Management theory and application - Essay Example

Invisible Management: The Social Construction of Leadership. by Rakesh Khurana Sven-Erik Sjostrand, Jorgen Sandberg, and Mats Tyrstrup, eds. London: Thomson Learning, 2001. 263 pp. $33.99. Leadership has been a subject of interest to society and scholars at least since the golden age of Greek philosophy. Although contemporary biographers and journalists have devoted many a page to measuring the "leadership" of figures such as Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Steve Jobs, and Jack Welch, the concept is as ill-defined as it is oft-invoked in popular usage. Ironically, many business schools suggest that their core mission is to develop leaders, but business educators themselves frequently have trouble explaining what they mean by leadership, too often falling back on the difficult-to-define distinction between "leaders" and "managers." Invisible Management is an attempt to approach the subject of leadership in a more theoretically precise and useful way by grounding it in a social constructionist framework. The book is an edited volume consisting of thirteen chapters, eleven of them empirical. It draws on a tradition of scholarship--particularly in sociology, anthropology, social psychology, and neo-Freudian psychology--that emphasizes the role of society in the construction of leadership. To turn these pages is to be reminded again of the critical importance that the classical sociologists, Weber and Simmel, as well as psychologists such as Freud and Erickson, placed on developing a useful theory of leadership, especially one that recognized the social dimensions of leadership as opposed to simplistic hero worship. The book also reminds one of the narrowness of the approach to executive leadership taken by contemporary American scholarship, with its emphasis on social demography and statistical work at the expense of theory development and field data. In many ways, the contributors to this volume are suggesting that the way to go forward in leadership scholarship is to take a step back toward these earlier theoretical and empirical traditions. The first two chapters lay out the books basic theme of the role of social constructionism in leadership studies. My understanding of the argument that links the various chapters is as follows. Leading and following are social processes that are mediated through language and other forms of symbolization. A social constructionist perspective highlights that individuals--both leaders and followers--act in ways that they believe will be interpreted in a certain way by others. Thus we act and react not solely in terms of the meaning we attach to the behavior of others, but also in terms of the meaning we expect others to infer from our behavior. The relatively stable patterns we observe in who is chosen for executive leadership are made possible only by the continuous and shared use of the same schemes of interpretation, which, in turn, depend on their constantly being confirmed and institutionalized by critical societal institutions. It is through these shared meanings and mutual acts of interpretation-actions and reactions within a particular social discourse--that a view of the world is constructed, one that we often call "reality." The remaining chapters underscore this theme and present field data and an accompanying interpretation of data that remind us of the basic fact that much of organizational life is predicated on trying to create meaning for others and interpret the meaning of the actions of others. These chapters suggest three lenses through which glimpses of the social construction process can be had. The first of these is rhetoric. Rhetoric, both spoken and written, can be understood as one of the critical processes by which social habits are internalized and reproduced. Chapters 4, 6, and 12 provide interesting cases demonstrating the power of rhetorical techniques in the attribution of the quality of leadership to an individual. The authors highlight that a critical component of building an image of leadership involves imparting a dramatic air to events that might otherwise be regarded as mundane or dreary, timing announcements for maximum impact, and using personal stories to construct a leadership identity for oneself and a followership identity for the audience. These three cases highlight that observers are influenced through rhetorical practices, such as ethos, logos, and pathos; that people often look toward leaders in making decisions for them, especially in complex situations; and that particular rhetorical techniques can create a halo from which specifically admired rhetorical techniques become generalized to the character of the whole person. The second lens through which this social construction of leadership can be observed is non-work settings. While this idea is not as well developed in the book as is the significance of rhetoric, it does raise the important point that executive leadership is constructed not just in the workplace, but also in non-work arenas, such as clubs, golf courses, restaurants, and private residences, that is, in social life as well as economic life. Chapter 5, a study of the management dynamics in a family-owned publishing business, focuses on this point. The essay highlights that much of the status accorded to a leader is created not just in the work setting but also in the more invisible arenas of the home and the community in which the executive does business. Once the home and community are recognized as important arenas in which leadership construction occurs, the background moves to the foreground. Once the neglected roles of the executive spouse and of the familys relationship with the community become central, it becomes clear that many men depend on their partners to help them construct their roles as leaders by creating and maintaining a high status for them in these less visible arenas. The third lens employed in Invisible Management draws on the role of broader cultural and social forces in the construction of leadership. Chapter 6, for example, describes the executive recruitment process and demonstrates once again the role of social homophily in reproducing existing elite structures. Unlike previous research, however, which emphasizes the role of uncertainty in relying on human capital and high-status signals in making executive selection decisions, the authors emphasize the alternate mechanism of self-presentation and impression management, which is consistent with societal imagery of leadership. Chapters 7 and 8 examine leadership attribution and selection through the lens of gender relations by asking why women remain underrepresented in elite positions and positing a complex answer. Like previous gender scholars, the authors emphasize that understanding leadership requires understanding the essence of power relations in the broader society. Relying on intensive interviews, these chapters highlight that both mens attitudes and, to some extent, womens own--many of which are merely reflections of broader societal attitudes--keep many potential women leaders from seeking and/or obtaining leadership positions in organizations. In the realm of leadership research, Invisible Management is a breath of fresh air. Trait-based theories of leadership, which are really only academic versions of popular images of the man on horseback riding in to save the day, need serious reevaluation now that we must come to terms with the havoc that so many of the corporate heroes of the last decade have wrought. This book offers a set of ideas that can potentially begin to guide us out of this morass. Rakesh Khurana Morgan Hall 329 Harvard Business School Harvard University Boston, MA 02163 -1- Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com Publication Information: Article Title: Invisible Management: The Social Construction of Leadership. Contributors: Rakesh Khurana - author. Journal Title: Administrative Science Quarterly. Volume: 48. