Major Kinds of Leadership - Case Study Example

Introduction The modern business scenario is replete with leadership problems. With unprecedented recession, downturns and loss of confidence the leadership at both high and mid-level is facing a crisis of identity. The workforce needs direction but the direction givers themselves need re-orientation to offer it. Traditional Leadership unfortunately falls short and is unable to face current challenges. Traditional Leadership There are two extreme kinds of traditional leadership. The first is the one that rules by force of personal beliefs and is found in private industries. The other is the servant leadership that believes in collective effort and is usually found in public services run by bureaucrats. Traditionally the first kind of leadership has meant rule of diktat. The leader considers he is knowledgeable enough to lay down policy as well as the implementation process. This is not subject to questioning. Plain obedience is the order of the day. Under this system the subordinate is rewarded for compliance with the leader’s wishes (Doherty and Danylchuk, 1996). In such scenario the Leader prefers Experience over Training and believes that the latter is waste of time and resources. For him only passage of time and exposure to the rigours of work will provide the skills required for effective and efficient results. Normally such Leaders have themselves risen from the ranks in the same way and acting on the principle of “Homosocial Reproduction” – such people hire and promote those individuals who are similar to themselves (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). This attitude breeds what is called The Upper Echelon Perspective. Taking cue from the Leader the middle managers and top executives respond to situations based on their own interpretation and values (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). In such situations they compound the Leader’s ideas and ideologies and compose the interpretation of the circumstances through a mixture of their own experiences, personality type and personal beliefs that match with the Leader. The method is quite predictable. This involves their cognitive base, values, limited field of vision, selective perception, interpretation, managerial perception, and strategic choice (Hambrick, 2007). As a result this creates a sense of elitism surrounding leadership positions, and this serves the ego of the Leader. At the other end of the spectrum the Leader becomes very amenable, almost flexible to be able to get the work performed. Under this Servant Leadership the view is that the leader is not the only force that shapes an organisation (Greenleaf 1977). Under this concept the role of servant leader is to empower one’s employees as opposed to using their power to control the workers (Yukl 2006). They strongly believe in Team Approach (Gabrielsson, Huse, & Minichilli. 2007) and actively encourage it down the line. The system also recognizes the importance of a positive leader-follower connection as it relates to a more productive work environment and contentment (Northouse 2007). Invariably as a consequence the Leader listens to followers, showing empathy toward them, creates a peaceful, healing environment, community building, and growth (Spears 2004) In between the two there are several variations but they all fail miserably today as the present workforce is both more knowledgeable as well as diversified. Human Relation Issues Enhanced productivity is the need of the hour. Workers need to be motivated to achieve targets. The earlier intrinsic/extrinsic motivation is not enough as larger organisations need more efficiency. Multitasking has replaced de-skilling of the Taylorism or scientific management era. The knowledge worker is becoming vital to modern work patterns that extensively use IT enabled environments. The modern worker is multi-skilled, willing to change and looks for opportunities. His motivation is career enhancement as opposed to rewards. This is because he is more aware and better educated hence he is always looking to upgrade himself. In addition he is highly mobile and widely networked with similar workers across wide geographies. He is also willing to work odd hours. In a nutshell he holds attitudes to speak out to establish his identity as well as his aspirations in life (Perloff, 2003). By now it is now established that the most valuable asset of a company are the employees. This human capital is an equally important resource and only a Leader who can use this asset by inspiration and innovation will be successful today. He has to tackle the HR issues like high attrition which means high cost of replacements. Even training will not ensure loyalty. Therefore the current Leadership has to adopt new ways to retain and use this modern workforce in a productive manner. The traditional leadership is now totally redundant. The New Leadership In view of the current diversity at the workplace it has been commented that commitment by Leadership is necessary for the success of Diversity Initiatives (Gelfand et al., 2004; Wentling, 2004). After all Leadership is the vital part of management (Pardey 2007). It thus becomes clear that Leaders must also have the ability to deal with Transformations (Kotter 1999). There are several modern Leadership models that are in vogue and recommended for best results. Organisational Leadership The highlights of this model are open communication, sharing of intentions, listening and collaborating through making team decisions are typical leadership behaviour patterns (Jerry Porras and Susan Hoffer 1986). This is quite close to the Servant Leadership model but is quite mindful of hierarchy and retains is for control. Such Leaders also demonstrate discernible and unfailing support for the change programs and relate the change to business needs (Teresa Covin and Ralph Kilmann 1990) as they believe that for obtaining competitive advantage (Porter 1985) they must continue to evolve through change. Transformational Leadership Another more