Organisational Leadership and Performance in Globalized World - Coursework Example

About Organizational Leadership and Performance Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: About Organizational Leadership and Performance QuestionDiscuss the way that leadership has changed within the context of a globalized environment, over time. With reference to the readings for this unit, profile the leadership and communication styles of a global or national leader you admire. Introduction For a long time, diverse scholars and international agencies have made extensive efforts to define the concept of leadership. Thus, this concept has undergone enormous discourses culminating in generation of a proliferation of literature in different realms of academia, central to them being realms of organizational science as well as management. Bernard Bass who is one of the most renowned scholars of leadership perceived leadership as a ‘universal phenomenon’ and proceeded to define it as the interaction of two or more members of a certain group which in most cases entail a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the opinion and anticipations of the members (Ver, 2009). At the organizational level, leadership has been perceived to the ability as embedded in an individual to effectively motivate, influence and empower other people to participate towards the success and effectiveness of an institution in which they derive membership (House et. al, 1999). Nonetheless, despite the diversity of definitions, there has been a consensus among scholars that leadership has undergone massive changes within the context of the globalized environment. Against this background, this paper will explore the ways in which leadership has changed within the context of a globalized environment, over time. In addition, it will analyze the leadership profile and communication styles of Steve Jobs, the Apple CEO and the person credited for making this company evolve into becoming one of the most recognized brands in the realms of advanced technologies. Changes in leadership overtime According to Mind Resources Institute of Learning and Innovation (2005), leadership has undergone extensive transformations overtime which have been characterized by a paradigm shift from the autocratic model towards directive leadership in the turn of the 20th century to a more democratic and participative leadership model in the contemporary world which is characterized by a globalized environment. These changes of leadership can be attributed to a synergy of factors which includes but not limited to the transference of the attitude among different people as well as technological advancements. This has made it fundamental for the leaders in organizations, for instance, the human resource managers to engage in planning for the future and adapting to the trends dynamics and eventually ensure that their respective organizations achieve the best outcomes both in the short and in the long terms (Mind Resources Institute of Learning and Innovation, 2005). Some of these epochs of leadership changes are analyzed in the subsequent section. Authoritarian/autocratic leadership This model of leadership was founded on a top-down system of management, exact orders and strict rules. According to Vliert (2006), autocratic leaders often function in a predominantly self-centered manner and unilaterally engage in the decision making process. In addition, they closely supervise the undertakings of their subordinates and seldom engage the input of those below them. In this model of leadership, there is a great demand for compliance with the set rules and regulations from all the concerned parties, mostly those from the lower echelons in the management structure or rank. This form of leadership is concretely entrenched on the traditional perspective of leadership based on respect for status and positional authority (Dinham, 2007). There tends to be no consultation process in this model between the employees and their superiors and in its place, those high in the management framework envisage their orders being obeyed without any questions. In addition, the use of stringent rules and regulations make the utility of punishment and sanctions aimed at deriving compliance from the subordinates making the leaders become feared as opposed to being liked or respected (Dinham, 2007). This model of leadership received much unpopularity in the organizational set-up since it limited the extent of innovation and creativity among the employees. This is based on the fact that it primarily promoted compliance with the set down processes in production limiting any chances of engaging in pursuit for alternative methods of production that will result in enhancement of the products. This model of leadership is often associated with the periods during and after the agrarian revolution (Vliert, 2006). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that some countries, mostly in the developing world are still governed through autocratic leadership which spills over to the management of the organizations in these countries. Thus, this model of leadership is propelled by the members of the governing class who often have indirect collaborations with merchants and retainers in organizations (Vliert, 2006). Through the process of extended internalization and socialization, the subordinate members in these organizations among the societies in agrarian counties which are gradually industrializing have come to learn and accept the values of following orders and have become alienated to believe in the effectiveness of autocratic leadership (Vliert, 2006). Nonetheless, the extent of globalization of the environment in this epoch can be perceived to be limited. Directive leadership The instigation of directive leadership marked a major shift from the agrarian to industrialized societies. This was characterized by increased globalization of the environment and was marked by elevated socio-economic complexities in the society as well as the increased economic growth. In these instances, there was a realization by the leaders in diverse organizations that they could no longer engage in unilateral management of these institutions culminating in the necessity to delegate or mandate the roles of decision-making in some spheres to others (Vliert, 2006). Despite the fact that this model of leadership did not completely divorce the managers/directors from the decision making process, the trends under it tended to empower the subordinates in the organization making the top-down approach to management less effective, feasible and efficient (Vliert, 2006). Nonetheless, the delegation of the decision making responsibilities characterized an imperative achievement for the subordinates in various organizations in the countries where this model of leadership was adopted and put into utility in the daily institutional operations. However, other scholars have pointed to the fact that directive leadership can be highly manipulative, persuasive and task oriented. In this regard, despite its effectiveness in communicating the concise strategic goals and visions of the organization to the employees, this model of leadership can only become transformational through coercion (Dolatabadi& Safa, 2010). The effectiveness of directive leadership depends by the extent to which the subordinates are involved in the decision-making process. According to Bass (cited in Dolatabadi & Safa, 2010), different researches have pointed to the fact that directive leadership culminates in minimal acceptance of the decisions from the management body of an organization when juxtaposed with a more participative approach in leadership. The eventual decline of the employee to embrace and implement the management values and decisions by the managers/directors proved detrimental, mostly in organizations which required the employees to make particular decisions which affected the production process. This culminated in the quest for a more effective model of leadership that to a greater extent empowered the employees to be involved in the decision making processes that have overall implications on the organization. This marked the ushering in of another era in organizational leadership; participative leadership. Participative leadership Somech (2003) perceived participative leadership as inferring to the joint decision making in an organization or at least some sought of mutual influence in the decision making processes by the superiors and their subordinates in the organization. This model of leadership has evolved into becoming core to diverse researches in different realms of academia as well as becoming a central theme in practice and policy in an increasingly globalized environment. At its core, participative leadership entails greater and more profound consultation with the subordinates and the assessment of their views and opinions before the managers engages in decision making. This model is thus extensively linked to consensus and involvement and different results in research have revealed that the employees who perceive their superiors as embracing consultative or participative approach in their leadership often exhibit elevated commitment to their assigned tasks and the organization in general, portray more satisfaction in their work which culminates in higher performance, both at the individual as well as the organizational levels (Dolatabadi & Safa, 2010). In addition, there is often a greater tendency of the employee working under participative leaders to portray more loyalty, trust and commitment to their leaders when juxtaposed with the employees working under directive leaders. Thus, participative leadership has been cited as a robust mechanism of propagating the organizational values and goals to the employees (Dolatabadi & Safa, 2010). According to Huang et. al (2009), two predominant theoretical models have been put into utility in the efforts to explain the effects of participative leadership on organizational performance. Firstly, there is the motivational model which presumes that the greater opportunity for the subordinates to engage in the decision making processes provides them with increased inherent rewards from their work as well as heightened levels of psychological empowerment which translates to increased performance in their assigned tasks, either as individuals or as teams. Secondly, there is the exchange based model which is founded on the presumption that the rudimentary tendency of participative leadership behavior to disseminate the idea that the superiors in the organization have great confidence in the employees, are to a great extent concerned about them and respects their opinions tends to trigger a high level of trust in the superiors by the employees. Consequently, there is usually a tendency by the subordinates to reciprocate their superiors in the organization as well as the wider institution through portraying and enhanced level of performance at work (Huang et. al, 2009). In addition, participative leadership has been associated with increased team-work in the organizations. Wendt et. al (2009) cited that the instigation of a team-work based framework is perhaps one of the most significant characteristic in the workplaces in modern times. This trend has seen a gradual shift from