Basic Principles of Organisational Leadership - Essay Example

Organizational leadership Introduction The article ‘Enough Leadership’ by Henry Mintzberg in the Harvard Business Review introduces a different perspective to approaching effective leadership, with an argument that for organizations to be effective, they do not need too much leadership (Mintzberg, 2004 n.p.). Citing a case of IBM’s Lou Gerstner, a manager whose leadership style enabled the organization to add $40 billion to the company’s shareholders value through encouraging a project that saw the organization enter e-business, Mintzberg argues that all an organization require is less leadership; leadership that is appropriate for the realization of an organizational performance, leadership which can be termed as just enough (Mintzberg, 2004 n.p). The culture of leadership for many organizations has been that of isolated leadership, where the leaders are completely isolated from the team of the employees and other subordinates that they lead, interacting with them only through issuing orders on the tasks that such subordinates should undertake, and how they should be undertaken. However, while leadership requires being firm so as to realize the objectives set by any given organization, the isolation of leaders from their team does not serve to enable the organizations to enhance their performance, but to drag the pace at which search objectives are met (Bass & Riggio, 2006 p12). Therefore, the argument advanced by Henry Mintzberg is agreeable, and thus this discussion seeks to affirm this argument, through applying the concepts of two leadership and management theories, as well as enlisting the backing of two empirical case studies, to finally arrive at a well informed conclusion regarding the suitability of the argument advanced by Henry Mintzberg. The psychological contracts theory of organizational management provides that the output of an employee is directly related to the way the employee is treated in the organization (Lester & Kickul, 2001 p12). Therefore, the relationship between the employee and the employer is defined by mutual interest and fairness, where the way the employee is treated by the employer defines what the employer subsequently puts into the job tasks. Thus, where the employer treats the employees with respect, dignity and rewards their efforts with good compensation, the organization is sure to receive commitment, loyalty and high productivity from the employees (Lester & Kickul, 2001 p17). The essence of the psychological contracts theory is that; it espouses a further mutual relationship between the employer and the employee, in a further manner than is stipulated in the employment contract. The principles of the psychological contract are not based on the written agreement between the employee and the employer, but rather based on the expectations of the rights, rewards and responsibilities owed to each party in the employment contract outside of what is defined in the contractual agreement. Therefore it is conclusively appropriate to say that the psychological contracts theory espoused a situation where the relationship between the employer and the employee will be based on a more humanitarian ground, as opposed to well written and defined rules of engagement (House, 1971 p322). Therefore, the psychological contract theory represents the notion that there ought to be relationships, trust and understanding between the employee and the employer, outside of the tangible paper document, that should vary from one employee to the other. The congruence of the psychological contract theory and the argument advanced by Mintzberg, stems from the fact that Mintzberg argues that open minded management approach is the most suitable for an organization to reach great levels of achievement, through supporting the initiatives developed by the employees and further providing direction, at the expense of setting the direction for the employee’s proposed project (Mintzberg, 2004 n.p). According to Mintzberg, allowing for the flexibility where the management of an organization can support the initiative of the employees, and encourage them, forms the core of organizational innovation and growth. This is exactly the concept that the theory of psychological contracts espoused, through providing that the relationship between an employee and the employer should be based on mutual respect, where the employees are rewarded by the organization through rights that are outside the written contractual agreement, in return for their loyalty, commitment and high performance (Lester & Kickul, 2001 p10). Therefore, both Mintzberg and the psychological contracts theory advocate for flexible leadership, which is then open to taking the opinions, suggestions and the views of the employees, though not provided for in the written contractual agreement, and encourage the employees to pursue such suggestions, for the betterment of the whole organization (Fiedler, 1967 p33). It is based on the congruence of the concepts advocated for by both Mintzberg and the psychological contract theory, that the argument presented by Mintzberg becomes agreeable and practical. The concept advocated for by Mintzberg and the psychological contracts theory is further reinforced by an empirical study that was undertaken by Christine Kane-Urrabazo in 2006, titled Management's role in shaping organizational culture and published in the Journal Of Nursing Management, which addressed the important role played by the management in shaping the culture of an organizations (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006 p188). The findings of this study provided that trustworthiness, empowerment and delegation, mentoring and consistency of encouragement are the four factors that the management applied to enhance the higher level of satisfaction and sustain a health work force within the organization (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006p 190-192). Further, empowerment of the employee was singled out as the most fundamental concept that motivates employees and enhances their level of satisfaction, thus promoting high performance and productivity (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006 p190). This is the exact concept that is being advocated for, by both Mintzberg and the psychological contracts theory. The importance of organizational culture in determining the satisfaction of employees is an aspect that cannot be overemphasized, considering that the organizational culture defines how the management relates with the employees, which in turn influences the level of employee motivation, and thus their level of productivity and performance (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006 p 189). Managers have an important role to play, in establishing and maintaining a positive work environment, through relating with the employees in a way that makes them feel valued and appreciated, and thus motivate them to work towards further accomplishment for themselves and for the organization (Menzies, 2007 n.p.). This way, the management should go an extra-mile to ensure that they relate with the employees in a manner that is not provided for under the contractual agreement, but in the manner that supports