Leadership Theories and Styles in Australia - Essay Example

Leadership Theories and Style in Australia of the of the submitted Table of Contents Introduction 3 Leadership in Australia 3 Comparison of Good and Bad leaders in Australia 5 Leadership Theories 6 Charismatic Leadership 6 Transactional Leadership 7 Comparison of the Australian Leadership Theories 8 Conclusion 10 References 11 Introduction Leadership is an intricate process where an individual can be socially influenced by another person who is considered to be the leader to achieve a common organizational goal. It involves the interaction of the leader with the employee to fulfill a common task. In most of the studies and literature till date, focus has been on the leadership theories and style in general. There has been limited research on the leadership styles and qualities in Australia. Few researches performed on the context have reflected that the exceptionality of Australian leadership can impact the applicability of the leadership theories (Adair, 2010). This essay focuses on the study to identify, analyze and compare the leadership theories and style followed in Australia. Leadership in Australia Australian culture is grouped under the Anglo cluster Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England, South Africa, Ireland and USA. There are cultural setbacks and peculiarities in the Australian society and continue to grow till the present times (Stumpf, 2006). The Australian leadership styles are very different from that the other countries. The style followed by the country is unique and are grouped under four dimensions that are mateship, the tall poppy syndrome, one of us and the underdog (Mumford & Connelly, 2008). Research has focused on the Australian traits of leadership for higher performance level and visionary. They do not believe in possessing a charismatic characteristic, yet considers being “one of the boys” and have the right to give their valuable feedback. They have a “can do” attitude but oppose achievement at the cost of enjoying their social life. This trait is known as the tall poppy syndrome (Mumford & Connelly, 2008). The Australian leader’s characteristics are grouped under three dimensions that are Universalism (for the wellbeing of the community), Benevolence (concern for the interests of others) and Transformation (transformational leadership) (Wright, & Taylor, 2007). There are arguments on the trait and leadership qualities of the Australians as other countries tend to find them disrespectful when the natives defend that they are respectful. Studies recommended that these disputes in opinion is due to the cultural differences between the two countries and therefore, what Australians feel as respect might come across as disrespect for others (Bass, 2010). The Australians resents the interference of leader and opposes to follow them. As Australia is a country where there are immigrants present in the higher level of management, they oppose to follow them and refuse to accept their dominance. The principle of egalitarianism portrays the sense of equality among the Australians, but still there are discrimination among the Anglo-Saxon and other groups (Fairholm, 2008). The managers in Australia face trouble in managing poor performances and giving feedbacks on low work quality due to the mateship leadership style followed by them. The Australians in order to improve their leadership skills needs to lead a more culturally diverse group, where they can accept the cultural variations and adapt with the pros and cons of every community (Holbach, 2009). They need to adapt with varied cultures like the Asian and other cultures and learn to systematically work along with them to achieve higher organizational objectives (Bolden, et.al., 2003). Comparison of Good and Bad leaders in Australia Australia tends to follow the mateship leadership style which is reflected as a trait of a transactional leadership theory. Bob Hawke is among the longest serving prime minister in the Australian government and has contributed for the good of the citizen at large (Northhouse, 2009). He was considered as one of the greatest and most successful leader of Australia. On the other hand Tony Abbott has proved himself to be the worst leader and prime minister of Australia. Both the leaders exhibit varied characteristics that differentiate them to be good and bad leaders (Grandstaff & Sorenson, 2009). Bob Hawke turned out to be a successful leader as he enthused and guided his country towards success. During the economic crisis faced by the country he created a vision for the economic recovery and aroused confidence among the citizen. He was a good listener, therefore encouraged ideas from members of the cabinet for the betterment of the Australian society. He was enthusiastic and welcomed change (Day, Harrison & Halpin, 2012). Therefore people were open to give their opinion to the person who is passionate and dedicated for the country’s development. He turned out to be a motivator supporting for the betterment and cause of the country. He was a team player working towards the common goal of the country leading to economic improvement and welfare. Being a political leader he had a clear vision and was self aware of what was going on in the country and the need for change (Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009). He was competitive, unbiased, broad minded and observed other countries achievements, strengths and weaknesses to draw