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 152+. COPYRIGHT 2003 Cornell University, Johnson Graduate School; COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group The Influence of Top Management Team Leadership on Corporate Refocusing: A Theoretical Framework. by Hema A. Krishnan , Daewoo Park Executive Summary Refocusing has become one of the major strategies pursued by large organizations in the 1990s. Prior research in the area of upper echelons (top management team) leadership has revealed that there is a strong relationship between top management team characteristics and organizational strategies and outcomes. However, researchers have confined their studies to exploring the impact of observable upper echelon characteristics, namely the demographic traits on corporate strategies and performance. In this study we integrate two main sets of upper echelon leadership characteristics, demographic and psychological traits, and build a theoretical framework to study their impact on corporate refocusing. During the past decade there has been considerable research investigating the relationship between upper echelons (top management team) leadership characteristics and organizational strategies and outcomes. The leadership of upper echelons is critical to success in companies. Since Hambrick and Mason (1984) proposed their upper echelons theory, empirical studies supporting their propositions have contributed greatly to this literature. Prior research in this area include Norburn and Birleys (1988) study on the impact of top managerial characteristics on performance in turbulent industries, Murrays (1989), Bantel and Jacksons (1989) and Singh and Hariantos (1989) studies on the impact of managerial tenure on performance, and Wiersema and Banters (1992) research on the impact of top management characteristics on corporate diversification. However, most of the previous research on upper echelons leadership has centered around building and testing theories concerning the observable traits of upper managers, namely the demographic traits. These demographic traits exert considerable influence on the leadership exhibited by top managers. It is important to recognize that demographic traits of upper managers do not alone contribute to the leadership they exhibit in organizations. There is little research on how the psychological characteristics of top managers as a team can influence organizational strategies and outcomes. Managerial culture and power are important psychological characteristics that have a considerable impact on leadership and managerial behavior (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Scott, 1988). The psychological characteristics can influence managerial decision making to the extent that the benefits of the demographic characteristics can be nullified. To a very large extent, such behavior on the part of top managers can be explained using the principle of bounded rationality (March & Simon, 1958). According to this principle, managers are not completely rational in the decisions they take. Managers are often constrained by the limited information they receive from the external and internal environments and therefore, take decisions which can be described as rational only within certain bounds. Therefore, it is important to develop a theoretical framework in the area of upper echelons leadership for understanding how the psychological characteristics of top managers influence the relationship between their demographic characteristics and organizational strategies and outcomes. The business environment during the past two decades has been extremely dynamic. While corporate diversification seemed to be the norm in most industries till the 1980s, it is important to note that corporate refocusing (i.e., reducing the level of diversification within a firm in order to focus on the core business), has been more popular since the late 1980s (Markides, 1992; Donaldson, 1994). Refocusing represents an important aspect of corporate strategic change and requires dynamic leadership on the part of the top managers (Amburgey, Kelly & Barnett, 1990; Hoskisson & Hitt, 1994). The top management of a firm represents the dominant coalition of the firm and has considerable influence on whether and how the firm should refocus to maintain a competitive position in the industry (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). The success of the refocusing strategy depends on how the top managers are able to lead the initiation and the implementation of this strategy. The purpose of this research is to build a theoretical framework in the area of upper echelons leadership. More specifically, we propose that the demographic characteristics of upper echelons have a considerable impact on the organizations propensity to refocus and that this relationship is moderated by the psychological characteristics of its managers. Development of the Model Influence of top management team leadership on corporate refocusing The impact of demographic characteristics: Hambrick and Mason (1984) state "organizational outcomes - both strategies and effectiveness are viewed as reflections of the values and cognitive bases of powerful actors in the organization." p.193. Drawing on Hambrick and Snows (1977) model of strategic decision making, Hambrick and Mason (1984) theorize that a managers background characteristics can partially predict strategic choices and performance in organizations. They propose that observable managerial demographic traits such as age, tenure, education and functional backgrounds are important aspects of managerial leadership and that they can influence organizational strategies and performance. Following Hambrick and Masons (1984) conceptual model on upper echelons leadership, several researchers have tested their propositions in order to establish the linkage between demographic characteristics of top managers and their ability to lead the organization to desired outcomes. The studies conducted by Murray (1989), Norburn and Birley (1988), Bantel and Jackson (1989), Cho, Hambrick and Chen (1994), and Wiersema and Bantel (1992) reveal that top management demographic characteristics such as age, education, functional backgrounds, top management team tenure and organizational tenure were significant predictors of organizational performance thus providing support for Hambrick and Masons (1984) propositions. A review of the recent literature in the area of corporate restructuring reveals that refocusing is a important strategy pursued by organizations in the late 1980s and 1990s (Cameron, Freeman & Mishra, 1991; Hoskisson & Hitt, 1994; Donaldson, 1994). Markides (1992) and Bethel and Libeskind (1993) state that as a correction for over diversification of the 1960s and 1970s, many firms resorted to corporate refocusing in the 1980s and 1990s. Corporate refocusing involves asset divestment to reduce diversity and to increase focus on the core business (Hoskisson & Hitt, 1994). If organizations are to emphasize refocusing as an important corporate strategy, it would be interesting to examine to what extent Hambrick and Masons (1984) upper echelons leadership theory is applicable to corporate refocusing. We propose a refinement of Hambrick and Masons (1984) theory in order to understand corporate refocusing. Although demographic characteristics of the top managers are important in initiating refocusing, their psychological (political and cultural) characteristics can wield considerable influence in leading the implementation of this strategy (Pfeffer, 1983). Thus the demographic and psychological characteristics of top managers are important predictors of the teams ability to lead the refocusing strategy. The impact of psychological characteristics: Managerial leadership is also derived from the psychological characteristics of managers. The psychological characteristics of top managers have a considerable impact on organizational strategies and outcomes (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Psychological characteristics include the power and culture of top managers and influence the leadership exercised in organizations. Unlike the earlier studies on strategic changes, the application of Hambrick and Masons (1984) upper echelons