How Situational Leadership can Help Raise Organization's Performance - Essay Example

Introduction Leadership within organizations is one of the key concepts and ideas which have been extensively debated over the period of time. As thetheories on organizational behavior evolved, so do the leadership and its associated concepts became more important. Over the period of time, there have been different attempts to define leadership and its overall impact on the organization. There has been extensive research on understanding the relationship between the organizational performance as well as the style of leadership. Different authors have attempted to link specific leadership styles with the way an organization performs when a particular set of leadership style is in place. Situational leadership is one such concept outlining that there is no single best concept or style of leadership. The best leadership therefore is task related and therefore the most successful leadership is the one which can easily adapt its style to the level of maturity. Robbins et.al outline that the overall performance of the leader as well as the organization critically depends upon the nature of the relationships between the followers and the leaders. Under situational leadership, the overall organizational effectiveness as well as the performance largely depends upon what followers do and how they do it. The overall organizational performance under the situational leadership therefore largely depends upon the notion of the task as well as the supportive behavior from the followers. This paper will therefore discuss as to how the situational leadership can actually allow an organization to perform better and how it can raise the performance standards of the organization. Leadership Defined Over the period of time, it has been unanimously agreed by almost all the academics and researchers that leadership is probably the single most important factor in the success and failure of an organization. One of the lasting impressions of the successful leaders is that the environment and culture set by the leaders remain after they depart. Such a lasting influence and impact on the way leaders impact the organizations and societies therefore deserve special attention in carefully defining the overall concept of leadership. (Boaden, 2006) According to Robbins et.al there are different explanations and definitions of leadership which have evolved over the period of time. It is however, critical to note that the different authors have disagreed on the use of formal as well as informal influence as an integral part of the overall leadership concept. (Robbins, Millett, & Waters-Marsh, 1998) According to Robbins et.al the leadership is the ability to influence others in order to achieve common goals which can contribute towards any worthwhile goal. (Robbins, Millett, R, & Waters-Marsh, 1998) This definition therefore outlines some important ideas regarding leadership besides indicating the parameters within which leadership as a concept can be assessed. Robbins et.al have also clearly separated the use of force and use of influence as two different aspects and it has been argued that the leaders do not force others to do something but rather they influence them to achieve a common goal. Apart from achievement of common goals, leaders are also expected to give a shared vision as well as a worthwhile purpose. Situational Leadership Situational leadership is a relatively new concept developed two different authors during 1970s and 1980s. Developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, the theories of situational leadership are considered as one of the most important contributions towards the field of leadership and its impact on the organizations. Both the authors have developed their own set of theories and models based on the situational leadership concepts. The basic or core idea behind the concept of situational leadership is based on the idea that there is no preferred style of leadership whereas the effectiveness of a leader can be judged only by the ability of the leader to adapt to maturity. The leaders therefore are considered as essentially the one who set high achievable goals while at the same time take responsibility related with the task along with the education and experience of the group which works under the leader. (Hersey, 1985) The above explanation also indicates that the leadership does not necessarily should be arising at the top management level but it can be experienced at the lower and middle level of the management too. Further, it also suggests that in order to become effective, it is important for a leader to ensure that his or her relationships with the followers are really good. (Mulec, 2006) The success and failure of a situation leader therefore largely depends upon the ability of the followers to perform exceptionally well to fulfill the common goals. Accordingly, the nature of the leadership therefore varies from a situation to situation and according to the task and related environment. (J.R. Nicholls, 1985) Under the two different models of situational leadership, there are four key leadership styles which have been devised according to the task and relationship behavior of the leader with the followers. These four styles of leaderships are categorized into behaviors of telling, selling, participating and delegating. Under the S1 style of telling, there is a one way communication in which leader determines the roles and responsibilities of the followers besides providing assistance in terms of how and why to perform a particular task. In the second style, S2 Selling, though a leader still provides the support but he also initiate a two process in which besides providing socioemotional support, leader also attempts to influence the followers to buy the process and provide their input in completing a task. Under the third style of leadership, S3 Participation, the decision making takes place jointly and through participation. The leader and the followers become actively engaged in the overall decision making process. In this style of leadership, the task behavior is less dominating whereas the relationship behavior is more dominating. This therefore also serves as one of the key motivators for the followers to perform and improve the overall organizational performance. In the last style of leadership, S4, delegating, though the leader still involves himself in the process however, the overall responsibility has been passed on to the individuals or groups. The leader’s role remains for the purpose of monitoring. For example, in an organizational like Google decision making and business processes are delegated to the employees. The current leadership structure of the Google suggests that the Google has allowed its employees to bring up new projects and must give certain time of their day to day work to their own individual projects. This has been done intentionally to ensure that organizational performance is correlated with the delegation of powers. The nature of leadership therefore changes as the situation and environment changes. Associated with this concept is also the concept of the maturity levels as the overall effectiveness of the leadership largely depends upon the maturity levels of the followers. Accordingly, four different corresponding levels of maturity have been identified to outline the critical relationship between the leaders and the follower and how the interaction of both can be effective. At M1 level of maturity, the followers are unskilled and fail to take responsibility for the tasks at hand. At this level of task- relationship behavior, leaders often have to inform the followers as to how to perform specific tasks. Such type of situation can therefore occur in organizations which are too complacent and refuse to learn or change according to their external environment. Most of the public sector organizations may be experiencing M1 level of maturity because employees working in such