Challenges Facing Organizational Leaders In Nigeria - Dissertation Example

Challenges Facing Organizational Leaders In Nigeria Research Objectives a. To find out the challenges facing organizational leaders in the private sector in Nigeria b. To find out whether the organizational environment in Nigeria impact the performance of leaders in the private sector c. To find ways of obliterating the challenges facing organizational leaders in the private sector in Nigeria Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to identify challenges facing organizational leaders in Nigeria and to offer ways of obliterating the challenges facing them. Statement of the problem Organizational leaders within the private sector in Nigeria function under highly volatile environment. This means that organizational leaders in the private sector face many challenges while carrying out their responsibilities within an organization. These challenges cannot be alleviated singlehandedly, as they require the effort of both the participants in the private sectors and the government (Ekpo & Umoh, 2008). To promote growth within the financial performance in the private sector organizations, the government must adopt many policies and initiatives to create an enabling environment for the private sector’s participation in the Nigerian economy. Significance of the study The significance of this study is to create awareness of the challenges facing the organizational leaders in the private sector in Nigeria, as well as develops strategies, which could make the organizational leaders in Nigeria more adjusted to the ever-shifting environment that they operate in. Correspondingly, an appraisal of past works in this part did not yield any concrete results. This presumes that past investigations on leadership analyses in Nigeria did not pay close interest to this part of social occurrence, or investigators in Nigeria had not taken it as a fragment of their academic lists that is worth investigating. This analysis will offer a compass to steer future investigations in this part of social occurrence. Moreover, the challenges confronting organizational frontrunners in Nigeria cannot be disconnected from the happenings within the country, as well as environmental pressures operating within Nigeria. This investigation will function as a facilitator for economic growth and social revolution within Nigeria, as well as provide the example, which can be tailored in organizational settings, which have the same cohesions with the Nigerian setting. Introduction The study of leadership is an intricate endeavor, which requires sound theoretical framework and engagement of perspectives from different disciplines for thorough exposition. This purpose of this study is to investigate the challenges facing the organizational leaders within the private sector in Nigeria and how the challenges could be obliterated. This chapter provides the theoretical framework for this study by combining the concepts of leadership systems and organizational change. The key proposals of these theories are considered against the backdrop of challenges leaders face in organizational system. In addition, this chapter draws the lines of differences amid management and leadership, and demarcates the theoretical variation between leaders and leadership (Ekpo & Umoh, 2008). Leadership verses Management Leadership is a process where one individual exerts social guidance over affiliates of a group while management entails a process, physical and mental, where subordinates are brought to execute prescribed formal responsibilities and duties and to attain certain given goals. Leadership is extensive in coverage and scope than management since management centers on attaining organizational goals, whereas leadership centers on how to involve and motivate personnel in attaining organizational objectives (Iwara, 2007). Management handles intricate issues like budgeting and planning, and short-term objectives, which can be attained in a year. Management cultivates problem solving techniques and ability to control and organize major competencies in an organizational structure. Leadership handles activities programs, which bring about change within an organization, for instance, redirecting a company to a new field or navigating the wheel of a company to a different terrain often attained by the chief executive officer (Barney, 2007). The process and practice of management is to respond to the complexities, which arise from the work environment and upsurge the level of profitability and productivity in an enterprise. Leadership encompasses dealing with organizational change occasioning from rapid technological change, de-regulation of markets, international competition, over-capacity within capital-intensive sectors, investment markets, unsteady oil cartel, and the changing demographics of the labor force. Although, management and leadership have distinguishing aims with each having its own roles and characteristics undertakings nevertheless, both hold complimentary structures