theory to corporate refocusing is complicated by several factors. First, corporate refocusing involves a deliberate shift on the part of the firm from diversification (Markides, 1992). This implies that resources that have been previously allocated to multiple business units will now be concentrated in a few strategically similar units. This will set off a major political upheaval especially at the upper levels. Top managers would want to hold on to their territories and would play political games if any attempt is made to reduce their standing in the dominant coalition and in the organization. Second, corporate refocusing involves a major change in the organizations culture (Haspeslagh & Jemison, 1991). The organizational culture which is manifested in the top managers is deep rooted in the organizations history and traditions. Any attempt to change the culture will again be met with resistance by the top managers. Thus, the psychological attributes of top managers can influence the relationship between their demographic characteristics and corporate refocusing. The above arguments are summarized in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, top managers have a considerable impact on the organizations decision to refocus. From a short-term point of view, refocusing involves reduction in the organizations fixed and overhead costs. In addition to divesting unrelated units from the firms portfolio, top managers also take steps to initiate headcount reduction (Cascio, 1993). From a long-term point of view, refocusing involves directing the firm to a competitive position that is sustainable (Hamel & Prahalad, 1990). By marshaling all the resources towards a core business, the firm hopes to improve and strengthen its position to enable it to compete in the industry. Thus, leadership of top managers plays a crucial role in ensuring that the firm develops a sustainable competitive advantage. [Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Development of Propositions Propositions for Top Management Team Demographic Characteristics Age Prior research has revealed that there is a significant association between the age of the top managers and their ability to steer the organization to success. Taylor (1975) found that age has a considerable influence on a managers ability to process information. His study revealed that managerial age is negatively associated with the ability to integrate information in decision making. Consequently, older executives may have a greater commitment to the status quo and may avoid pursuing strategies that are a departure from previously established ones (Vroom & Pahl, 1971; Steven, Beyer, & Trice, 1978). Conversely, as Hambrick and Mason (1984) propose, youthful managers are more prone to take risks and to attempt the unprecedented. Grimm and Smith (1991) found that younger the manager, greater the propensity to pursue strategic changes. Therefore, lower the average age of the top managers, greater the propensity to take bold decisions that increase emphasis on the core business. Proposition 1: There is a negative association between average age of the top managers and their ability to lead refocusing. Organizational tenure Willingness to pursue strategic change is associated more with managers who have relatively spent less time in the organization. In the leadership succession literature, several researchers have found a positive association between new chief executive officers (CEO) and strategic changes. Greiner and Bhambri (1989) found that new CEOs are more likely to implement strategic changes over a short time period. A new CEO brings unique skills and talents which are conducive to carrying out changes (Reinganum, 1987). For example, when George Fisher took over the leadership position at Eastman Kodak in 1994, one of the first strategies he undertook was to refocus the company. Fisher divested many businesses that did not fit in with the companys core business (Business Week, October 20, 1997). Other companies where new CEOs initiated refocusing include, Johnson & Johnson and Caterpillar. In addition to the impact of new CEOs on strategic changes, there is also considerable support in the literature for the influence of other senior executives of the top management team on strategic changes. Murray (1989), Alutto and Hrebiniak (1975), and Staw and Ross (1980) have argued that managers with shorter organizational tenure are less socialized into adopting the organizations existing norms and values than managers with longer tenure who have a greater commitment to the status quo. Therefore, new managers are likely to introduce different values and changes in the organization. These arguments find empirical support in the study conducted by Wiersema and Bantel (1992). Their study revealed that firms most likely to undergo corporate strategic changes had top management teams characterized by shorter organizational tenure. Therefore, managers who contemplate major changes in the firms corporate strategy such as increased emphasis on the core business, and decreased diversification activity are likely to have shorter tenure. Proposition 2: There is a negative association between organizational tenure and the ability to lead refocusing. Top Management Team Tenure In the upper echelons and leadership succession literature, there is considerable support for the association between top management team tenure and organizational outcomes. Singh and Harianto (1989) argue that longer team tenure among top managers creates greater identification with the organization and therefore, such members may not be willing to take risks. Bantel and Jackson (1989)found that longer the tenure of the team members, greater the resistance to organizational changes. This is because, long tenured team members may find it difficult to implement policies which represent a departure from established practices and procedures. Johnson, Hoskisson and Hitt (1993) argue that longer the top management team tenure, greater the likelihood that the power of this team will become institutionalized, thus reducing the possibility of implementing strategic changes. Conversely, Reger, Mullane, Gustafson and Demarie (1994) argue that a new mindset is required for changes to be implemented. Managers who are fairly new to the team are more likely to understand the changing environment and to take the necessary actions. They are more likely to pursue growth in the core business even if it means directing a major portion of the firms resources to a single industry. Proposition 3: There is a negative association between top management team tenure and the ability to lead refocusing. Educational level Hambrick and Mason (1984) postulated that a persons level of formal education will be positively related to the ability to lead the organization to positive outcomes. This is due to the fact that higher educational levels are associated with higher information processing capability and the capacity to deal with complexity. There is considerable empirical support for Hambrick and Masons (1984) theory. These studies include, Norburn and Birleys (1988) findings of a positive association between amount of formal education and organizational growth and Cho, Hambrick, and Chens (1994) findings of a positive relationship between high levels of managerial education and the competitive behavior of firms. Similarly, Bantel and Jackson (1989) found that higher levels of education are more likely to result in comprehensive and innovative decisions. Finally, Wiersema and Bantel (1992) found that higher educational level is associated with changes in diversification strategy. Proposition 4: There is a positive association between educational level and the ability to lead refocusing. The above propositions find support in the following case study. IBM Corporation is in the process of putting together a dynamic top management team. According to Gary Hamel (Fortune, June 23, 1997), the top management team at IBM is becoming more diverse. Also, many managers possess high levels of education, and are fairly new to the team and to the organization. If IBM is to