Leadership Styles in my Organization - Assignment Example

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 SECTION II. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................ 3 Definition of Leadership in organizations ................................................................................. 3 Development of Leadership Theory and Research ................................................................... 4 SECTION III. ANALYSIS OF A MODERN ORGANISATION....................................................... 7 The Leadership Styles Approach ............................................................................................. 7 Autocratic leadership .................................................................................................... 7 Human Relation Leadership ........................................................................................ 9 Democratic leadership ................................................................................................ 10 A military organization .............................................................................................. 11 Recommended improvements ………………………………………………........... 16 SECTION IV. ANALYSIS OF YOURSELF AND THE PRODUCTION OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN....................................................................................................................................................... 17 SECTION V. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... 18 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 19 INTRODUCTION This paper will examine the autocratic leadership which is mainly the style in military organizations and identify the style of leadership within the organization. It will also analyze the themes and theories of this leadership style comparing and contrasting these styles then evaluate and make recommendations. In this paper, I will also seek to use the same themes to analyse myself, identifying the gaps and developing a plan to fill in those gaps. LITERATURE REVIEW Definition of Leadership in organizations Leadership is defined by researcher Stogdill as the process or act of influencing the activities of an organized group on its effects towards goal seeking and goal achievement (Stogdill, 1950). Three elements namely influence, group and goal can be discerned in this definition. For starters, leadership is a process of influencing where the leader has an impact on others by persuading them to believe in a certain way. Secondly, the influence process is seen as taking place in a group context where the group members are always taken to be the subordinates though this is not obligatory. Nonetheless, leadership does not necessarily have to come from the person in charge. Being a process of influence, leadership can come from anyone in the group. Thirdly, a leader does influence the behaviour of group members in the direction of goals with which the group faces. Effective leadership, which is the foundation of leadership theory and research, is that which accomplishes the group’s goals. This definition of a leader best applies to theory and research conducted in the mid eighties. Later definitions tend to dwell on the leader as a manager of meaning (Smircich & Morgan, 1982). Similarly, Pfeffer (1981) writes about leadership as a symbolic action meaning that leaders engage in making sense on behalf of others and develop a social consensus around the resulting meanings. Both cases view leadership as a process whereby the leader identifies for the subordinates a sense of what is vital which entails defining organizational reality to others. The leader gives a sense of direction and purpose through articulating a compelling worldview. The terms manager of meaning and symbolic leadership draw attention to the defining characteristics of true leadership as the promotion of values that present shared meanings about the nature of the organization. With time, the process of leadership has become more of a social as well as a psychological process of influence. More effort has been put in determining the nature of leadership processes that are manifest in organizational settings. Development of Leadership Theory and Research The history of leadership research can be divided into several stages, which this paper examines. Each of these approaches to the study of leadership is associated with a particular period. The Trait approach governed the late 1940s; the Style approach was there in the late 1960s; the Contingency approach was from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, and the new Leadership approach was the main influence on leadership research from the early 1980s. The post-charismatic and post-transformational leadership approaches emerged through the late 1990s. Every one of these stages indicated a change of emphasis rather than the end of previous approaches. Transformational leadership research for instance is still extremely much active in the 2000s. The crucial thing is that each of the time periods was associated with a change of immense importance. The trait approach attempted to determine the personal qualities and characteristics of leaders. It was based on the belief that leaders are born rather than made, holding the view that nature is more valuable than nurture. Research was concerned with the qualities differentiating leaders from non-leaders. The simplicity of the trait theory reduced enticement for scholars and from the 1940s, a more persuasive trend shifted to the scrutinizing of leadership style. A re-adjustment in thinking about leadership trait and a review of research linked with