Current Leadership Theories and Models - Assignment Example

Leadership Evaluate a range of leadership theories and models that reflect current thinking. Explain the expected impact of a range of leadership styles on specific sub divisions, organisations, industries, sectors or industries (for example in a Further Education College) Assess current requirements: Follet, F W Taylors Scientific Management, Fayol, Eric Bernes Transactional Analysis, Charismatic Leadership, Situational leadership. 1.- Leadership Theories and Models. Currently there are many leadership theories and models that are implemented in a wide range of organisations with different degrees of efficiency. For instance, Scientific Management is widely used in major corporations of the United States. Other models like Transactional Analysis are not very popular lately, but it is still a relevant model that it is used almost without being aware of it. We are going to take a look at the most prominent leadership theories and models in order to apply that knowledge in the critical study of some of those theories and models at work in a further education college. 2.- Main Characteristics of Leadership Theories and Models. Taking into account several features there have appeared 5 major models of leadership at least in the Western society. Later we will see leadership in the Eastern society, but now let’s look at a classification of leadership according to the following main characteristics as summarised by David Boje (2003): TRAITS/ UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES (1800s to 1940s with revival in 1990s) BEHAVIOR/ PROCESS 1940s to 1970s with revival in 2001) SITUATION/ CONTINGENCY (early 1960s to Present; dead but will not vanish) POWER (From BC rediscovered from one generation to next; empower is renaming of delegation of 1940s) CHARISMA/ TRANSFORM (Late 1800s then rediscovered in 1970s and revival in 1980s) (Boje, 2005). Studies of leadership as related by the Wikipedia (2005) have suggested some attributes that people frequently associate with leadership. The following is a list of those qualities: Talent and technical/specific skill at some task at hand; Initiative and entrepreneurial drive; Charismatic inspiration - attractiveness to others and the ability to leverage this esteem to motivate others; Preoccupation with a rôle - a dedication that consumes much of leaders life - service to a cause; A clear sense of purpose (or mission) - clear goals - focus – commitment; Results-orientation - directing every action towards a mission - prioritizing activities to spend time where results most accrue; Optimism - very few pessimists become leaders; Rejection of determinism - belief in ones ability to "make a difference"; Ability to encourage and nurture those that report to them - delegate in such a way as people will grow; Rôle models - leaders may adopt a persona that encapsulates their mission and lead by example; Self-knowledge (in non-bureaucratic structures); Self-awareness - the ability to "lead" (as it were) ones own self prior to leading other selves similarly. One common attribute that signals any leadership is vision. This element is universally looked for in any kind of leadership. Vision is a fundamental force that moves the followers towards a goal. This vision is supposed to have the following characteristics in order to be effective according to the Wikipedia (2005): appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader describe a future state, credible and preferable to the present state act as a bridge between the current state and a future optimum state appear desirable enough to energize followers succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical appeals by themselves seldom muster a following). 2.- Scientific Management, Administrative Managements, and Mary Parker Follett. Paul D. Gardiner (2005) makes a simple distinction between Scientific and Administrative Managements: “Scientific management focuses on the one best way to do a job. Administrative management emphasizes the flow of information in the organisation.” The pioneers in the Scientific Management movement are Frederick W. Taylor (1856- 1915), husband and wife team Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) and Lillian Gilbreth (1878-1972), Henry Gantt (1861-1919) and Harrington Emerson (1853-1931). Taylor is the most prominent of all. He cared a lot about efficiency and productivity. His ideas are widely spread and have been studied extensively as his system has been applied. Vincenzo Sandrone (1995) cites F. W. Taylor from one of his writings, and enumerates the ideas that constitute Scientific Management or Taylorism. They are: Science, not rule of thumb; Harmony, not discord; Cooperation, not individualism; Maximum output in place of restricted output; and the development of each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity. The organisation called the Taylor Society has gathered the 13 principles of Taylorism. Its 4 basic principles are: 1. Scientific research & analysis of work, its elements, standards, and rates 2. Scientific selection, training, and development of first-class workers 3. Intimate, friendly, and hearty cooperation for scientific work principles (anti-unionism) 4. Equal division of responsibility among managers in functional areas (not just over people) (O’Connor, 2004). While Taylorism concentrates on the job been done, Administrative Management pays a lot of attention to the organisation as a whole system. The precursors of Administrative Management or Classical Organisation Theory were Henri Fayol (1841-1925), Lyndall Urwick (1891-1983), Max Weber (1864-1920) and Chester Barnard (1886-1961). Henri Fayol is considered to be the Father of Modern Management. Fayols fourteen principles of management are summarised as follows: 1 Division of work; 2 Authority & Responsibility; 3 Discipline; 4 Unity of command; 