Effective Leadership in an Organisation - Literature review Example

Effective Leadership in an Organisation Introduction to leadership Organisational theorists hold the argument that effective leadership largely contributes towards organisational success. The quality of leadership would be responsible for the creation and maintenance of a successful organisation (Leigh, Shapiro & Penney 2010; Pearce, Locke & Conger 2007), therefore the need to critically analyse the effectiveness of organisational leaders in the execution of their mandates. To effectively analyse leadership, it would be critical to decipher its meaning. There has been no standard definition of leadership with Northouse observing that “there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it” (2004, p.2). The author perceives leadership from a social influence perspective referring to it as a process through which one influences a group of persons, referred to as followers, so as to attain common goals. Keller (2008) defines it as a critical dynamic force which motivates and coordinates an organisation towards accomplishing its objectives. The scholar views it as less of a science but as more of an art which influences by persuasion or example to induce a desired action. Whereas in an organisational setting the term subordinates would be used in place of followers, the term followers indicates that a leader could hold any position or role with bureaucracy not necessarily being implied (Zaccaro & Klimoski 2007). Organisational leadership in particular refers to the management’s ability to acquire and protect the organisation’s benefits by being sensitive to the needs of employees and the targets of the company, bringing them together in a better environment so as to realise common goals (Abbas & Asghar 2010; Sosik, Kahai & Piovoso 2009). Nonetheless, leadership should not be used interchangeably with management. Adopting Kotter’s approach, Packard (2009) and Shapiro and Leigh (2007) noted that management would produce order, consistency and predictability with regard to key results including budgeting, planning, staffing, organizing, problem solving and controlling. On the other hand, leadership would yield change and would encompass establishment of direction through development of a vision, aligning people to the vision and strategies and inspiring and motivating the staff. Leadership encompasses visioning, management of change, development of strategy, organisation design, management of culture and community collaboration as contrasted to management which includes financial management, program design, human resource management, information systems, project management and program evaluation (Boal & Schulz 2007; Empson 2007; Gill 2006; LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu & Saul 2008). For management functions to be executed effectively, leadership would be a key ingredient. Effective leadership According to Keller (2008) and Pearce, Locke and Conger (2007), effective leadership would entail the development of clear objectives, strategies and beliefs and identification of crucial processes and encouraging participation of employees. But various scholars (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber 2009; DiLiello & Houghton 2006; Yukl 2006) have argued against a particular leadership style considered as effective. Even so, various building blocks to the realisation of effective leadership have been widely accepted. Image management Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber (2009) and Chong and Wolf (2010) appreciate image management for establishment of credibility, borrowing from leadership as a social influence process described by Packard (2009). For leadership to cause any influence, the followers should accept the leader’s persuasion and appropriately respond to it. Followers would be the ones to make the decision as to whether one deserves the leadership status through comparison of the image or characteristics presented by the leader against their assumption of what constitutes a leader. This postulation has been supported by Gregersen and Dyer (2012) who note that the behaviour of leaders matter in the ultimate performance of an organisation which measures their effectiveness. Zaccaro and Klimoski (2007) observe two characteristics that would be critical in these expectations: trustworthiness and task-relevant competence. Indeed, this observation has been supported by the leadership styles theories which Packard (2009) describe as holding the notion that some behaviours cause leaders to be more effective than others with these behaviours having the ability of improvement or learning. Researchers from the University of Michigan and Ohio State University contrasted task behaviours like directing, providing group structure and focus on production to relationship behaviours emphasizing on respect, trust, employee orientation and developing good relationship with the relevant team. During the early leader-follower relationship stages, judgement would be purely on impression and image, but with time, this would shift to experience (Chong & Wolf 2010). Nonetheless, there are researchers who oppose this postulate. Yukl (2006) concludes from an analysis of previous studies researchers sought to give simple answers to complex questions in the quest to coming up with a universal leadership theory that would explain the effectiveness of leadership in all situations. Most of the research studies thus tended to be inconclusive though