Leadership: a holistic view of organisational change. MagPro Publishing. Weber, S. (2007). Organisational Behaviour – Google corporate culture in perspective. [online] Available from: http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/88083/organizational-behaviour-google corporate-culture-in-perspective (accessed 18 February 2013). Read More