dynamic model is that of a Transformational Leader. He influences the sub-ordinate to do more than they were originally expected to do more by example than coercion. The four main characteristics of a such a Leader are ethical behaviour, sharing a vision and goals, improving performance through charismatic leadership and Leading by example (Armstrong 2001). These traits are differently described by Avolio et al (1991) as Individualized Consideration: The leader gives personal attention to others, making each person feel outstandingly valuedIndividual consideration Intellectual Stimulation: Encouraging a new look to old methods, inspiring creativity, encouraging others to look at problems and issues from a different angleIdealized influence Inspirational Motivation: By increases optimism and enthusiasm the leader communicates higher expectations and points out new possibilities Idealized Influence: The leader provides a vision and a meaningful role thereby gets respect, trust, and confidence from followers. Leaders with Guts Kevin and Jackie Freiberg have portrayed the leader as a person with Guts. They have analysed this to be the result of some exceptional qualities of those successful leaders who have said a go-by to conventional wisdom and pursued different methods to achieve their vision and goal. They have shown remarkable versatility and have produced startling but effective results and they have managed to make their organisations role models of excellence. Amongst the outstanding qualities mentioned by the authors are that Gutsy Leaders have a firm conviction of their belief. But this does not make them arrogant. Their flexibility is not a show of weakness and their ability to accept opinions of smarter people is a fine example of their humbleness. They are capable of overriding the opposition while they have the guts to admit their mistake and to make remedies. The leader described by the authors is an individual who believes in confiding with his subordinates to earn their loyalty and offers recognition of their performance as the paradigm of their deep commitment to the organisation’s, and the leader’s, cause. He will encourage the employees to take pride of ownership of the result of their efforts to sustain their motivation. He aspires to build an organisation that offers hope, love, service, freedom, communication, fun, and trust. He believes that these are the fundamentals to build great and sustainable organisations. He is steadfast in his belief that this is the way to attract the best talent for his company. More than anything else, the Gutsy leader believes that it is “love” that binds the organisation together. For him it is of supreme importance to offer his subordinates a worthwhile cause to work for which makes them proud of doing what they are required to do. Conclusions Traditional Leadership is no longer applicable due mainly to the fact that the modern workforce is more knowledgeable, diversified and looking for upgrading itself rather than a better pay packet. Since their outlook has changed, the Leaders need to change their ways too if they wish to make their organizations competitive and successful. The ingredients of successful business are coordination, commitment and competencies. Coordination is the key to improving the organisation. Commitment is the key to concerted effort to achieve the vision that magnifies the desired improvement. Competencies are the skills that are required to bring about the change. A transformational leader is able to use his influence and charisma to promote these elements and the followers and subordinates respond by raising their standards to new levels. Bibliography Armstrong, S. (2001). Are you a "transformational" coach? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 72(3), 44-47. Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four Is of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9-16. Covin T.J.and Kilmann, R.H. "Participant Perceptions of Positive and Negative Influences on Large-Scale Change," Group and Organization Studies, 15 (1990): 233-248Doherty and Danylchuk, 1996 Doherty, A. J., & Danylchuk, K.E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership in interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(3), 292-309. Gabrielsson, J., Huse, M., & Minichilli, A. (2007). Understanding the leadership role of the board chairperson through a team production approach. The International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 22-39. Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H., Raver, J.L., & Schneider, B. (2004). Discrimination in organizations: An organizational-level systems perspective. In R.L. Dipboye and A. Colella (Eds.), Freiberg, Kevin and Jackie., (2005), GUTS! Companies that blow the doors off business-as-usual, Doubleday. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hambrick, D. (2007). Upper echelon theory: revisited. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), -343. Hambrick, D., Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. Kotter, John, P., (1999), What Leaders Really Do, Harvard Business School Press. Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Pardey, D. (2007). Introducing Leadership. 1st ed. United Kingdom: Elsevier Perloff, R. M. (2003). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Porras J.I. and Hoffer, S.J.,"Common Behavior Changes in Successful Organization Development Efforts," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22 (1986): 477-494. Porter, M.E., (1985), Competitive Advantage, Free Press New York. Ragins, B.R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51-88. Spears, L. (2004). Practicing servant leadership. Leader to Leader, Fall, 7-11. Venkataraman, S. (2002) Stakeholder value equilibration and the entrepreneurial process Wentling, R.M. (2004). Factors that assist and barriers that hinder the success of diversity initiatives in multinational corporations. Human Resource Development International, 7(2), 165. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Read More