the approach have resulted in a rebirth for the approach in recent years (House & Aditya, 1997). The Style approach indicated a change of focus from the personal characteristics of leaders to their behaviour as leaders. It signified an alteration in the implications of leadership research. The trait approach drew attention to the kinds of people who became leaders and in the process had great potential for providing organizations with information about what should be considered when picking individuals for current or future leadership positions. Since the behaviour of a leader can be changed, the focus on their behaviour emphasised training rather than selecting leaders. Inspite of the number of examples of the style approach, the best known is the investigations by a group of researchers at the Ohio State University mainly featuring Stogdill. They generated several studies and the concepts and methods they used were widely utilized beyond their confines, an influence that was felt through the 1990s. The main components of leader behaviour that the Ohio State researchers focused on were referred to as Consideration and Initiating structure. In the consideration leadership style the leaders are concerned about their subordinates as people, they are trusted by subordinates, are responsive to them and promote friendship. Initiative structure was a style in which the leader defined closely and clearly what subordinates were supposed to do, how to do it and scheduled work for them. Later research suggested that high levels of both consideration and initiative structures were the best leadership styles. Consideration is similar to other terms like concern for production, centred leadership, directive and task oriented leadership. The contingency approach placed situational factors as the centre of any understanding of leadership. It tried to detail the situational variable that would moderate the effectiveness of different leadership approaches. This development corresponded with the departure from universal theories of organization in the 1960s and the steady adoption of more meticulous structures which reproduced it-all-depends style of thinking (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness was considered the best known example of contingency thinking (Fiedler, 1967, 1993. Fiedler & Garcia, 1987) Fiedler’s approach underwent various revisions and changed with time. The approach had a measurement instrument known as the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale, which measured the leadership orientation of the person completing it. If the person’s orientation was relationship oriented, he or she was mainly concerned with fostering good relationships with subordinates and he or she was seen as considerate. If task motivated, then they were preoccupied with task accomplishment. For Fiedler, relationship and task motivation were personality attributes, a concept which tied his work with the trait approach. His work began a trend that lasted through the 1990s in which organization leadership was seen as a psychological process than a social process. Using results from numerous studies conducted in diverse work or non-work settings, Fielder found that the effectiveness of relationships and task motivated leaders varied according to how favourable the situation was to the leader. This idea of situational favourableness was been termed as situational control and had three components; leader member relations, task structure and positive power. His accumulated evidence led him to propose that task oriented leaders were most effective in high and low control situations, and that relationship oriented leaders performed best in moderate control situations. The pragmatic implications of his work were that while a person’s personality was not always subject to change, it was essential to change the work situation to fit the leader rather than the other way round. ANALYSIS OF A MODERN ORGANISATION The Leadership Styles Approach Most authorities on organizational leadership have the same opinion that the major theories of leadership are traits, leadership style and contingency theories. The leadership style and contingency theories are the ones dominating the present day literature on leadership while the trait theory has been dismissed due to the theoretical, methodological and practical problems involved in trying to identify and support a consistent list of traits. Research studies stimulated substantial interest in leadership theories and many new theories were offered. From these studies, it was noted that most of the leadership theories had two things in common. They recognized two basic dimensions of leadership and the result were four basic leadership styles. They are Autocratic leadership, Laissez Faire leadership, Human Relation leadership and Democratic leadership. Leadership styles approach can be identified by their style, characteristics, an implicit leadership philosophy, and a set of management skills typical of each style. Autocratic leadership Autocratic leadership is where the leader retains as much power and decision making authority as possible. This leadership does not consult the members of staff neither are they allowed to give any input. Members of staff are expected to obey orders without receiving any explanation. It is structured in such a way that there are set rewards and punishment. The autocratic leader places high emphasis on performance and low emphasis on people. It assumes that people are lazy, irresponsible, untrustworthy, and undependable, dislike work, resist responsibility, work primarily for money, and prefer to be led. It assumes that the role