individualized work frameworks towards the propagation of teamwork throughout contemporary organizations. In this regard, the basic performance of different organizations seems to be embedded in group efforts as opposed to the individual efforts (Wendt et. al, 2009). This model of leadership has been slightly altered in recent decades with the instigation of increased globalization and market liberalization. Nonetheless, it is imperative to note that some of salient features of participative leadership have been exported to the subsequent leadership model. Transformational leadership It is imperative to note that the contemporary globalized environment is characterized by heightened advances in information technology as well as increased competition as a result of internationalization as market liberalization in different countries open up opportunities for new entrants in the domestic markets. As a result, countries like China which were initially considered as closed markets have greatly liberalized their markets. On the other hand, contemporary global financial phenomena which are best epitomized by the global financial slump in 2008 have obliged organizational leadership to take different twists as a response to the diverse changes in the financial market to be able to maintain sustainable competitive advantage in the market. This has also been supplemented by the dynamics in consumer demands as a result of consumer diversity and consumer proliferation. All these have resulted in the shift towards transformational leadership in organizational level. According to West et. al (1996), guiding a transformational process and managing transition epochs characterized by increased financial chaos and fluidity calls for a different model of leadership and skills divorced from those previously required for the maintenance of administrative law and order in a business environment that was somehow certain and stable. This is based on the fact that there is a generic disappearance of boundaries, increased ambiguity as well as heightened unpredictability of future business in the globalized environment. Thus, the globalized environment necessitates the leaders in organizations to embrace novel extraordinary capacities and potential to maintain a delicate and regularly transforming balance in the management of the human, financial as well as technical capital at their disposal in order to attain enhanced performance which is fundamental to their organization in maintaining a favorable niche in the market (West et. al, 1996). Barbuto (2005) determined that the extent to which an organizational leader is transformational has been perceived to be assessed in terms of the overall impact of the leader on the followers. This is founded on the fact that the followers of a transformational leader tend to exhibit extreme feelings of trust, admiration, loyalty and respect for their leaders and are thus motivated towards performing extra-role behaviors. On the other hand, transformational leadership has been perceived to elevate both the citizenship and satisfaction of the followers, and consequently, organizational leaders who score high in transformational behavior often achieve the optimum performance from the subordinates based on the fact that they have the ability to inspire the followers towards heightening their success criteria as well as creating and adopting problem solving skills which are innovative in nature (Barbuto, 2005). All the above epochs detail the ways that leadership has changed within the context of a globalized environment overtime. However, it is imperative to be cognizant of the fact that other different leadership models have been developed in the context of the above changes, mostly in specific regions based on distinct societal developments with different scholars referring to them in other names. These include Laissez-faire, servant-leadership and transactional leadership among others. The subsequent section profiles the leadership and communication styles of the Apple CEO, Steve Jobs who is a renowned business leader at the global level. Steve jobs leadership profile Often referred to as the pioneer of the Silicon Valley and the author of distinct leadership ideas, Steve Jobs charismatic personality helped in pulling Apple through enormous crises, epochs characterized by turbulent change and even cited as constraining the employees to work 90 hours per week, which they did willingly and joyfully in order to meet seemingly impossible deadlines (Philo, 2007). Such was the extent of Steve Jobs leadership which earned him a privileged niche among some of the most prominent business leaders in the contemporary world. He is credited for utilizing different leadership styles in different situations during his reign at Silicon Valley. Some of these leadership styles went a long way in maintaining the competitive of Apple while in some times, they caused him personal havoc, a situation which was best exemplified when his conviction, charismatic and domineering influence resulted in him being fired from Apple when he obstinately declined and rejected the proposition to alter the course that he believed Apple needed to take (Philo, 2007). Firstly, Jobs exhibited a high tendency towards participative leadership in his business operations. This is best exhibited after he resigned as the chairman of Apple and founded NeXT. Together with 5 colleagues who he got from Apple, he recognized that he was exemplary in working with small groups of people in the process of making fascinating products that were destined to change the world (Philo, 2007). In this particular situation, he engaged them in making the