organizations seldom take any interest or responsibility in accomplishing any task. At this level of relationship between the leaders and the followers, organizational performance largely remains reliant on the ability and skill of the leader.1 The subsequent levels of maturity suggest that the overall level of skills and maturity of the followers increase therefore the overall relationship between the leader and the follower improves too. Organizational Performance and Situational Leadership It has been argued that today’s leaders are managing their organizations at the speed of change. Such complexity and fluid nature of the competition therefore has necessitated that the leaders must come out of their traditional roles and accomplish tasks which can help them to propel their organization in future. This will also require a complete support from the followers of the leaders too. When Steve Jobs rejoined Apple, it was a failing organization with relatively no future however; the vision and direction set by Jobs to take advantage of the situation created due to failure of Apple provided a new direction to the company. This shift in the organizational performance of Apple could only be achieved due to improved relationships between Jobs as a leader and the employees of Apple as followers. It is argued that the total leaders are visionaries and have a set purpose to follow besides showing an openness to change. When a leader under situational leadership condition combines his style of delegation it allows employees to basically consider themselves as a part of the change. It is critical however; that leaders must also be open them to the change. By recognizing the challenges, a situational leader therefore can motivate the employees through task and relationship related behaviors to improve their productivity and performance. (Schwahn & Spady, 1998) One particular study related with the Australian managers suggested that the situational leadership is considered as simple and easy to adapt. Most of the managers were aware of the developmental roles of their followers however, most of the Australian managers preferred to have the supportive styles of situational leadership rather than involving themselves in all four. This suggest that the Australian managers tend to be supportive and do not like to be directed or directive. (Avery & Ryan, 2002). In order to improve the performance of the organization, it is therefore critically important that the actions and performance of the followers is relatively higher and improved. To improve the organizational performance, it is therefore critical that the performance of the followers is increased. This could only be achieved when different styles of the leadership are combined with the right level of maturity of the followers. The leaders therefore have to critically understand the level of maturity of the followers before taking on changes to improve the overall performance of the organization. It is also critical to understand in order to improve the performance of the organization, a leader must have the ability to assess the competence as well as motivation level of the employees. Since the overall performance of the organization depends upon the performance of the followers, it is therefore critical that the leaders must develop the ability to critically assess the performance and motivation level of the followers. (Hersey, Blanchard , & Johnson, 2000) If a leader is directive in nature and enjoys giving too many orders, this type of style can significantly affect the performance of the followers. When a leader directly involves himself into the day to day affairs of the organization, it can directly have an impact on how followers perform. However, as the leader as well as the followers improves on their styles and behaviors the overall performance tend to increase. In an environment which is supportive as well as less directive in nature, the followers tend to perform better and as such the overall organizational performance improves. The task and environment behaviors therefore play key role in achieving the desired level of organizational performance. Empirical Evidence and Situational Leadership Despite the intuitive superiority of this style of leadership, there is a very little empirical evidence regarding the overall effectiveness of the situational leadership in improving the organizational performance. The lack of the empirical support therefore makes it relatively skeptical approach towards the subject of leadership. It is also however, critical to note that the intuitive feel as well as the ease with which this form of leadership can be adapted suggests that the organizational performance can be improved by improving the task and environment related behaviors. The leaders must have to ensure that they match their skills and abilities according to the overall level of maturity of the followers. Understanding the level of motivation of the followers as well as their competency therefore can serve as two of the important factors which can provide the necessary stimulus for achieving the desired level of performance. The organizational performance under the situational leadership concepts therefore can only be improved if the leadership style is adapted to a particular situation. (Papworth, Milne, & Boak, 2009) Conclusion Leadership is one of the extensively debated concepts in the field of management sciences as it is believed that the leadership is the single most important factor to determine the fate of an organization. The overall success as well as failure of an organization therefore largely depend upon how the leadership behaves and act within an organization. Situational leadership is a relatively new concept outlining that there are no fixed or rigid styles of leadership which can be utilized to achieve the organizational efficiency. Rather the leadership style under the situational leadership must take into consideration the overall maturity level of the followers. The improvements in the organizational performance can only be achieved if the followers are competent and motivated. Higher the level of support from the leader, better the followers will be able to perform and higher will be the organizational performance. The key to achieve the improved performance rests largely upon the ability of the leader to ensure that he or she creates an environment which is supportive and allow followers to become accountable to their work. By increasing their participation in the day to day affairs as well as in the decision making process, leaders will be able to establish clear and definite criteria to achieve the desired level of organizational performance. Bibliography Avery, G. C., & Ryan, J. (2002). Applying situational leadership in Australia. Journal of Management Development,, 21(4), 242 - 262. Boaden, R. J. (2006). Leadership development: does it make a difference? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(1), 5-27. Hersey, P., Blanchard , K., & Johnson, D. (2000). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources (8th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. J.R. Nicholls. (1985). A New Approach to Situational Leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 6(4), 2-7. Mulec, K. (2006). Positive Professional Leaders: aspects to consider in leadership development. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 27(1), 66-81. P, H. (1985). The situational leader. New York: Warner Books. Papworth, M. A., Milne, D., & Boak, G. (2009). An exploratory content analysis of situational leadership. Journal of Management Development, 28(7), 593 - 606. Robbins, S., Millett, B., R, C., & Waters-Marsh, T. (1998). Leadership in Organizational Behavior: Leading and Managing in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: Prentice Hall. Schwahn, C., & Spady, W. (1998). Total Leaders:Applying the Best Future Focused change strategies to Education. Arlington VA: American Association of School Administrators. Read More