Contrasting Leadership Models - Essay Example

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING FOUR LEADERSHIP MODELS Introduction Leadership Models or theories have been a central part of organizational managementfor many years. These help to make or break the workforce, and hence, the business. In this paper, four leadership models will be discussed thoroughly first. They will then be compared for any similarities and differences. Finally, their concentration on contemporary leadership issues and challenges will be analyzed, along with their implications for organizations today. Discussion The term 'leadership style' defines the "leadership model'. Style of leadership has been explained as how a person takes his team forward to achieve goals. This is the simplest definition of a layman. Good leadership is what makes effective management (Murugun, pg. 329). A model which defines this is, then, a 'Leadership Model'. Leadership has many functions that bring the team closer to their goals to carry out .The significance of leadership is reflected in the following functions: providing inspiration to employees, securing cooperation in the team, creating confidence among individuals, providing a conducive environment for employees, implementing changes, maintaining discipline among the members, representing them, and setting goals. (Murugun, pg.328) There are many factors that affect how a manager exerts leadership. The most important and the first one that comes to mind is his personality. The Leadership model largely depends on the nature of a manager. Moreover, the experiences of a manager also define his leadership style. He may lead in a certain way because his practices and situations in the past expect him to go forward in that manner. In addition to that, it is also based on the beliefs and values of the leader. He will also manage and lead his team according to the organization's environment, culture and needs. To get to the point, there are a number of leadership models, defined by a number of individuals. For example, Likert's leadership theories describe four kinds of leadership styles: Exploitative authoritative, Benevolent authoritative, Consultative and Participative styles (Likert 1967). Or , for example, Goleman's, Boyatzis' and McKee's (2004) six emotional leadership models: The Visionary Leader, the Coaching Leader, the Affiliative Leader, the Democratic Leader, the Pace-setting Leader and the Commanding Leader. But in this paper, we will only go over the four most common ones. The Charismatic Model adopts the Charismatic Style of Leadership, which is a style taken up by a leader who has a personality so charming and "charismatic" that he uses this to take the team forward. According to Max Weber, the term 'charisma' is used in the sense of an 'extraordinary quality' possessed by persons or objects, and is thought to give these persons a unique, magical power (Bendix 1977, pg.299). This leader is like an organizational hero who the subordinates look up to and follow strongly. They focus on making their team very different than the others. The charismatic model will only work with the kind of charismatic leader described above. The model sounds almost too good to be true, or practical. Which is the case, it is good but also not practical. The benefits of this model are apparent. Only by using pleasant phrases and appealing words and gestures, the leader can make the team get closer to his and their goals. Furthermore, he can make them believe and this belief is what fuels motivation. It could increase productivity of the workers and create a decorous, respectable environment. However, this doesn't always lead to successful results or achievement of goals, depending on the kind of team and the morale of its members. An "organizational hero" is more appreciated when the spirits of the individuals are low than when they are extremely self-confident. Moreover, according to Weber, a charismatic leader might not always be positive, for example, Adolf Hitler. In such situations this style is perceived as unethical by some because control is exercised on individuals because of a charismatic personality. Transformational Leadership Model is followed by leaders who persistently inspire the team members and works with them by incorporating intense communication. These leaders are looking to satisfy needs of the team rather than making deals with them, like transactional leaders. They sometimes lead by delegating tasks so they don't necessarily lead from the face. Bass (2005), asks the question (and answers it) if whether all transformational leaders have to have charisma and virtue. He defines this as 'the Hitler Problem' and investigates if Hitler was a transformational leader. These scholars and he then decide that even if Hitler was brutal and cruel, he did bring a change, he had the ability to transform, hence he was a transformational leader (Bass, B.M., Riggio, R.E., 2005). This example tells us that the Transformational Model is not all about desirable quality. This has advantages such as motivation of the employees. They feel important that they are being communicated with. Also, they are continually inspired so it is very likely that the spirits of the followers will be high. Owing to this, they will produce good quality work along with an increase in productivity also. The Bureaucratic Leadership Model works when the leader follows the "book". It is when a leader believes in carrying out exact procedures to take the team forward. This seems like a very rigid style of leading and it is in fact. Thus, it must be used in circumstances that demand such rigidity. For example, this style could be employed in a factory that contains hazardous machinery and materials and can be extremely harmful for the employees and the organization if something goes wrong. In this situation, it will be sensible to follow exact rules because one mistake on part of the employees as well as the leader can create big problems. The limitations of it are many; it deters innovation, it is extremely monotonous. When a job is so monotonous and routine, workers' job satisfaction goes down and creates de-motivation. This could even lead to lower productivity. They have nothing to look forward to but the financial reward. The Democratic Model is the opposite of the autocratic model. Because of this reason, it is also called the Participative Leadership Style; it focuses largely on making subordinates a part of the decision-making process. They are allowed in when management makes operational and even strategic decisions. Clearly, this style of leadership is adopted by managers who feel that their employees know best. Usually, they feel this way because employees are at a lower level where all the work is carried out so they can see more clearly than the management about what goes on. Also, it is employed in a situation where the manager trusts the skills of his subordinates or even when he wants to build upon those skills. It could be used in circumstances where the morale of the employees is low but their proficiency high. Consequently, the advantages of