inspiration for the benefit of the Australian society. Bob Hawke was adaptable to innovation, trusted his people and citizens relied on him as the prime minister who would do good for the country. It is very important for a good leader to be a communicator to influence and deliver his vision and align it with the country’s achievements as well as communicate to the society at large. Hence Bob Hawke possessed these qualities to be a good leader (Lunenburg, 2011). However good leaders are very easy to judge but bad leaders try to camouflage themselves when they go through good period but once they face turbulent economic disasters it is very hard for them to hide as the impact of the turbulence is faced by the society at large. Tony Abbott faced immense difficulty in managing his position as the prime minister of Australia (Bogardus, 2009). The challenges faced by him were due to the lack in the leadership skills he possessed. He turned out to be unsuccessful in his field due to lack of clear vision and enthusiasm. He was not a good communicator and did not posses interpersonal skills. Citizens could not relate to the prime minister and lacked dependability. It is necessary for a leader to communicate with the citizen and influence them to work on the welfare of the society which deficit in Tony Abbott (Bel, 2010). Leadership Theories There are different leadership theories and styles developed on the basis of leadership characteristics and behaviors and analysis of the relationship between the leadership and organizational behaviors have initiated to judge the organizational efficiency (Yukl, 2010). The different leadership theories are as follows: Charismatic Leadership The term charisma is a Greek word meaning “Divinely inspired gift” (Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009). The charismatic leadership approach is explained as one of the powerful and does not follow a bureaucratic leadership style. They are kind of transformational leaders where he instills enthusiasm among the people and they follow him out of love and respect (Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009). There is no reward involved in it and the goal is achieved due to the charismatic presence of the leader who motivates his followers to excel the work assigned. The followers tend to be obedient, committed, devoted and loyal towards the inspirational leader who has an aura of self divinity (Holbach, 2009). There is an adverse effect to charismatic theory which can lead to biased behavior, excessively uncertain projects, ostentatious plans and unnecessary confidence. Charismatic leadership theory gives rise to narcissistic leaders who is charismatic but that is only targeted to giving orders and ambiguous speech making (Grandstaff & Sorenson, 2009). Transactional Leadership This leadership style explains that a team can be motivated by their leaders through rewards and should be punished on noncompliance of the task (Merrit, 2008). The leader rewards its followers or punishes on the basis of the target achieved as well as the quality of team or individual performance. The team is included in the decision making and predetermines the goal along with their leader. Then they agree to follow the directives of the leader for the fulfillment of the assigned goal. The leader possesses the power to guide and train the employees after reviewing their results, if they are unsuccessful in achieving the desired outcome. Team or individuals are rewarded on successful accomplishment of the common goal (Nohria, & Khurana, 2010). Comparison of the Australian Leadership Theories Charismatic leaders believe in themselves and consider appeal and elegance as the primary characteristics needed to attract followers. In the Charismatic leadership styles individuals follow the leader due to personal admiration (Fairholm, 2008). Transactional leaders motivate their followers through rewards and punishment. The employees work under the command and surrender all authority to the leader. The main function of the subordinates is to follow orders and perform as per the norms as well as guidance set by the leader (González & Guillén, 2010). Australia is an immensely dissimilar underlying cultural society who follows its own leadership styles which are not usually recognized by the theories of leadership. However the primary factor to Australian leadership style is individualism and heading the followers by guiding them being present alongside. This is the characteristic of a transactional leader as he sets the path for target achievement under his supervision. Hence the leaders in Australia are dedicated to individual who accepts to follow him and resents traits like intolerant and too charismatic (Wright, & Taylor, 2007). Charismatic leaders are generally seeking for attention. They are efficient in judging the frame of mind and concerns of the individual or team; hence they react in accordance to situations. Politicians tend to follow this type of leadership style as they need to attract mass followers (Mumford & Connelly, 2008). Transactional leaders frame well defined structures and norms specifying work assignment to the subordinates and planning reward structures for them on following the orders. Punishment was given on non compliance of the orders and not achieving the targets (Bogardus, 2009). The initial stage in the leadership style is to plan the benefits and salaries by which the organization achieves the authority of their subordinates. On the