5 Unity of direction; 6 Subordination of individual interests to the general interest; 7 Remuneration; 8 Centralization of decision making; 9 Scalar chain (line of authority); 10 Order; 11 Equity; 12 Stability of tenure of personnel; 13 Initiative; and 14 Esprit de corps. Max Weber is also a very notorious thinker up to the present. “Weber presents more than an ideal type model of bureaucratic, traditional and charismatic authority. His is a dynamic model showing how one form of leadership and organization reverts into the other”. (Boje, 2000) Another influential management theorist was Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933). She included three main concepts in her model of leadership: the universal goal, the universal principle, and the law of the situation. “The universal goal of organisations is an integration of individual effort into a synergistic whole. The universal principle is a circular or reciprocal response emphasising feedback to the sender (the concept of two-way communications), essential to effective communication in projects everywhere. The law of the situation (a precursor to the contingency theory of management) emphasises that there is no one best way to do anything, but that it all depends on the situation…” (Gardiner, 2005). Mark K. Smith (2005) considers Follett’s contributions as very significant: “Her arguments for the development of schools as community centres still holds considerable power; her exploration of the nature of experience still offers educators insights; and the case for the development of local groups and networks as the bedrock of democracy (and community) is as strong as ever.” One of her most important contribution is related to the analysis of how to deal with conflict. “Her preferred solution was the integration process, whereby everyone wins, as opposed to a win-lose situation, or a watered-down compromise by which neither side gets what it wants.” (Gardiner, 2005). 3.- Situational Leadership, Transactional Analysis, Charismatic Leadership, and Transformational Leadership. Chimaera Consulting Limited. “Famous Models. Situational Leadership”. (1999). Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://www.chimaeraconsulting.com/sitleader.htm Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey created the Situational Leadership model in the late 1960’s. This model takes into consideration the type of situation and its own needs in order to adopt the most appropriate style of leadership. In adapting to each situation this model is based on directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating from the leader’s point of view at different degrees of action. From the followers’ point of view a development level is considered taking into account the competence and the commitment of the followers. (Chimaera Consulting Limited, 1999). Transactional Analysis was created by Eric Berne, and it defines “some basic Ego States and Life Positions that individuals can adopt, and uses those to describe how Transactions then occur between two people. The idea is that if you know your own state, and can determine the other persons state, you can use your behaviour to influence the interactions between the two of you.” (Chimaera Consulting Limited, 1999). Another model that it is very popular is the Charismatic Leadership model. It relies on the charisma of the leader. According to ChangingMinds.Org (2005) “Conger & Kanungo (1998) describe five behavioral attributes of Charismatic Leaders that indicate a more transformational viewpoint: Vision and articulation; Sensitivity to the environment; Sensitivity to member needs; Personal risk taking; Performing unconventional behaviour.” As a very common leadership model we currently have the Transformational Leadership model. The main difference between a Charismatic Leader and a Transformational Leader lies in the fact that the Transformational Leader has a basic focus of transforming the organization and, quite possibly, their followers, meanwhile the Charismatic Leader may not want to change anything. (ChangingMinds.Org, 2005). James MacGregor Burns is the pioneer theorist of Transformational Leadership. Burns introduced a normative element into his theoretical corpus: “an effective Burnsian leader will unite followers in a shared vision that will improve an organization and society at large. Burns calls leadership that delivers "true" value, integrity, and trust transformational leadership. He distinguishes such leadership from "mere" transactional leadership that builds power by doing whatever will get more followers. (…) transformational leadership requires an evaluation of quality, independent of the market demand that exhibits in the number of followers.” (Wikipedia, 2005). Burns has seen four categories in his typology of Transformational Leaders: Intellectual, Reform, Revolutionary, and Heroic (charismatic). According to the Wikipedia (2005) the Traits of a Transformational leader are the 4 Is: Idealized Influence (leader becomes a role model) Inspirational Motivation (team spirit, motivate, and provide meaning and challenge). Intellectual Stimulation (creativity & innovation) Individual Consideration (mentoring). 4.