lead the next information revolution, it is important that there are new voices in the management team. Propositions for top management team psychological characteristics One of the main theories that can be applied to understand the psychological characteristics of top managers is institutional theory (Scott, 1988). Several researchers have argued that leadership in organizations is not entirely a rational process and that it is influenced by the institutional context within which managers have to operate (Scott, 1988; Oliver, 1997). Institutional context refers to rules, norms and beliefs surrounding economic activity that define or enforce socially acceptable economic behavior. At the upper echelons level, institutional factors affect leadership in the following ways. First, the history and tradition of the organization promotes institutionalization which infuses in managers a value that is beyond the technical requirements of the task at hand (Selznick, 1957: 17). This process of institutionalization operates to produce a common understanding about what is appropriate and meaningful behavior. Institutionalization produces a common culture among the top managers. This culture influences rules of conduct, leadership styles, decision making approach, administrative procedures and perceptions of the environment. Managers rely on shared conceptions and symbols which are embedded in the cultural infrastructure and thus may be prompted to pursue the status quo instead of what may be best for the organization (Zucker, 1987). Even if some of the managers are new to the team and to the organization, the culture may be so entrenched that the longer tenured managers may socialize the new managers into accepting the status quo. Therefore, even when the environment calls for a business focus on the part of the organization, managers may not pursue the strategy for fear of disrupting the managerial culture. Second, institutionalization confers power on the managers which implies that they can influence rules and dictate how resources are going to be allocated among the various activities of the organization (Scott, 1988; Oliver, 1997). Refocusing can disrupt the power base of the organization prompting anagers to pursue the status quo instead of guiding their behavior to dynamic strategies such as refocusing. Thus, although the demographic characteristics of top managers can influence corporate refocusing, this impact will be stronger only if the psychological characteristics of the managers operate to produce a mentality that considers the best interests of the organization. In other words, in the interest of the organization, if managers are able to exhibit rational behavior, it would be possible to initiate and successfully lead refocusing. Rational behavior on the part of the managers calls for a willingness to share power instead of holding on to ones territory. Second, it calls for a willingness to embrace cultural changes. The above arguments can be illustrated using two case studies. In the case of Eastman Kodak, when George Fisher initiated corporate refocusing, it was met with a lot of resistance on the part of the upper management. Several managers in the team were not willing to embrace cultural change or share power. Consequently, although refocusing was initiated in 1994, the implementation of this strategy has been very troublesome over the years. Costs continue to be high, new products continue to evade the market, and the competitive position continues to deteriorate at Kodak (Business Week, October 20, 1997). As top managers were not willing to accept culture change and to reduce political conflicts at Kodak, Fisher had to let go several top managers in 1997. In the case of IBM Corporation, the strong leadership of CEO Louis Gerstner Jr. has helped the company succeed in its refocusing efforts. When Gerstner initiated corporate refocusing several years ago, the company at that time was a bureaucratic behemoth (Business Week, December 8, 1997). In a few years, the company became much leaner and was able to compete successfully with other companies in the industry. It is interesting to note that unlike the case of Eastman Kodak, the top management at IBM was able to effect a cultural change within the organization. This cultural change started at the top before filtering to the rest of the organization. Gary Hamel (Fortune, June 23, 1997) points out that for a strategy to succeed, in addition to new voices in the top management team, it is important that pockets of knowledge are shared among managers to create new and unexpected combinations of insight. Proposition 5: Top managers willingness to accept cultural changes moderates the relationship between their demographic characteristics and the ability to lead refocusing. Proposition 6: Top managers willingness to share power moderates the relationship between their demographic characteristics and the ability to lead refocusing. Application of the model One of the main arguments of this paper is that the leadership of top managers has considerable bearing on the organizations propensity to refocus. We have built a theoretical framework proposing that the demographic and psychological characteristics of top managers can influence the ability to lead corporate refocusing. We have argued that even if the top managers possess the desired demographic traits, their culture and power base may come in the way of the organizations attempt to succeed at refocusing. The business environment of the 1990s is replete with cases of firms that have succeeded at refocusing and firms that have not. To succeed at refocusing, it is imperative that top managers embrace cultural change and share power among themselves. The environment of the 1990s and the next millennium calls for concerted efforts on the part of organizations to strengthen their core businesses, reduce costs, embrace technology, empower employees, and face heightened global and domestic competition. Organizations must recognize that the hierarchical structures of the earlier decades which emphasized entrenched cultures and powerful coalitions may come in the way of sustainable competitive advantage. To succeed at refocusing, organizations need strong leadership. In particular, this leadership involves the following: * A strong leader who formulates the mission of the company and is the first one to embrace change. * An equally committed top management team that espouses the leaders vision for the organization and is willing to embrace change. * A top management team that shares ideas and resources so that knowledge is disseminated among its managers and the rest of the organization. * A top management team that clearly communicates the mission of the organization to its employees. * A top management team that is willing to empower the employees not just in letter but in spirit as well. * A top management team that is willing to initiate changes across the board in the organizations systems, structure, and human resource policies. * An organization that invests in relationship building and strives to meet the objectives of all its critical stakeholder groups. Conclusion In this paper, we have studied one aspect of leadership, namely, the influence of demographic and psychological characteristics of top managers on corporate refocusing. We recognize that leadership is a very broad area and that there are many other dimensions which may also affect corporate refocusing. Some of these dimensions include, personality traits of leaders, their experience in the business world, their interpersonal skills and charisma. Our unit of analysis has been the top management team. Although in many organizations it is important to have a strong individual who can provide the momentum for change, we decided to focus on the top management team instead of on a particular individual because corporate refocusing needs the commitment of all its top managers if it is to be successfully implemented. References Allutto, T.L., & Hrebiniak, L. 1975. Research on commitment to employing organizations: Preliminary findings on a study of managers graduating from engineering and MBA programs. Paper Presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, New Orleans. Amburgey, T.L., Kelly, D., & Bartlett, W. 1990. Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 160-164. Bantel, K., & Jackson, S. 1989. Top Management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10: 107-124. Bethel, J.E., & Liebeskind, J. 1993. The effects of corporate ownership structure on corporate restructuring. Strategic Management Journal, 14:15-31. Business Week. October 20, 1997. Can Fisher fix Kodak? p. 117-128. Business Week. December 8, 1997. The best and worst boards, p. 90-95. Cameron, K.S., Freeman, S.J., & Mishra, A.K. 1991. Best practices in white collar downsizing: Managing Contradictions. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3): 57-73. Cascio, W.F. 1993. Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Executive, 7(1): 95-104. Cho, T.S., Hambrick, D.C., & Chen, M. 1994. Effects of Top Management Team Characteristics on Competitive behavior of firms. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 12-16. Donaldson, G. 1994. Corporate restructuring: Managing the change process from within. Harvard Business School Press. Boston: MA. Fortune, June 23, 1997. Killer strategies that make shareholders rich. pp. 70-86. Greiner, L.E., & Bhambri, A. 1989. New CEO intervention and dynamics of deliberate strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 67-86. Grimm, C.M., & Smith, K.G. 1991. Management and organizational change: A note on the railroad industry. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 557-562. Hambrick, D.E., & Mason, P.A. 1984. Upper Echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206. Hambrick, D.E., & Snow, C. 1977. A contextual model of strategic decision making in organizations. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 109-112. Haspeslagh, P.C., & Jemison, D.B. 1991. Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal. New York: The Free Press. Hoskisson, R.E., & Hitt, M.A. 1994. Downscoping: How to tame the diversified firm. Oxford University Press. Johnson, R.A., Hoskisson, R.E., & Hitt, M.A. 1993. Board of directors involvement in restructuring: The effects of board versus managerial controls and characteristics. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 33-50. Markides, C.C. 1992. Consequences of corporate refocusing: Ex ante evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2): 398-412. Murray, A. 1989. Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 125-141. Norburn, D., & Birley, S. 1988. The top management team and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 225-237. Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource- based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9): 697-714. Pfeffer, J. 1983. Organizational demography. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 5: 299-357. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. May-June 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review. p. 79-91. Reger, R.K., Mullane, J.V., Gustafson, L.T., & Demarie, S.M. 1994. Creating earthquakes to change organizational mindsets. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4): 31-46. Reinganum, M.R. 1987. The effect of executive succession on stockholder wealth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 46-60. Scott, W.R. 1987. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (4): 493-511. Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in Administration. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Singh, H., and Harianto, F. 1989. Top management tenure, corporate ownership structure and the magnitude of golden parachutes. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 143-156. Staw, B., & Ross, J. 1980. Commitment in an experimenting society: A study of the attribution of leadership from administrative scenarios. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65: 249-260. Stevens, J., Beyer, J., & Trice, H. 1978. Assessing personal, rate and organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 380-396. Taylor, R. 1975. Age and experience as determinants of managerial information processing and decision-making performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 74-81. Vroom, V., & Pahl, B. 1971. Relationship between age and risk taking among managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55: 399-405. Wiersema, M.F., and Bantel, K.A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1, 91-121. Zucker, L.G. 1987. Institutional theories of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 443-464. Palo Alto. CA: Annual Reviews. Hema A. Krishnan Daewoo Park Xavier University Hema A. Krishnan is an assistant professor of Management at Xavier University. She has multiple years of industry experience and received her Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her main research interest is top management team and its effects on corporate strategy and performance. She has numerous publications in the area of top management leadership. Daewoo Park is an associate professor of Management at Xavier University. He received his MBA from the University of Texas at Austin and Ph.D. from Texas A&M University. He also worked for IBM as a marketing representative. He has published numerous articles on leadership and organizational strategy. His current research interest includes the role of leadership in managing diversity. -1- Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com Publication Information: Article Title: The Influence of Top Management Team Leadership on Corporate Refocusing: A Theoretical Framework. Contributors: Hema A. Krishnan - author, Daewoo Park - author. Journal Title: Journal of Leadership Studies. Volume: 5. Issue: 2. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 50. COPYRIGHT 1998 Baker College System - Center for Graduate Studies; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group The Leadership Challenge. by Chris A. Guarrero To manage an organization is not to lead it. Managers can get others to do something because of the power they wield, but leaders mobilize others to action because of the credibility they have. There are monumental differences between enlisting support and giving orders, between gaining commitment and commanding obedience. Leaders sustain credibility by their actions and by challenging, enabling, modeling, inspiring, and encouraging the actions of others. But these actions must be built on the solid foundation of trust. Trust is the bulwark of good leadership. Trust enables everyone in the organization to have feelings of self-worth and purpose, which they extend to others and which becomes the glue that bonds relationships. Trust is the foundation of a healthy work environment in which staff efforts are focused on productive endeavors rather than on protecting, doubting, checking, and inspecting. In a workplace that engenders trust, employees have the confidence to be creative and take necessary risks. The more people trust themselves and others and the more they trust the environment they operate in, the more creative and effective they will be and, consequently, the more successful they - and their organization - can become. Trust also allows people to keep criticisms in perspective. But chronic mistrust creates feelings of hostility. In behavioral research done at Duke University, for example, it was found that the more limited a persons circle, of trust, the more he or she stays angry, irritated, or cynical. Furthermore, this person will blame others for these feelings. Beyond the individual, there are real, internal organizational costs associated with a lack of trust. Inefficiencies in communication and perceptions waste money and time. Without trust, management may erroneously assume that employees need more rigid supervision and tighter controls. When a leader displays a lack of trust and then talks about not being able to let people make decisions without his or her counsel, the leader is diminishing the value of employees and failing to capitalize on each workers wealth of talent. For all of these reasons, recognizing