of a leader is to run a tight ship by planning, organizing, controlling the efforts of others. It believes that the leader’s job is to plan and establish objectives. In Autocratic leadership, a formal centralized structure is used with carefully defines rules and procedures. Tight controls are established to ensure that employees do their work. All but minor decisions must be made or approved by the leader. It uses close supervision and tight controls, simplifies and standardizes work, and offers economic incentives and fringe benefits to motivate people. Communication is primarily one way, down ward, formal, impersonal and in a parent and child manner. It assumes development comes from hard work and experience of some professional development may be considered if it will result in greater efficiency and productivity. People are rewarded for being obedient and punished for making mistakes. Punishment may take the form of withholding attention or good assignments or making people feel guilty. Conflicts are either suppressed since they interfere with work or are resolved in favour of the leader. Its approach to handling problems and mistakes is by attacking people and not the problem. It looks for a scapegoat or someone to blame when mistakes are made. On interpersonal relationships with employees, the leader keeps relationships formal and impersonal so that he can remain objective. The use of power and authority is essential to maintaining order and high productivity. It only fully delegates low risk jobs. Performance appraisals are only used to let employees know what they are doing wrong. Human Relation Leadership Human Relations leadership has low emphasis on performance and high emphasis on people. The leadership philosophy assumes that all people are honest, trustworthy; self motivated and want to be involved in all decisions and that they will give their best if kept happy. It believes that the role of a leader is to minster to the needs of employees and keep them happy since happy people are productive people. It uses group planning and objective setting almost exclusively. In organizing, a decentralized informal and loosely controlled structure is used, and it relies almost entirely on the self control of employees. The human relation leadership uses participative approach for most of its decisions and mainly serves as a discussion leadership in helping the group arrive at decisions. In terms of motivation, it involves employees, giving continuous positive reinforcement and provides for good work conditions, social relations and fellowship. Communication is open, and two ways but is often not genuine when conflict is involved because of the emphasis on maintaining harmony and good relations. Any development activities even those remotely related to the job are encouraged. Rewards and recognition are used at every opportunity, but punishment is rarely ever used since everyone makes mistakes. Conflict is smoothed over or avoided if it might threaten good relations. Conflicts with the leader are usually resolved in favour of the employees. Mistakes are ignored, and problems are given to employees to resolve. Many internal and external activities are planned to promote close interpersonal relations and group harmony. Power and authority are abdicated to employees. This leadership delegates considerable responsibility but does not hold employees accountable for results. It uses performance appraisal to let employees know what they are doing right. While the Human Relations leadership style may keep employees happy, there is little evidence to support the idea that keeping employees happy and treating them well will result in high productivity. The preoccupation with keeping people happy and involved often interferes with high achievement, causes employees to lose respect for their leaders, results in the emergence of informal leaders, and causes problems to be smoothed over. Such an atmosphere can be frustrating to goal oriented people. Democratic leadership Democratic leadership lays prominence on performance and people. The leadership philosophy assumes that most people are honest, trustworthy, self motivated, and that they like responsibility and challenging work. The role of the leader is to arrange organizational conditions to promote teamwork and high job performance and satisfaction. It believes that planning ahead and establishing clear objectives are essential to effective performance and are best accomplished with having employee involvement. In organizing, a decentralised and flexible structure is used with clearly defined responsibilities and an open participative work environment. In democratic leadership, control is distributed among the leaders and employees. The leader is a decisive decision maker but also makes some decisions alone. This leadership provides good working conditions and assures that jobs are challenging and offer opportunities for growth, responsibility, achievement, recognition and advancement. Communication is open, two way and honesty are encouraged. It highlights personal employee and team development. Good work is recognized and rewarded and punishment is used only as a last resort. Conflicts are openly confronted and its approach to handling problems and mistakes is by attacking problems and a not person hence stresses the importance of finding solutions. It maintains a close but objective relationship with employees. This leadership believes that power and authority are earned and not legislated. It delegates considerable responsibility and holds employees accountable for results. Finally, it uses performance appraisal to let employees know what they