of action in coping with today’s progressively volatile and complex business environment(Imaga, 2003). Leaders and Leadership Conceptually, leaders and leadership are not the similar yet both share symbiotic relations and are analogous to each other as leadership to management. A leader is a person appointed or elected who emerges from the faction to coordinate and direct the faction members’ exertions toward some specified objective (Ekpo & Umoh, 2008). The leader plans, directs, organizes and oversees the activities of the faction members and develops and maintains sufficient motivation and cohesiveness amid faction members to hold them together as a working unit. Accordingly, a leader is an individual with authority upon others and exerts this authority for the aim of influencing their conduct. Leaders possess the charisma and the skills, which can inspire their subordinate to function beyond their official capability. Leaders are individuals who express themselves since they know what they need, why they need it as well as how to convey what they need from others to gain their support and cooperation, and they discern how to attain their objectives (Weirich & Koontz, 2005). Leaders are developers-individuals who are keen to pop out into the indefinite. Leaders are individuals willing to undertake risks, to revolutionize and experiment to find fresh and better techniques of accomplishing things. Leaders are individuals who methodically and carefully follow the path they trust will steer them to attaining the objectives they established for themselves (Owoh, 2006). Over the years, several leadership theories have been proposed which can be collapsed into four generations namely: traits; contingency; transformational and behavioral leadership. Trait theories dealt on the distinguishable characteristics of a leader such as the physical vitality and stamina, intelligence as well as action-oriented judgment, eagerness to take responsibility, task competence (Weirich & Koontz, 2005). Other characteristics included the capability to motivate people, decisiveness and flexibility. Trait theories distinguish a non-leader to a leader by giving a leader the following traits: drive, desire to drive integrity and honesty, self-confidence, cognitive ability and knowledge of the business. Behavioral theories are based on the behavior displayed by a leader. According to behavioral theories, a leader could be described by behavioral patterns instead of individual traits (Amadiu, 2007). Behavioral Theories In behavioral theories, leaders can use two methods from the leadership grip, which aids them to attain their objectives. The two methods include ‘concern for people’ and ‘concern for production’. Concern for production is the concern, which leaders have in attaining organizational duties via organizing activities and people to meet certain organizational objectives and goals (Afolabi 2004). Concern for people entails the interest leaders have in meeting the requirements of personnel via personal development as well as promoting their individual welfare. Situational theories view leadership as a vibrant process that range from situation to situation through changes in leaders, personnel and situations. Situational methodology is focused on observed conduct, and not any hypothetical inborn, potential or acquired ability for leadership. The focus is on leaders’ conduct, their workers, and a range of situations that emphasize more on fostering the probability of training people to change their manners of behavior in various situations (Mallins, 2004). Contingency Theories Contingency theories are based from the principles of situational theories whereby leadership is explicated in respect to the interaction amid the leader and several variables within the work environment. Leadership is observed as the application of certain styles of behaviors needed to mandate the loyalty of workers and to inspire them in attaining specific and wide-ranging organizational objectives (Ajayi 2000). Group performance is linked to both leadership type and the extent to which the work situation affords the leader with the prospect to influence the personnel (Oyeranti, 2004). For example, relationship-oriented leaders are inclined to perform effectively in situations that they have relative influence, either since they are not too totally accepted though their power and position is high as well as the task is organized. In a comparatively favorable work situation, it is projected that the task-oriented spearhead will be adequately effective than the understanding leader who is more concerned with interpersonal relations (Lawnson, 2002). Transformational Theories A transformational leader identifies a need, and utilizes a prevailing need of a prospective worker (Ajayi 2000). Transformational leadership centers on change as well as empowerment, which consist of various components: leaders hold the charisma or solid ability to stimulate others; leadership involves being capable of motivating others to act; leaders have