the importance of trust and establishing it in the organization is critical. Four basic conditions need to be present in an organization for trust to be developed and established. The conditions include an openness that allows information to be shared with employees, a commitment to fostering employee talent, a willingness to allow disagreement within the organization, and a leadership base that consistently acts with integrity. Ensuring openness. Trust begins with openness among the organization, its managers, and employees. That means telling the truth and sharing information in good times and bad. Though many executives find it easier not to tell the truth, they cannot solve problems or achieve top performance unless they do. Only when staff believe they are hearing the truth will they take management directives to heart. By communicating openly what the organization does, what it wants to do, and how it wants to do it, leaders help employees learn about the organization and how it functions. It takes the ignorance out of the workplace and welcomes people to get involved. For example, a company was merging three small departments into one large one. No cutbacks were scheduled, and there was no reason to fear downsizing. When the reorganization was approved by senior executives, the director of one department called a meeting and told his employees. He told the workers what he knew and promised to follow up on any questions he could not answer. The other two directors kept their employees in the dark, fearing that staff members would leave if they knew of the reorganization. Consequently, these employees got wind of an imminent reorganization through the rumor mill. They then questioned their directors, who denied any knowledge of the impending changes. The employees were dismayed when the departments were merged later the same year. The director who was open with information lost no employees, while the secretive directors lost credibility with their staffs and experienced turnover after the reorganization. Fostering talent. Many managers fail to understand the importance of bringing out the wealth of talent that each employee possesses. Largely, it is because they are still operating on the management model that encourages conformity and adherence to command and control, rather than using the complete talents of their employees. Knowledgeable, capable employees find it frustrating to be thwarted by leaders who are more concerned with management than leadership. Narrowly limiting the roles and input of employees also limits the value that new ideas can bring to the organization. Leaders should not micromanage employees. Micromanaging sends a clear message to workers: "I dont trust you." Rather than directing and controlling, real leaders empower those engaged in the work. In its truest form, leadership allows followers to make decisions, and it grants them the power to make informed choices. And when employees have a sense that their ideas and input help shape the organizational future, when they believe the organization and its leaders listen to their challenges and act on the logic of those suggestions, they develop trust and become engaged in the companys problems. For example, the Eastern Region of the U.S. Forest Service used to have a system for suggestions that required employees to fill out a four-page form each time they had an idea. In four years, the regions 2,500 employees submitted 252 ideas for consideration, or about one idea per person every forty years. To see if it could improve participation, the Forest Service changed the process. Now, anyone with an idea can submit a brief description by e-mail. If there is no response from management in thirty days, the idea can be acted on, as long as its legal. Under this new system, employees sent in 6,000 new ideas in the first year. According to the Forest Service, there were no incentives, financial or otherwise. People simply became involved because they believed their ideas would be valued and would enhance the organization. Accepting disagreement. Developing trust means allowing disagreement. Uniform consent does little to enhance innovation or develop new ideas. If organizations are to be thought of as learning environments, then they must allow challenges to current thinking. Rather than denigrating or avoiding disagreement, which can block or undermine success, leaders must learn to value disagreement. By allowing dialogue about subjects of frustration and irritation, leaders can identify problems with relationships, excessive costs, wasted time, injustices, poor quality, and inefficient projects. This dialogue establishes an atmosphere of creative collaboration - a catalyst for sparking, shaping, reflecting on, and advancing new ideas. If decision-makers are not willing to accept differences of opinion, they cut off legitimate solutions. One company, for example, was having problems with management -level employees, who often failed to live up to expectations after being hired. The newly hired security director took note of the problem and suggested that the company expand its background checks. Instead of investigating only the employees most recent previous place of residence and last place of employment, the director suggested that the company investigate the last two jobs the person had and the last two places he or she lived. Senior executives at first refused to consider the idea because of the costs of additional screening. The director, sure of the plans validity, convinced senior executives to allow him to test his theory by doing more intensive screening on new applicants. He found that 40 percent of the applicants who passed the first screening failed the second - due to criminal records from other states and falsified educational and professional accomplishments. Armed with this information, the manager convinced senior managers to screen applicants more carefully. If managers had not allowed disagreement, their unwillingness to consider new ideas could have been a costly example of poor leadership. Maintaining integrity. Integrity is absolutely essential to leadership. In virtually every survey conducted on leadership, integrity is listed as the single most important personal characteristic followers desire of their leaders. If people are going to follow someone willingly, they want to reassure themselves first that the person is worthy of trust. Having integrity as a leader means doing what is right with regard to corporate, cultural, or market pressures. When leaders base decisions on what is right, rather than on what is expedient or on what emotion tells them to do, employees see that decisions are fair and consistent. Indeed, a critical part of integrity is fairness. This means that if leaders are going to hold employees accountable for their performance, they must provide employees with the tools and the training to do the job well. For example, one company announced that it would take immediate action against employees who lied on their expense reports. When a department head received what he considered a falsified expense report from an employee, that employee was severely sanctioned. It later became clear that the employee had little experience in filling out expense reports and had not received any training on the subject from the company. In that case, the leader lacked integrity because he held employees to standards that were not adequately explained to them. Leaders with integrity are admired and respected by their followers. Researchers have found that when leaders are admired and respected, their followers feel valued, motivated, and proud, not fearful or frustrated. Leadership is not a popularity contest, nor is it simply about being entertaining, dynamic, charismatic, or smart. In fact, employees do not have to think that their leader is smarter than they are. Employees do, however, have to trust their leader if they are to be inspired and productive. Only by creating an environment where employees can be honest, respected, and free to disagree can leaders build and sustain genuine trust. Then and only then will followers