are doing wrong. Democratic leadership results in high employee productivity, satisfaction, cooperation, and commitment. It reduces the need for controls and formal rules and procedures. Results are low absenteeism and turnover. This leadership style develops competent people who are willing to give their best, think for themselves, communicate openly and seek responsibility. A military organization After examining the development of leadership theories and styles I have chosen to examine leadership in military organization. This is a highly autocratic style of leadership. I will focus specifically on the army leadership in military as seen in three key areas which are influencing, operating and improvising. Leadership in the army is influencing people by providing purpose, direction and motivation, while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization according to the militaries Field Manual (FM. 22–100, 1999). Thus leaders in the army work to better themselves and their subordinates in these three areas. The leadership framework in the military is “Be, Know, Do”. The military leadership model ‘be’ consists of army values and leadership attributes. These army values are automatic and leaders do not have to think but to react immediately always. The military has seven values which take on the acronym LDRSHIP. They are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage (FM22-100 1999). When one takes an oath to serve the nation and the institution, they agree to live and act by this new set of values. These values have codes, values and traits regarded as necessary for military leaders. They are crucial in assisting soldiers and army civilians make correct decisions in whatever situation they find themselves in. They bind all military personnel in their dedication to serving the nation and military. They apply to all, in all situations, anywhere in the military. Their embodiment is the trust soldiers have in each other and also the trust the citizens have in the military. The Loyalty value is defined as bearing true faith and allegiance to the Unites States Constitution, the military, your unit and other soldiers. Duty is the fulfilling of your obligations and extends beyond all requirements by law, regulation and order. Military leaders commit to excellence in all areas of their professional responsibilities. Respect in the army is treating all people as they should be treated. Respect for a person is the foundation of the rule of law. This value stresses the fact that people are a precious resource and it is one’s duty to treat them with respect and dignity. Selfless Service is putting the welfare of the nation, the military and subordinates before your own. For the sake of the success of the team an individual ought to give up self-interest for the good of the whole. Honor is living up to all the military values. It provides the moral scope for character and personal conduct for all army members and it is mainly shown through words and actions. Integrity is doing what is right legally and morally. Leaders of integrity act in accordance with clear principle and the military relies on leaders of integrity who posses high moral standards and are honest in words and deeds. Personal courage is facing fear, changes, adversity whether physical or moral. Physical courage requires overcoming fear of bodily harm or performing one’s duty. Moral courage is agreeing to stand for ones values, principles and convictions These values form the basis on which to start training soldiers to be better leaders. It also ensures that the leaders developed grow into ethical soldiers hence have a low risk of abusing the power given to them. The leadership attributes which represent the second portion of “be” is mental, physical and emotional. They include will, self-discipline, initiative, judgment, self-confidence, intelligence and cultural awareness (FM 22-100, 1999). The physical attributes are health fitness, physical fitness, and military professionalism while the emotional attributes are self-control, balance, and stability (FM 22-100, 1999). In the incorporation of all these attributes, soldiers have a solid basis from which to start making suitable and moral decisions. The “know’ portion of the model demands that soldiers understand the more academic and professional aspects of their career which are leader skills of interpersonal, conceptual, technical and factual. (FM 22-100, 1999). The last component of the military leadership model is the “do” which has three leadership actions namely, influencing, operating and improvising. Each of them also has three corresponding leadership skills that leaders must adhere to. In the influencing actions we have communication, decision-making and motivation which represent how the army evaluates if leaders are influencing people successfully. In the operating action there is planning, executing and assessing including carrying out tasks or missions. Lastly, there is the improvising action of developing, building and learning that involve creating an environment of enhanced success for the leader and the subordinates. The military leadership is guided in the skills theory of leadership outlined in Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman (2000d) from which the “Be, Know, Do” model and skills model are derived. Mumford and his colleagues state that a military leader must be capable of solving problems and provide three skills namely, problem solving, social judgment and social skills (Mumford et al., 2000d). The problem solving skills they argue identify the problem, understand it and how if affects the organization, and identify solutions. Social