solid intellectual or mental capabilities; leaders have capability to fathom people and their needs. Transformational organizations’ culture encourages a sense of tenacity, lasting commitments, as well as mutual interests (Ajila & Awonusi, 2004).Whereas transformational style encompasses innovation, transactional means a manager of policy and planning. The is a necessity to draw a division amid the two styles since transactional leadership is fundamentally based on exchange procedure in which the leader dispenses rewards as well as sanctions grounded on the conducts displayed by the employees(Weirich & Koontz, 2005). Transformational leaders must cultivate a in-group ideology, which nurture the development of conducts, which encourage a decision-making procedure grounded on a consensus or agreement. The victory of transformational leader is reliant on the relations amid the personnel as well as how the spearhead is able to cultivate the relation. Consensus amid the personnel can lessen the dispersion and the dissension therefore, affording leaders with adequate latitude of domination over their underlings (Jerome, 2010). Transformational leadership possesses the prospect for abuse. The risk lies in the leader-follower relations, which, rise from social authority responses. Followers develop discernments of the transformational leaders and usage of control in the establishment. Problems arise when the leaders try to apply transformational-leadership without depending on a sturdy moral and ethical foundation (Ekpo & Umoh, 2008). This is known as pseudo-transformational. Transformational leaders motivate, offer a vision and intelligently encourage their followers. They afford the systems and structures enablers for sharing and creation of knowledge. Nevertheless, they seem to be weaker upon the structures, systems and implementation. The transformational leader’s external, internal and interpersonal context are linked with the supporters’ sense of inner motivation via listening to them, revering them, aiding them as well as sharing control with them. Transformational leaders centers on change, and development through influencing the manner in which people think through tackling perceptions of realism, influencing psychological fathoming of the existing systems, and facilitating understanding of the necessity for growth (Olayiwola & Busari 2001). Organizational Change Organizational change is the procedure by which companies move from their existing state to some preferred future situation to upsurge their efficiency (Baenay & Griffin, 2008). Organizational leaders function in an organizational structure, hence, they play a dire role of guaranteeing that programs effected at any given moment meet the requirements of their companies (Ekpo & Umoh, 2008). Without leadership, decisive change of any scale is almost unachievable. The following are causes for organizational change: Desire to change a management strategy Need to ensure the working environment is more coherent with both personnel needs as well as the shifting needs of the working environment Need to transform roles and structure Need to enhance inter-group partnership Need to open up communication structure Need for improved planning Need for dealing with problems of merger Need to change within the motivation of the personnel Need for adjustment to a new work environment There are two methods of employing change within a company- radical and incremental change. Radical approach encompasses a discontinuous change or revolutionary change, which occurs in the phases of disequilibrium, which influence people, the structure, and the organizational processes (Ekpo & Umoh, 2008). Incremental change encompasses a constant and systematic tinkering, adaptation, as well as modifications in effort to enhance organizational structures in an effectual and an operative manner (Barnard, 2009). Fundamentally, radical change entails huge reengineering initiatives, which influence the entire setting of a company whereas incremental encompasses piecemeal modification to units within a company, or steady change to the whole structure of a company (Ekpo & Umoh, 2008). The reengineering objectives and available funds available to a company determine which of the two tactics is appropriate (Baenay & Griffin, 2008). The hypothesis of leadership holds a direct appliance for a person, team, as well as organizational development and change. Indeed, one of the fundamental suppositions underlying transformational headship is that frontrunners as well as the organizations they run must continually go through change to be competitive within a hastily changing economy (Amah, 2007). Barriers to Organizational Change One of the utmost recalcitrant and baffling of the glitches facing business directors is personnel resistance to change. The challenge of incorporating employees needs with organizational needs often suffocate or inhibit the development and the change process within organizations. No enterprise can introduce change if its personnel will not accept