basis of the benefits, work is allocated and even if there is a dearth of resources it is expected that the orders would be executed on time. Non fulfillment of the work is subjected to punishment (Bolden, et.al., 2003). Australians tends to follow the egalitarian principle which is a vital characteristic of a transactional leader. They would prefers and obey leaders who are not arrogant or charismatic yet are dominant (Kibbe, 2015). They follow by choice which would result in benefits and not by force. Most developed country’s leader exhibits individualistic and achievement oriented characteristics as well as they give more importance to individual accomplishment than Australians. Australians shows different personality traits like a larger external locus of control, less authoritative, introvert and have low work ethics (Lunenburg, 2011). Australian managers are assertive, controlling, creative, inspiring and independent. The Australians are impulsive in nature and do not like to plan their activities. They are unemotional, pessimistic and do not feel the necessity to prove themselves to anybody (González & Guillén, 2010). Therefore it is the duty of the transactional leader to set the goal for accomplishment of organizational need and reward them on the basis of their performance. The transformational Leaders may also be charismatic. The charismatic leaders are not concerned with the society or organization at large but are more concerned with their own image whereas a transactional leader is highly accepted in all organizations as it defines a clear structure of work achievement giving the employees the benefits of achievement yet controlling their actions to abide by the norms (Merrit, 2008). Studies found out that Australian leaders lack long term, broader vision and gives importance to short term goals and achievements. The leaders are hesitant, unemotional, thinks that they follow the egalitarian principles, achievement oriented and easy to work with but when compared with the other culture, it was found that these are untrue (Bolden, et.al., 2003). Also, it was found that the transformational leadership style and the motivational factors involved in this style do not prove to have the same impact on the Australians as it does for the other countries. The effect of a charismatic leadership style among Australians is negligible and it does not influence workers to enhance their performances (Kibbe, 2015). Conclusion The Australian leaders are way different from the other country’s leader in terms of accepting leadership styles and behaviors. The leadership qualities differ in many aspects in Australia like they resent charismatic style of leadership, believe in regular communication, do not like to be influenced by emotion in decision making and also are unhesitant in questioning the authority on their decision making. Hence the study compared Australian leaders and the differences in their leadership skills and traits. It also analyzed and compared the leadership theories in the context of the Australian preferences on the leadership styles and what are the difficulties faced by them. References Adair, J. (2010). Strategic Leadership: How to Think and Plan Strategically and Provide Direction. London: Kogan Page. Bass, B. (2010). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Bel, R. (2010). Leadership and Innovation: Learning from the best. Global Business & Organisational Excellence, 29(2), 47-60. Bogardus, A. (2009). Leadership and Teamwork. London: Kogan Page Limited. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. & Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies. UK: University of Exeter. Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M. & Halpin, S. M. (2012). An Integrative Approach to Leader Development. New York: Free Press. Fairholm, M. R. (2008). A new sciences outline for leadership development. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 25(4), 369-383. González T.F. & Guillén M. (2010). Leadership ethical dimension: a requirement in TQM implementation. The TQM Magazine, 14(3), 150 – 164. Grandstaff, M. & Sorenson, G. (2009). Strategic Leadership: The General’s Art. Management Concepts. London: Routledge. Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. & Linsky, M. (2009). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harvard Business Review, 62-69. Holbach, L. (2009). HR Leadership. London: Sage Publication. Kibbe, M. R. (2015). Leadership Theories and Styles. In Leadership in Surgery ,pp. 49-57. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Leadership versus Management: A Key Distinction—At Least in Theory. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14, 1-4. Merrit, E. A. (2008). Strategic Leadership: Essential Concepts. London: Aventine Press. Mumford, M. D. & Connelly, M. S. (2008). Leaders as creators: Leader performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 289–315. Nohria, N. & Khurana, R. (2010). Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practise. Harvard: Harvard Business Press. Northhouse, P.G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and Practises. London: Sage. Stumpf, S. A. (2006). Applying new science theories in leadership development activities. Journal of Management, 14(5), 39-49. Wright, P. L. & Taylor, D. S. 2007. The Implications of a Skills Approach to Leadership. Journal of Management Development, 4(3), 15 – 28. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. NJ: Prentice Hall. Read More