accept and value both themselves and their leaders. Chris A. Guarrero is a consultant in San Francisco. He is a member of ASIS. -1- Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com Publication Information: Article Title: The Leadership Challenge. Contributors: Chris A. Guarrero - author. Magazine Title: Security Management. Volume: 42. Issue: 10. Publication Date: October 1998. Page Number: 27+. COPYRIGHT 1998 American Society for Industrial Security; COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group Understanding the Nature of Leadership. by Jim L. Smith Determining the nature of leadership has been a challenge for sociologists for many years. While some individuals who take charge are predisposed toward leadership, research has not identified whether the ability to lead is to some degree inherent. Whatever the case, security managers can enhance their ability to lead by examining methods and styles that work. One way of understanding the roots of leadership is to analyze the techniques used by supervisors in the workplace. Managers have many styles but all of their relations with employees fall generally into one of two sets of behavior. The first is related to people and the second to tasks. Where a management approach is related to people, the supervisor will adapt his or her style to the needs and personality of the individual employee. Some people work well with little guidance. Others need more regular supervision, more detailed directions, and more frequent feedback. Individuals who use a task-oriented strategy can alternate styles in response not only to the job at hand but also to the needs of groups and individual workers. A new or more complicated task, for instance, may require a higher level of involvement from the supervisor. The same group of employees handling routine responsibilities may function well without oversight. Tying the task to the activity allows the manager to apply various approaches to a single individual in different circumstances. The other way to understand leadership is by examining two behavior strategies: directive and supportive. Directive behavior involves explaining to people exactly what to do and then closely supervising their performance. Supportive behavior involves listening to people, providing support and encouragement for their efforts, and then facilitating their involvement in problem solving and decision making. Whether one should use supportive or directive leadership is largely determined by the development level of the employees. This developmental level is identified by examining the job, its requirements and the employees skills. These different strategies--task-related and people-related approaches, as well as supportive or directive leadership --have the potential to overlap and interact. Managers should view the effectiveness of each approach in the context of their overall management style. The various components should form a coherent picture, creating a consistent leadership pattern that employees can thoroughly understand. For any supervisory strategy to be effective, however, an individual must first have the authority to legitimize his or her actions. It does not matter if the managers style is democratic or dictatorial. What is important is the right to take the initiative and direct the activities of others. At the most basic level, authority is exercised in one of two ways: structural and sapiential. Some security managers may need a degree of both to lead successfully. Structural authority is provided by the organization. It allows the leader to manage with a degree of independence over his or her staff. Often, this type of authority is built into the job description. It may be reinforced by organizational charts that clearly show lines of reporting authority or fields of responsibility. The scope of structural authority is not, however, limited to subordinates. It may permit the supervisor to restrict movement within the premises or limit access to systems and documents both at and above his or her level. The manager may have formal rights to control and lead others in particular aspects of the job. For example, in museums and galleries, in the United Kingdom, the chief warder is generally responsible for the direct management of the security staff. To this end, he works as a security adviser. At the National Gallery in London, he manages the uniformed staff. However, the warder exerts influence throughout the organization in his function as a facilitator. This influence goes beyond his people management role for his security staff. Indeed, his staff may have rights of authority extended to them on his authority. He may limit or prevent access to areas of the building to all but the most senior members of the staff. He does this with the explicit approval of the senior management. The authority afforded the security manager on the basis of knowledge and expertise is just as important as structural authority. This authority is known as sapiential authority. While it may not be formally acknowledged within the organization, it can be as significant as formal rights. Often, it is this sapiential authority that allows the security manager the ability to take the lead in his specialty to the very highest levels in the workplace. To understand how effective sapiential authority can be, consider the case of the security threat facing major cities from the Irish Republican Army. Awaiting early privatization, British Rail has been anxious to project a user-friendly image. As part of that image, the company considered its baggage claim area an important customer service despite the security risk that was involved in allowing the public access to that area. In the last two years, as bomb attacks became more frequent, British Rail attempted to maintain this service at main line terminals for the benefit of its customers. However, the companys security advisers, often low ranking British transport police crime prevention officers, were firmly in favor of withdrawing the service. Although they are of a lower rank, their views on this matter prevailed. The security advisers took the lead on this issue by virtue of their specialty. Local senior officers on that division allowed themselves to be led by an officer of much junior rank who played an important role in their organization and whose judgment and conduct they trusted implicitly. A leader must have authority to perform his or her function. While this authority can, as discussed, be formally or informally given by the company to the manager, its long-term effectiveness will depend on their intangibles. An important aspect of leadership is general acceptance of the person at the helm. True leaders do not need to constantly impose their authority directly. The genuine leader must be armed with a range of skills and tools that evoke in others the desire to be part of the team. A leader should also be a visionary who is able to help develop and convey to others the companys future goals and objectives. It is not enough just to respond to each situation. He or she should be part of, and able to see, the big picture. Leadership also requires consultation, not only with peers and senior management, but with staff members. A managers effectiveness depends in part on the respect and acceptance of his or her employees. Various management styles can lead to success, and managers should examine which approaches work best given their personalities and corporate culture. The right combination will make them valuable catalysts who help the company turn ideas into accomplishments and challenges into major successes. Jim L. Smith is the security manager for Canary Wharf Management Ltd. in London. -1- Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com Publication Information: Article Title: Understanding the Nature of Leadership. Contributors: Jim L. Smith - author. Magazine Title: Security Management. Volume: 38. Issue: 1. Publication Date: January 1994. Page Number: 22+. COPYRIGHT 1994 American Society for Industrial Security; COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group Management vs. Leadership