generally, these studies implied the employment of a behavioural pattern used by effective leaders in a particular situation, reflecting a high concern for relationships and task objectives. One of the contingency theories, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model which argues on the effectiveness of leadership being based on a situation, distinguishes between a leader’s task and relationship behaviours (Pareek 2006). Varying combinations of the two could result in desired results based on the follower’s readiness (Ensley, Hmieleski & Pearce 2006). Therefore, an effective leader should adapt to the readiness of the followers. With followers low in readiness with regard to the tasks, high level of task behaviour or structure should be employed with low level relationship behaviour. With the maturity of the followers, it would be important to keep up with task behaviours while adding relationship behaviours like emotional support and facilitation (Pearce, Locke & Conger 2007). Connell, Cross and Parry (2011) introduce the modern leadership theories noting that charismatic leaders encompass the strong role models exuding confidence and competence, those articulating the vision and communicate high expectations. They would thrive in trust and could cause followers to be inspired towards a new vision through risk taking and self sacrifice. However, Pareek (2006) warns against the risk of overdependence of followers on a charismatic leader. As such, effective leaders need not necessarily be strongly charismatic in the sense of traditionally being viewed as heroes like Lee Iacocca at Chrysler (Baroutas 2011). In fact, the researcher found out that effective leadership would comprise a blend of humility and determination to succeed, appreciating that charisma could be a liability as much as it could be an asset. The challenge in this would therefore be to demonstrate the desired characteristics without exhibiting excess personal presence that emphasizes more on an individual than the organisation. Relationship development The second element constituting effective leadership would be relationship development to build capacity. The key leadership function would be to build a motivated team through guidance and coaching. This would call for the leader to understand the needs and goals of followers, overcoming ego-defensiveness and creating a just and fair atmosphere (Martí, Gil & Barrasa 2009). The relationship building approach to effective leadership would be properly articulated by the transactional and transformational leadership model. According to Bass and Avolio (2006), transactional leadership would entail the leader and follower agreeing on undertaking activities that would accommodate the needs of them both. The transactional leader would identify the workers’ motivators and provide the support needed to ensure effective performance, referred to as contingent rewards. Similarly, management by exception in this aspect perceives the minimal need for supervision. But according to Yun, Cox, and Sims (2007) and Zaccaro and Klimoski (2007), effective leadership would not be based on transactional leadership styles in its entirety but would also include transformational leadership approaches which encompass inspirational motivation, idealised influence, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation. Transformational leadership would involve the leader transforming and motivating the followers through articulating the significance of task outcomes, inducing them to go beyond self interest to work for the organisation’s interest and activating the followers’ higher-order needs (Song, Kolb, Lee & Kim 2012; Yukl 2006). Through idealised influence, a leader would display conviction, take a stand in controversies, emphasize trust and emphasize on the importance of commitment, purpose and ethical consequences of making certain decisions which causes the followers to emulate these leaders and perceive them as having determination and extraordinary capabilities. Connell, Cross and Parry (2011) support this as the modern form of leadership which unlike transactional leadership that would merely involve the management of existing objectives effectively refers to the vision of change and the management of this change. It would be critical in this aspect to consider the servant-leadership model developed by Robert Greenfield based on moral, ethical and philosophical principles, presenting the idea that a leader should serve the followers first. This model bases its argument on the leader-member exchange theory which according to Gill (2006) and Marcketti and Kozar (2007) emphasizes on the relationship existing between the leader and the follower with both parties working towards the achievement of effective relationship of interactions and roles. An effective leadership would be realised in an environment that allows for personal compatibility between these two parties involved. Analysing various studies, Packard (2009) identified the effectiveness in Hispanic leaders comparable to their Euro-American counterparts based on the consideration of leader-subordinate match as such participative approaches cause greater satisfaction. Even so, there have been effective leaders who chose not to follow the participative approaches. Instead, autocratic approaches were employed. Berglund (2007) cites examples of these leaders who include Idi Amin, Caligula and Adolf Hitler. In as much as these leaders succeeded in influencing their followers as