judgment skills they contend are needed because the problems leaders encounter are mainly in the social context. And leaders must have good social judgmental skills. These skills are self-objectivity, self-reflection, system perception, awareness of solutions fit, judgment under uncertain conditions, and systems commitment (Mumford et el., 2000d). They say that general social skills are needed to motivate subordinates to work together in implementing their leaders intended goals. They also state that leaders must be able to get along with others, work with them and ensure that they are able to perform at all levels. Mumford and his colleagues add that leaders must also have knowledge about specific tasks performed in their domain not necessarily being experts but it is imperative to have a solid understanding of what subordinates do and what their superiors expect from them. Both skills and knowledge develop over time thus as leaders gain experience, they are able to become more successful. Training and development of these skills are critical to the success and speed at which military leaders develop (Mumford et al., 2000b; Pernick, 2001). There are several leadership behaviors and skills recognized by the army and communication is one of them. It is paramount for military leaders to effectively communicate whether during combat or peace time and communication plays a key role in every organization. Most of the information in the military is considered classified and sharing this with unauthorized persons is considered unethical. Giving away confidential, classified information can compromise warfare operations taking place and is highly prohibited in the military through strict laws and regulations (Verschoor, 2000) Military personnel understand the rules that ensure information is with held. There may arise some problems when vital information is with held (Snider, 2003) thus army commanders must share information when it is officially authorized and practical. Team building in the military is also crucial and forms part of leadership in military and the advantage is that it is easy to accomplish due to the strict nature of hierarchy in the forces. Military units are divided into platoons, squads and teams thus making team building job easier. Team building is crucial in military preservation, as unity increases, so is the willingness on the part of the soldiers to stay. It is also viewed as the next most important revolution in military leadership development (Brown, 2003) because developing skills is paramount to a successful retention strategy and these skills are interpersonal in nature (Eriksen, 2001) Morale building is another aspect that is essential in leadership in the military. Researchers agree that people will lack motivation it they feel their occupations lack meaning (Britt, 2003). It is therefore essential to instill a high morale and experts assert that military retention issues are strongly related to unit morale (Weafer, 2001). Weafer further states that since officers are expected not to make any mistakes, this pressure can affect their morale and he thinks that this could be the reason why many soldiers leave the military. High morale in military leadership comes from good leadership, shared hardship and mutual respect (FM 22-100). Several official military publications mirror this principle and debate the need by high level leaders in the military to instill high morale in their squads (Shinseki, 2002a; Shinseki 2002b; Schoomaker & Brownlee, 2003; Schultz, 2004) Recommend improvements Few theories have been seriously researched than the leadership styles theories. The extensive research makes it possible to envisage the consequences of each style. Although the emphasis on autocratic leadership is on high productivity, it often breeds counter forces of antagonism and restriction of output. It mostly results in hostile attitude, suppression of conflict, distorted and guarded communications, high turnover and absenteeism. There is also low productivity and work quality, a preoccupation with rules, procedure, and red tape, working conditions, status symbols, and trying to cater to the whims of the boss. It tends to develop dependent and uncreative employees who are afraid to seek responsibility. This type of leadership has been hugely criticised because autocratic leaders rely mainly on threats and punishment to influence their members of staff because they do not trust their staff members. This kind of leadership is most effective style to use when new and untrained members of staff do not know which tasks to perform or the procedures put down. It works well when effective supervision is given only through detailed orders and instructions. It can also be used if members of staff are not responding to any leadership style, have limited time in which to make a decision, a manager’s power is challenges by members of staff and when work needs to be coordinated with another department or organization. Autocratic leadership should not be used when members of staff are tense, fearful or resentful, expect their opinions to be heard, when they depend on their manager to make all their decision and also when there is low staff morale, absenteeism and work stoppage. ANALYSIS OF YOURSELF AND THE PRODUCTION OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN The main elements of an organizational plan are an organizational structure and assignment of the members of staff. In my development plan, the reporting structure and task distribution will be created using organizational units such as departments in an enterprise. In staff assignments of the development plan the existing