by PAUL MCGOWAN , JOHN MILLER Placing leadership development and renewal at the forefront of school change Could it be that in our haste to change schools, weve relied on management and administration rather than leadership? School administrators have managed school reform by trying to do all they are directed to do. Yet are they truly creating opportunities that could move their schools toward long-term sustainable improvement? All good intentions aside, are we doing the wrong things really well? School change is not a simple addition, subtraction or multiplication problem. Rather, it is a perplexing equation permeated with variables such as higher expectations, common standards, parent involvement, technology, integrated curricula, assessment, professional development, funding, teaching methodologies, and facilities. Each of these variables is influenced by legislative mandates, national reports, education research, state departments of education and professional education associations. School reform has been shaped by the idea that if we simply create common standards, improve the curriculum, hire better teachers, test everyone and stir in dollops of funding, legislation, and time, student learning and achievement will automatically improve. The dynamic of meaningful school change is more complex than extra curriculum, tests, time and money. The primary factor underlying the disappointing results of our reform efforts is our inability to recognize and invest in the necessary local leadership capacities and capabilities. Rethinking Leadership His insight makes school change inherently a leadership challenge. We cannot just manage or administer our way through school change for its complexity requires a process of adaptive learning at the school, district, state and federal levels. At a September 1999 gathering at Columbia Universitys Teachers College, Harvard Professor Richard Elmore suggested we could help to reform public education by admitting we do not know how to bring about such a transformation on a broad scale. "The dirty little secret is were asking people to do some-thing we dont know how to do," he said. We propose a new design--one that develops educational leaders who can cope with conflict, set direction, align resources and inspire stakeholders. It is a leadership effort that empowers all stakeholders to create long-term vision, define and clarify problems and opportunities, create and commit to improvement strategies and, finally, rake action. Such leadership requires courage, commitment, risk and empathy. It builds on concentrated dedication and constructive participation. There can be no safe harbors for school change leaders. Doing It Right John Kotter, author of What Real Leaders Do, reminds us that when the pace of change in organizations speeds up, so does the need for leadership. The same is true in education. Unfortunately, we have done little to increase the needed leadership skills. Consider Peter Druckers observation: "Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things. The problem is that we have a lot of managers doing the wrong things very well." Effective leadership from school administrators is more critical than ever. This leadership, moreover, must be local. Thats where true leaders can help people cope with change, set direction, deflect fear and criticism, engage all stakeholders and inspire people to construct more effective strategies for true school improvement. In creating a new perspective, we suggest following the differentiation between management and leadership as defined by Abraham Zaleznik, who is an emeritus professor at the Harvard Business School: * Administration/management tends to focus on maintaining existing relationships and order, using proven ways of doing things, working within what people think is desirable and, of course, working harder and longer. * Leadership is about taking risks, striking out in new directions, creating visions, tapping imaginations, changing the way people think about what is desirable, creating excitement about working with children and communities, building new relationships and structures and changing the existing cultures. At the local level, public education systems too often train, reinforce and expect its superintendents and principals to be administrators and managers, but not leaders. The skills, competencies and capacities differ markedly. While management skills are necessary aspects of the school leaders job and some time must be devoted to managing resources and people, management skills and time are no longer sufficient to meet the escalating challenges and demands. How do we develop local leadership in such a highly decentralized system? How do we convince people to invest precious time and dollars in leadership development when there isnt enough time or money to implement all the mandated requirements and programs? We can overcome these challenges by making a commitment to placing leadership development and renewal at the forefront of school change efforts and by recognizing that leadership requires different skills, qualities and behaviors than management. Grounding Our Efforts The critics of public education excel at finding fault, yet rarely offer realistic plans or next steps for improvement. With that in mind, we offer three principles to ground our proposed school leadership effort. * Be willing to understand and promote leadership development at a systemic level but be able to act at a local level. We must raise awareness and understanding among all local stakeholders about the importance of leadership and build their commitment to investing in systematic leadership development. This will require increased understanding and appreciation of how leadership relates to student learning and achievement as well as the education culture, funding, legislation and union constraints. * Base efforts on the understanding that leadership development differs from management development. People can be appointed to positions of management and authority, but they must earn leadership positions. We cannot improve leadership in public education by simply teaching everyone better management techniques or by giving them more knowledge. A key step in leadership development is helping superintendents, principals and school board chairs understand who they are, what they believe, what their vision is for the future, what values they hold dear and how their behavior affects others. This critical aspect of leadership change involves working from the inside out. We cannot teach people the effective leadership qualities of courage, commitment and empathy, but we can develop the kind of organization culture and systems that encourage and support these qualities. Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked, "Leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the science of management says is possible." * Customize leadership development of individuals and teams to be effective at the local level. Customization should be thought of in the terms of action research: Gather data on existing leadership capabilities, capacities and challenges; analyze the data; brainstorm possible strategies; identify strategies to implement; and then implement them. The critical questions are: Is there a clear and compelling vision for the future and the goals to get there? Is there a critical mass of stakeholders sold on this future direction and committed to achieving it? Are there systematic processes and clear strategies for achieving the vision and goals? Are there mechanisms in place for monitoring progress, promoting organizational learning and making modifications to the plan? Are there agreed-upon outcomes? Is there a shared commitment to the collaboration and support that engages the talents and participation of the workforce, parents, community and students? The answers to these questions can guide where you should direct your leadership development and resources at the local level. Form and Substance Most school districts or schools have a statement of mission, vision and values or, even better, a fully developed strategic plan Read More