intended, Cheung (2012) notes that such leaders have a combination of various personality disorders including sadism, paranoia and narcissism. Such persons would be more interested in satisfying their interests even if at the expense of those of the followers. As such, in as much as the leader gets the followers to do as the leader so wishes, the followers remain unsatisfied hence an ineffective leadership. This borrows from the Vroom and Yetton decision model, a contingency theory that among other factors acknowledges the importance of subordinates or followers accepting the decisions made by leaders (Burke & Cooper 2006; Sheard, Kakabadse, AP & Kakabadse, NK 2011), resulting in what Gupta, Huang and Niranjan (2010) refer to as cohesion. Comparing Adolf Hitler, an autocratic leader, to Nelson Mandela, a participative leader, Le (2011) refers back this difference in leadership to behaviour and attitudes, with Hitler exhibiting task-oriented behaviour as opposed to Mandela who exhibited relationship-oriented behaviour. Interestingly, Packard (2009) observed from studying various studies that women leaders tend to be less autocratic, but it remains unclear whether this translates to them being more effective leaders than their male counterparts. Resource deployment Finally, resource deployment, entailing mobilisation of capacity to accomplish the mission would follow after building a skilled and motivated team. This would be achieved by first maintaining attention and energy through high leadership levels and collective efficacy. Secondly, the nature of the deployment strategies should match the nature of environment of the organisation (Gul & Alican 2008; Marcketti & Kozar 2007). In the modern organisational set-up, effective leadership would entail placing eminence on human resources due to their importance in accomplishing productivity and organisational goals (McLellan 2009; Yun, Cox, & Sims 2007). Systems and processes would only be effective with the employment of effective leadership. In the 21st Century, intellectual capital emerged as a key resource for organisations and includes customer capital, structural capital and human capital. Connell, Cross and Parry (2011) and Johnson and Cooper (2009) observe that the ability of an organisation to acquire, utilise and share its knowledge would largely determine its competitive advantage. It is the role of leaders to influence this resource with effective leaders giving high priority to market knowledge and ensure that followers share in the vision of the organisation. Packard (2009), while describing the intellectual stimulation model of leadership notes that effective leadership would encompass encouraging followers to be innovative and creative. This contributes towards the intellectual capacity of the organisation hence ensuring its success. Martí, Gil & Barrasa (2009) and Snowden and Boone (2007) suggest that this would call for leadership that would question old beliefs, traditions and assumptions so as to stimulate new perspectives to express new ideas. Such leadership has been exhibited by the founder of Apple, Steve Jobs. According to Gregsen and Dyer, “leaders of innovative companies consciously set the example by modelling innovation behaviours” (2012). This innovativeness exhibited by Steve Jobs’ leadership saw Apple regain its premium jump from below zero to 50% in 1997 with the re-entry of Jobs (Gesell 2010; Isaacson 2012). A similar success in Amazon also has been attributed to its innovative oriented leader, Jeff Bezos. In modern organisations, DiLiello and Houghton (2006) propose the adoption of self leadership where each individual in the organisation strives to be innovative and creative. Conclusion With leadership being a widely debated topic in psychology and management studies, the effectiveness of leadership remains elusive. But from this study, it would be noted that organisational leadership would encompass a combination of social, political and cognitive processes to influence the followers and be considered as effective. Key among the constituents of effective leadership includes image management, resource deployment and relationship development. The success in each of these would vary from participative to autocratic leadership styles. In fact, there exists no leadership style that would be referred to as effective as this remains contextually defined. Hence, just like previous research studies on leadership, mapping of effective leadership remains elusive. References Abbas, W & Asghar, I 2010, The role of leadership in organisational change: relating the successful organisational change to visionary and innovative leadership, thesis, Gavle, Sweden, University of Gavle. Avolio, BJ, Walumbwa, FO & Weber, TJ 2009, ‘Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 60, pp. 421-449. Baroutas, S 2011, Leadership today: guideline for today’s effective leaders, Xlibris Corporation, USA. Bass, B & Avolio, B 2006. Transformational leadership, 2nd edn, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Berglund, H 2007, ‘Risk conception and risk management in corporate innovation’, International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 497–513. Boal, KB & Schulz, PL 2007, ‘Storytelling, time, and evolution: the role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 18, pp. 411-428. Burke, R & Cooper, C 2006, The new world of work and organizations: implications for human resource management, Human Resource Management Review, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 83-85 Cheung, H 2012, May 14, The dictator: why do autocrats do strange things? BBC News Magazine, viewed 15 January 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17990615 Chong, E & Wolf, H 2010, ‘Factors influencing followers’ perception of organisational leaders’, Leadership & Organisational Development Journal, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 402 – 419. Connell, J, Cross, B & Parry, K 2011, ‘Leadership in the 21st century: where is it leading us?’ International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 139 – 149. DiLiello, TC & Houghton, JD 2006, ‘Maximising organisational leadership capacity for the future: toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 391 – 337. Dive, B 2008, The accountable leader: developing effective leadership through managerial accountability, Kogan Page Ltd, London, UK. Empson, L 2007, Managing the modern law firm: new challenges, new perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ensley, MD, Hmieleski, KM & Pearce, CL 2006, ‘The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: implications for the performance of start-ups’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 17, pp. 217-231. Gesell, I 2010, ‘Agile Leadership: Innovative Approaches to Leading in Uncertain Times’, Leadership and Legislative Conference, Washington, D.C. Gill, R 2006, Theory and practice of leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Gregersen, H & Dyer, J 2012, ‘How innovative leaders maintain their edge’, Forbes, 9 May, viewed 15 January 2013, www.forbes.com Gul, H & Alican, A 2008, ‘Leadership and organisational culture in a changing environment: a generic approach’, Journal of Global Strategic Management, vol. 3pp. 90 – 104. Gupta, VK, Huang, R & Niranjan, S 2010, ‘A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leadership and performance’, Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 335 – 350. Isaacson, W 2012, ‘The real leadership lessons of Steve Jobs’, Harvard Business Review, viewed 15 January 2013 http://hbr.org Johnson, NA & Cooper, RB 2009, ‘Power and concession in computer-mediated negotiations: An examination of first offers’, MIS Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 147-170. Keller, AC 2008, What is effective leadership? – Managing people in organisations, Seminar Paper. Le, T 2011, ‘Leadership style: Nelson Mandela vs Adolf Hitler’, 5 June, viewed 15 January 2013 http://www.articlecell.com/Article/Leadership-Style--Nelson-Mandela-Vs-Adolf-Hitler/1120462 Leigh, JM, Shapiro, ER & Penney, SH 2010, ‘Developing diverse, collaborative leaders: an empirical program evaluation’, Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 370 – 379. LePine, JA, Piccolo, RF, Jackson, CL, Mathieu, JE & Saul, JR 2008, ‘A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationship with team effectiveness criteria’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 273-307. Marcketti, SB & Kozar, JM 2007, ‘Leading with relationships: a small firm example’, The Learning Organization, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 142-154. Martí, M, Gil, F & Barrasa, A 2009, ‘Organisational leadership: motives and behaviours of leaders in current organisations’, The Spanish Journal of Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 267 – 274. McLellan, A 2009, ‘Andrew Frankel on challenges in organisational leadership’, Health Servive Journal, January 20, viewed 16 January 2013 www.hsj.co.uk Northouse, P 2004, Leadership: theory and practice, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Packard, T 2009, ‘Leadership and performance in human services organisations’, in The handbook of human services management, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 143 - 164. Pareek, U 2006, Organisational leadership and power, The ICFAI University Press, Punjagutta, India. Pearce, CL, Locke, EA & Conger, JA 2007, ‘Shared leadership theory’, Leadership Quarterly, vol. 18, pp. 281-288. Shapiro, E & Leigh, JM 2007, ‘Toward culturally competent, gender-equitable leadership: assessing outcomes of women’s leadership in diverse contexts’, in JL Chin, B Lott, J Rice & J Sanchez-Hucles (eds.), Transforming leadership: Diverse visions and women’s voices, Palgrave, New York, pp. 88-105. Sheard, G, Kakabadse, AP, Kakabadse, NK 2011, ‘Organisational politics: reconciling leadership rational-emotional paradox’, Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 78 – 97. Snowden, D & Boone, ME 2007, ‘A leader’s framework for decision making’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 68-76. Song, JH, Kolb, JA, Lee, UH & Kim, HK 2012, ‘Role of transformational leadership in effective organisational knowledge creation practices: mediating effects of employees’ work engagement’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 65 – 101. Sosik, JJ, Kahai, SS & Piovoso, MJ 2009, ‘Silver bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organization research’, Group Organization Management, vol. 34, pp. 5-36. Yukl, G 2006, Leadership in organizations, 6th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Yun, S, Cox, J & Sims, HP 2007, ‘Leadership and teamwork: the effects of leadership and job satisfaction on team citizenship’, International Journal of Leadership Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 171 – 193. Zaccaro, SJ & Klimoski, RJ 2007, ‘The nature of organisational leadership: an introduction’, in Organisational behaviour: from theory to practice, M. E. Sharpe Inc., New York, NY. Read More