employees, users and vacancies will be listed. My development plan will be related to objects from other components. The Personnel Administrative unit will give the personal data for the staff assignments while the Controlling unit will provide the account assignment data. The organizational unit will be a functional unit in my organization for example the marketing department. This will depend on how tasks will be divided up within the organization for example a department, group or project team. To ensure I have a good development plan I will create the basic parts of the organizational structure. I will decide which unit I want to include in my organizational structure. I will either restrict the structure to the main departments or include subsections and work groups. For example I will have an Executive board consisting of the Production, Human Resources (Administration and Payroll), Financial Account, and Marketing and Sales organizational units. I will create and edit staff assignments for each organizational unit which is a key element of an organizational structure. In my development plan, I will create staff assignments for each organizational unit like the Human Resources unit which will have the Administration unit with various administrators. Staff assignments will be used to represent the reporting structure and task distribution in my organization for example I will run reports for positions and employees or determine agents for specific tasks. My staff assignment will have a list of all employees in the organization who occupy particular position as well as those who do not. Additional time specific data on those elements of my staff assignment will also displayed. My chosen leadership style is transactional. As a transactional leader I will develop a clear chain of command. I will motivate people by rewarding and punishing where deemed fit. I will expect that if people have agreed to do a job, part of the deal will be that they cede all authority to me as their manager. The primary purpose of my subordinates will be to do as what I tell them to do. I will work to create clear structures. I will make sure that work requirements are clear and that the reward structure is also clear. Though punishment s will not be mentioned, they will be well understood and formal systems of discipline will be put in place. I will negotiate the contract whereby the subordinates are given a salary and other benefits, and the organization will get authority over the subordinates. I will emphasise that things are done within the existing requirements of my organisation CONCLUSION As a conclusion to this paper, awareness of leadership styles and their consequences is crucial any for successful leadership because a leadership style may either facilitate or inhibit skill changes. For instance a style that gains the trust and respect of those affected by the style tends to give a leader considerable flexibility in changing skills within shifting situations. The same changes would be viewed with suspicion and resistance if a leadership style was disliked and distrusted. Any style can facilitate change if it gained the trust and respect of those affected by it. However, in most cases an autocratic style tends to create distrust. REFERENCES Brown, F. J., (2003). Three Revolutions: From Training to Learning and Team Building. Military Review 28 Eriksen, E. (2001). Leadership in a Communicative Perspective, Acta Sociologica 44 (1) Fiedler, F. E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, 1967, New York: McGraw-Hill Fiedler, F. E. The Leadership Situation and the Black box in Contingency Theory. M. M. Clemers & R. Ayman (eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, 1993, New York: Academic Press Fiedler, F. E., Garcia, J. E. Improving Leadership Effectiveness Cognitive Resources and Organizational Performance, 1987, New York: Wiley House, R. J., Aditya, R. The Social Scientific Study of Leadership, Journal Of Management, 23, 1997 Larson, C. L., Murtadha, K. (2002), Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (ed). The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century. Chicago: University of Chicago, Press Lawrence, P. R, & Lorsch, J. (1967) Organization and Environment,. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press Mumford, M. P., Zaccas, s. J., Harding, F.D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A., (2000d). Leadership skills for a changing world: solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly 11 (1). Pernick, R., (2001). Creating a leadership development program: Nine essential Tasks. Public Personnel Management 30 (4) Pfeffer, S, Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms, Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1981 Shinseki, E. (2002a). Army Transformation Roadmap, 2002, Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Shinseki, E. (2002b), U. S. Army White Paper: Conception for the Objective Force. Washington DC: Department of the Army. Smircich, L. Leadership: The Management of Meaning Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1982, JAI Press Inc. Snider, D. (2003). Officership: The professional Practice. Military Review, 88 (1) Stogdill, R. M, Leadership, Membership, and Organizations, Journal articles in Psychology Bulletin 47, 1950 Stogdill, R. M, Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, 1974. New York: The Free Press Verschoor, C. (2000). Is your Ethics Code based on Complaints or Values. Military Review, 88 (2) Weafer, T. (2001). Averting the train wreck of Captain Attrition – A Leadership Solution. Unpublished manuscript, Carlisle, PA: U. S. Army War College. Read More