change. Change is not conceivable without persons changing themselves. Great leaders understand how to modify management styles to distinct employees. They recognize that they fathom their employees well enough to afford them with the support and direction they require to succeed (Amaeshi, 2006). The following are the hindrances to change: Many top directors relinquish their obligation for individual commitment as well as engagement and attempt to allot the control of change Mostly, a small number of individuals and habitually the unsuitable ones close themselves in privacy, hatch splendid arrangements, and then release them upon an uncooperative and unprepared organization. Too frequently, the directors hurry to take hold of a particular collection of strategic selections without creating full debate of all the conceivable alternatives. Many establishments make critical decisions based on unbiased and incomplete information. Many organizations stick to ill-advised hope that a single silver bullet can unlock the inscrutabilities of organizational change. The four primary sources of resistance include lack of leadership; inappropriate organizational culture, lack of perceived need for improvement and inefficient organizational culture (Baenay & Griffin, 2008). The following factors can be applied to decrease resistance to change: Individual behavior and attitudes result from interface of individual character and social function within the organization The grander the reputation of the overseer, the grander the power to wield change Strong forces for change could be established through creating pooled information desires through the group associates of the requirements for change Disapproval to change can be reduced when persons to be transformed and those exerting change possess a sturdy awareness of belonging to the similar faction The more appealing the faction is to its followers, the huger the power the faction can wield on its followers A faction with a ongoing psychological sense to a person has more sway than does a faction with only impermanent membership Facts relevant to the necessity for change, design for change, as well as outcomes of change has to be disclosed to all the appropriate persons within the group References Afolabi, J.A. (2004). Challenges of Private Sector - Led Growth in Nigeria. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Regional Research Units, Abuja, CBN. Ajayi, F. (2000). Sustaining Organization Transformation Efforts in Nigeria. Management Review, Vol. 11 No 1-7. December. Ajila, C., & Awonusi, A. (2004). Influence of Rewards on Workers Performance in an Organization. Journal of Social Sciences, 8 (1): 7-12. Amadieu, J.F. (2007). Les syndicates. [Online] Available: http://www.press Uillinois.edu/Journals/Irra/Proceedings/2004/14.htm: (Jan. 8 2010). Amaeshi, U. F. (2006). Managing Human Resources and Organizational Change in Nigeria, Enugu, Maurice Productions. Amah, C.O. (2007). Strategic Innovation and Corporate Performance in Nigeria’s Food and Beverages Industry. Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt. Barnard C. (2009). Function of the Executive. [Online] Available: http://www.lib.uwo.ca/business/barnard html: (Jan.8, 2010). Barnay J. B., & Griffin, R. W. (2008). Management of Organizations, Strategy, Structure and Behaviour, New Jersey, Houghton Mifflin Company. Barney, J. (2007). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp 99-120. Ekpo, A. H., & Umoh, O.J. (2008). Overview of the Nigerian Economic Growth & Development. Abuja, Nigeria: CBN Research Units. Imaga E.U.L. (2003). Comparative Management Systems- Nigeria and Some selected Countries. Enugu, Nigeria: Ryce Kerex Publishers. Iwara E.I. (2007). Industrial Relations in Complex Organization in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: College Press. Jerome, A. (2010). Unleashing the Private Sector in Nigeria: Lagos. Nigeria: Afribank Economic and Financial Review. Lawanson, O.I. (2002). Promotion of Non-Oil Export in the Nigerian Economy. FBN Quarterly Review, Vol.2, No 1, March. Mallins, L.J. (2004). Management and Organizational Behaviour, Washington D C, Pitman Publishers. www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 4; April 2011 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 187 Olayiwola, K., & Busari D.T. (2001). “Economic Reform Programme and Private Sector Development in Nigeria”; Development Policy Centre Research report, No 35, Ibadan, Nigeria. Osemeke, M. (2007). Banking Reforms in Nigeria and its Impact on Poverty Alleviation, Journal of Business & Management Studies (JBMS), Ozoro, Nigeria: Delta state Polytechnic. Vol.2 No1p.72-81. Owoh, G.U. (2006). Cooperate Governance in a Private Sector Led Economy: Balancing the Issue. Lagos, Nigeria: The Nigerian Banker, Journal of the Character Institute of Bankers of Nigeria, July-September, PP7-17 Oyeranti, A. O. (2004). Conceptual and theoretical Issues in Private sector-led. Weihrich, H., & Koontz, H. (2005). Management a Global Perspective. India: Tata McGraw- Hill. Read More