- Christian Leadership, Eastern Leadership and Postmodern Critique. Christian Leadership has been established for a very long time. Its most distinct feature is that it only has a human leader, Jesus, throughout time. Getting deep into its essence, each and every Christian is supposed to be a leader on his own. It is a kind of Transformational Leadership. On the other hand, the Wikipedia (2005) points out the following characteristic of Christian Leadership: “Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources - human and material - and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan.” Comparing Western models of leadership with those in the Eastern world based on Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, we can see several fundamental differences. It is very important to know the Eastern models of leadership due to the fact that their vision can enrich the Western patterns of leadership. Alves et (2005) al state the following about the main differences between the East and the West when it comes to leadership: Whereas Western management thinking is based on rationality, control, and planning, the Taoism/Buddhism management thinking is more intuitive and contextual, in which “self” and “time” also have distinct meanings. Moreover, the “self,” or human being, is simply a manifestation of a Universal Self and individuals do not exist in isolation, as in Western thinking. As such, observes Lee (1987), Chinese have a different “sense of self-dignity compared to the West.” In regard to “time,” Westerners consider that time is linear, but the Chinese consider that “time is cyclical” (p. 32).”. All these approaches to leadership face a critical point of view from postmodern critics. The Transformational Leadership is an object of analysis by those critics who consider this model and others to be just another form of power, not of emancipation. David Boje (2000) summarises their position with the following critical words: “Critical postmodern is a new coalition that challenges the current world order, including its current fad and buzzword, "transformational leadership." We wonder just what is it that is being transformed? (…) In brief, transformational leadership promises to be an emancipatory project, but does it really deliver emancipation from command and control to marginal group members. Questions of what is transformed and who gets advantage are ignored in the way the construct is being investigated. 5.- Further Education College. All the leadership models and theories studied in this paper have advantages and disadvantages. Some of them present conflicting ideas. In order to apply a leadership model to a further education college, for example, it is a good idea to be eclectic as much as possible. Transformational Leadership has its main approach in common with Christian Leadership in the fact that both models care about the follower and in the long run the follower becomes a leader himself/herself. As a starting point, it seems appropriate to take the Transformational Leadership model as guide in order to apply the other different models and theories. It is also pertinent to apply the Situational Leadership model in the various situations that will arise in a further education college where the students could come from different sectors of society with notorious differences in age and preferences. The Situational Leadership model can be of great help in adapting to the diverse needs of the adult students. On the other hand, Scientific Management has a classical appeal as its tenets are universal and grounded firmly in scientific ideals. Follett’s contributions specifically in the community centres and the solution of conflicts will be of great help in a further education college environment. Students can meet in smaller groups and share their experiences together as a whole later on. The solution of conflicts based on a win-win condition is really the best possible way of solving problems. In relation to the Eastern Leadership models and theories, we can learn from their collective approach to the individual. Western society has been widely criticised for its egotistical lifestyle, and we can learn a lot when we see ourselves as a whole, as a universal whole, as an entity of unity. In general, the best leadership method is a blend of all the models and theories. To be eclectic will empower us to have a leadership model appropriate for all our needs towards a much more sinergestic, affirmative and proactive society. References Alves, J. C., and Manz, C. C., and Butterfield, D. A. “Developing Leadership Theory in Asia: The Role of Chinese Philosophy”. (2005). University of Massachusetts. International Journal of Leadership Studies. Volume 1, Issue 1. Retrieved 29 November, 2005, from http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/journals/ijls/new/vol1iss1/alves/developing.htm Boje, D. “Modern Leadership Theory and Sweatshops: In and Out of the Box “ (August 29, 2003). College of Business. New Mexico State University. Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/modern_leadership_theory.htm Boje, D. “Transformational Leadership“ (December 25, 2000). College of Business. New Mexico State University. Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/transformational_leadership.htm ChangingMinds.Org. “Charismatic Leadership”. (2005). Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/charismatic_leadership.htm Chimaera Consulting Limited. “Famous Models. Situational Leadership”. (1999). Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://www.chimaeraconsulting.com/sitleader.htm Chimaera Consulting Limited. “Famous Models. Transactional Analysis”. (1999). Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://www.chimaeraconsulting.com/transact.htm Gardiner, P. D. “Project Management: A Historical Perspective”. (2005). Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://www.palgrave.com/business/gardiner/contents/chapter1/Supplement.htm O’Connor, T. “The Scientific Management Era”. (September 16, 2004). Noth Carolina Wesleyan College. Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/417/417lect03.htm Sandrone, V. “Taylorism. F. W. Taylor & Scientific Management”. (December 10, 1995). Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://www.quality.org/TQM-MSI/taylor.html Smith, M. K. “Mary Parker Follett”. (January 28, 2005). Informal Education (Infed). Retrieved 30 November, 2005, from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-foll.htm Wikipedia. “Leadership”. (November 29, 2005). Retrieved 29 November, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership Read More