the high performance and productivity of the employees (Spinelli, 2006 p15). Therefore, the argument advanced by Mintzberg, and reinforced by the psychological contracts theory and the study by Christine Kane-Urrabazo on Management's role in shaping organizational culture is agreeable, conceivable and plausible. Frederick Herzberg's motivation theory is yet another theory that can be applied to reinforce and back the argument advanced by Henry Mintzberg; that what an organization requires in order to be able to enhance the performance of the employees is less leadership that is appropriate; just enough leadership (Mintzberg, 2004 n.p.). According to this theory, Henry Mintzberg provided a different perspective to the factors that cause motivation in the work place, through successfully providing that the factors that motivate the employees within the workforce are not directly opposite to those factors that cause dissatisfaction (Thomas, 2001 n.p.). Thus, to achieve a higher level of motivation, satisfaction and high performance within an organization, the organization does not necessarily have to remove the factors that cause dissatisfaction, but rather delve deep into understanding the factors that are outside causative agents of dissatisfaction, but are essential to ensure that the employees’ working environment is favorable (Taylor, 2009 p44). Thus, according to Mintzberg’s theory of motivation theory, outside the factors that eliminate dissatisfaction, employees require several hygiene factors to be fully motivated, which include suitable policies, good relationship with the supervisors, recognition, responsibility and empowerment (Thomas, 2001 n.p.). All these factors combined serves to make the working environment for the employees most conducive, and thus motivate them to increase their productivity and enhance their performance. According to the argument advocated by Henry Mintzberg, an organization requires less leadership that is appropriate for encouraging and motivating the employees to continue pursuing their initiatives, as opposed to too much leadership that controls the employees, authorizes them and gives them direction, which might conflict with their initiated project, causing it to fail (Mintzberg, 2004 n.p.). The same principle is being advanced by the Henry Mintzberg’s motivational theory, which requires that employees are supposed to be empowered and given responsibility, while their relationship with the supervisors should be good enough to motivate the employees to achieve their initiatives, for the good of the organization (Taylor, 2009 p42). Despite the fact that removing the factors that cause dissatisfaction does not amount to enhancing the satisfaction of the employees, the mere provision of hygiene factors which include suitable policies, good relationship with the supervisors, recognition, responsibility and empowerment ensures that the working environment of the employees is favorable for them to be more productive (Ginger, 2004 p113). Therefore, the Henry Mintzberg motivational theory serves to reinforce and back the argument that was advanced by Mintzberg, since both the argument and the theory have points of congruence, being the empowerment of the employees and the existence of good relationship between the employees and their supervisors. Further, the argument advanced by Henry Mintzberg is reinforced by a recent study that was conducted by Aydin, Sarier & Uysal in 2013, titled The Effect of School Principals' Leadership Styles on Teachers' Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction, and published in the Journal of Educational Sciences, Theory & Practice, which sought to investigate how the leadership styles applied by principles in schools affected the satisfaction of teachers, which then enhances their commitment to their schools and their jobs (Aydin, Sarier & Uysal, 2013 p806). The findings of this study was that; the leadership styles applied by the principles highly influences the job satisfaction of the teachers, with a further conclusion that the teachers required transformational leadership characteristics from the principals, to be satisfied and committed to their jobs (Trott & Windsor, 1999 p127). The characteristics of transformational leadership include delegation and empowerment, which enables the leader to relate well with the team he/she is leading, thus motivating them to fully exploit their potential and attain their highest levels of achievement (Pettigrew, 1972 p187). Therefore, considering that boosting the morale of the employees and motivating them formed the basic principles of transformational leadership, the teachers whose principals expressed transformational leadership characteristics were motivated, and their morale was boosted such that they were satisfied in their jobs, as opposed to those whose principals applied a different leadership approach (Aydin, Sarier & Uysal, 2013 p809). Thus, this study serves to reinforce and provide a backing for the argument made by Henry Mintzberg, which advocated for a leadership that motivated, encouraged and empowered employees to pursue their initiatives, for the overall benefit of the organization. References Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. (2013). The Effect of School Principals' Leadership Styles on Teachers' Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), 806-811. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (Second ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ginger, J. (2004). Police Leadership in the Twenty-First Century: Philosophy, Doctrine and Developments (Book). International Journal of Police Science & Management, 6(2), 112-114. Fiedler, F. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Leadership Review 16, 321-339. Kane-Urrabazo, C. (2006). Management's role in shaping organizational culture. Journal Of Nursing Management, 14(3), 188-194. Lester, S. W & Kickul, J. (2001). "Psychological contracts in the 21st century: What employees’ value most and how well organizations are responding to these expectations". Human Resource Planning 24(1), 10-45. Menzies, C. (2007). What do we know about leadership and policing? Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Menzies.pps Mintzberg, H. (2004). Enough Leadership. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved: November 29, 2013 from http://hbr.org/2004/11/enough-leadership/ar/1 Paul J, et al. (2001). The Effects of Charismatic Leadership on Followers' Self-Concept Accessibility. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology 31(9):1821-1844. Pettigrew, A. (1972). Information control as power resource. Sociology, 6, 187-204. Spinelli, R. (2006). The Applicability of Bass's Model of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership in the Hospital Administrative Environment. Hospital Topics, 84(2), 11-18. Taylor, R. (2009). Leadership theories and the development of nurses in primary health care. Primary Health Care, 19(9), 40-46. Thomas, G. (2001). Being an effective agent of change. Retrieved Retrieved: November 29, 2013, from, http://www.leadingtoday.org/Onmag/sepoct01/change102001.html. Trott, M., & Windsor, K. (1999). Leadership Effectiveness: How Do You Measure Up? Nursing Economic$, 17(3), 127-130. Read More