this style of leadership are that it encourages employees to stand up and come up with innovative ideas. You never know that one of these might turn the organisation around. Also, it increases the self-esteem of the employees by allowing them to makes small decisions and letting them know and discussing with them the bigger, more strategic ones. It builds the skills of the workers. It motivates them and makes them look forward to every bit of their tasks. It is likely to generate great leaders and managers so it's a style that has leaders in the making. However, encouraging participation and putting it into effect takes time so the results may be slow. Essentially, it should be used when the focus is quality and not speed. Comparison All of the four models discussed above are unique because they have different working mechanisms, they require different kinds of leaders, and they motivate people differently. Some of them have some advantages while others have other benefits. They have nurtured different kinds of leaders. All these differences will be followed in detail. The Charismatic Model is all about charisma and charm of the leader. All leadership models work if the leader is appropriate but the difference is in the kind of leaders. Democratic Leaders, for instance, do not necessarily have to be charismatic to be able to delegate work and decisions to their sub-ordinates. They could even be strict and still be democratic. Same is the case with transformational leaders. Transformational and Charismatic leaders are very similar in that they motivate their subordinates by bringing about a change in them by interacting with them in a way that inspires them. However, as discussed in the example given above, a transformational leader doesn't have to be desirable. He should only be able to bring about a change and transform the work of the people working under him. A strict and disciplined leader can be a source of inspiration for many too. The Bureaucratic leader is different from all of them. He also, could be charismatic or not, but he works by the book, not his charms. Even if he is charming, he is going to use the rules already established to take his team forward. The thing about Charismatic Model is that it, according to me, is a little less practical as compared to the others. It almost sounds magical; I feel that the workforce cannot be motivated based on the charms of the leader only. There has to be more than that to going forward. Bureaucratic, on the other hand, is rigid but still practical. It is traditional but has been practiced by many leaders as it is safe. The Democratic Model is almost superlative when we talk about practicality. It allows any kind of leader to only come forward and let subordinates make decisions. It is practiced all across the world by all kinds of leaders. The difference between Bureaucratic and all others is that the former leadership model is traditional as compared to the others. All others are more contemporary approaches to leadership than the rigid and boring Bureaucratic model. Implications Current organizational issues today revolve around motivating the employees of an organization. Organizations want a higher employee turnover. They wish for the workforce to be secure in their jobs. Organizations strive for them to be productive and help them achieve most of their biggest aim; an increase in profit. The happier the employees are in an organization, the more they will produce with fewer resources or even hours worked. One may think that being employed in a job is all about the monetary benefit received in the end. But that is really not always the case. The quality of employment has to be made better by the organization. They can achieve this by improving the quality of their jobs. A better job will make them stay longer and strive more. These, then, involve perks or fringe benefits such as paid education for children, paid holidays and etc. But when we look at the larger picture, the way these people are encouraged to work is most important. This means that leadership should be effective. If a leader fails to get his work done, nothing else matters. The leader can only get this done by inspiration. When we talk about inspiration, the first model that comes to mind is the Charismatic model. He inspires the team to work by his virtue and desirable qualities and skills. As long as he succeeds in getting his work done effectively, he is on the right track. Therefore, this model has implications for the business society. If the workforce has a low morale, this is the way to lead them forward. However, a workforce that has a low morale would never do well with a Bureaucratic leader who would lower their morale even more by discouraging any innovation that could come forth. They feel miserable about their jobs as it is and to make it even more miserable by being rigid would be an unwise decision on the part of the leader. A democratic leader works well mostly with any kind of employees except those who just do not wish to contribute on their own. The democratic is the most simple but it holds the leader the most responsible in case anything goes wrong. Finally, the Transformational Model is great with a team that craves communication and wish to give feedback about their jobs. All these models have implications for organizations. The above discussion should help them to see that the most important thing to do, first of all, is to analyze the needs of the team. After knowing what the team is like, the leaders should decide on the appropriate model to adopt. Challenges The challenges that most organizations face today have been mentioned above. This section is dedicated to discussing how each of the models will address these challenges of low turnover, job insecurity, low morale and less productivity. The Charismatic Model as well as the Transformational Model will be great to address such issues. In times of desperation, it would be exactly what a team requires, a light at the end of the tunnel. The Bureaucratic Model will be very ineffective and unwise to address such issues. If however, the organization faces the challenge of having a workforce that has no interest in innovation, this model will work best. The Democratic Model will work best with a responsible team. But if an organization faces the challenge of low turnover, then the team must really not be responsible enough. Therefore, a Democratic leader might not be helpful in this situation. REFERENCES 1. Bass, B.M., Riggio, R.E. 2005. Transformational Leadership. Routledge. 2. Bendix, R., 1977. Max Weber: An intellectual Portrai., University of California Press. 3. Conger, J.A., and Kanungo R.N., 1998. Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA. 4. Goleman, D. Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A.2004. Primal Leadership. HBS Press. 5. Lewin, K., LIippit, R. and White, R.K. 1939. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology. 10, 271-301 6. Likert, R.1967. The human organization: Its management and value. McGraw-Hill. New York. 7. Murugun, M.S. Management Principles and Practices. New Age Publishers. Read More