decisions that would mold the course of this new venture. There was extensive consultation and delegation of roles under his leadership. In regard to communication style, Jobs often preferred open communication with his colleagues during regular meetings where they brainstormed and deliberated on the ideal course of the company. This leadership model was also evident during tenure at Apple where Isaacson (2012) determined that Jobs had high preference for face-to-face meetings. In this regard, the senior team at the company conducted meetings every Monday while the marketing meeting was held every Wednesday. In these meetings, there were agendas and members presented their ideas as different groups laid out what they anticipated to do. These were deliberated upon and consensus arrived at on the course of action. This characterized a part of his leadership style. In addition, Jobs also liked the face-to-face meetings in the design studio which would also endow him with a chance to see the products under development first-hand. In these instances, he also communicated his input in the designs which went a long way in influencing his communication style (Isaacson, 2012). Steve Jobs is also cited to have embraced a great extent of transformational/charismatic leadership in his business operations. Philo (2007) noted that Steve was endowed with the capacity of directing his employees to engage in things that they had not previously done before but were core to the attainment of his vision and plan. Another example that has been cited as characterizing Steve Jobs charismatic approach in the course of his work was his historical inclination of using stories to motivate and inspire people. This is based on the presumption that stories are robust equipment for the leaders in the technological atmosphere to cultivate a culture and disseminate his/her mission and vision for the entire company (Philo, 2007). Thus, Steve extensively used stories to instill a belief among the employees in the company that they were making a difference in the world, giving them an inherent devotion and sense of purpose to continue up to today (Philo, 2007). On top of the above leadership styles, Steve Jobs also embraced the directive model of leadership whereby he delegated different responsibilities of implementing the diverse decisions to the directors in different departments. This was mostly with the diversification of Apple’s portfolio which meant increased products and market expansion. In this regard, Jobs mandated the managers with the decision making role on different issues pertaining their departments although the utmost decision making organ on matters affecting the company remained with the board. This was key to the entrenchment of the innovative organizational culture at Apple which has existed even up to today, and played a major role in shaping Apple into one of the most successful telecommunication company in the contemporary world amid detrimental external factors like increased competition in the market as well as the global financial crisis in 2008 which threatened the viability of diverse companies in the world. Nonetheless, despite the above positive leadership styles as exhibited by Jobs, some of his leadership approaches have been criticized in some instances, for example, when Apple had taken a declining trend culminating in the projected sales of Macintosh reaching a low of 10% of the overall target, , Jobs insisted that the solution to the problem was removing Sculley (the incumbent CEO) and placing him (Jobs) as the CEO and president of Apple Computers. The unearthing of this attempted coup resulted in Jobs being ousted from any position endowed with control at Apple and left solely as the board chairman (Philo, 2007). Conclusion From the above discourse, it is apparent that leadership has changed through different epochs during diverse eras characterized by dissimilar levels of globalized environments. The most notable epochs have been the change from aristocratic, directive, participative to transformational leadership styles. These styles are endowed with different tenets as detailed in the preceding analysis. Steve Jobs, the previous CEO at Apple exhibited most of these leadership styles as well as novel communication methods which are expounded in the latter section. References Barbuto, J. (2005). Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic, andTransformational Leadership: A Test ofAntecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 1 1(4), 25-40 Dinham, S. (2007). Authoritative leadership, action learningand student accomplishment. Retrieved September 19, 2012 fromhttp://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2007_Dinham-AuthoritativeLeadership.pdf. Dolatabadi, H.R & Safa, M. (2010). The Effect of Directive and Participative Leadership Style on Employees’ Commitment to Service Quality. International Bulletin of Business Administration, 1(9), 31-42. House R.J. et. al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project Globe. Retrieved September 19, 2012 from http://t-bird.edu/wwwfiles/sites/globe/pdf/process.pdf Huang, X. et. al. (2009). Does participative leadership enhancework performance by inducing empowerment or trust? Thedifferential effects on managerialand non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 122-143. Isaacson, W. (2012).The Real Leadership; Lessons of Steve Jobs. Harvard Business Review, 1(1), 1-4. Mind Resources Institute of Learning and Innovation (2005). The Evolution of Leadership. MRILI, 2(2), 8-9. Philo, J. (2007). Steve Jobs: Leadership Analysis. Retrieved September 19, 2012 from http://www.stempeldrang.nl/uploads/4/8/5/5/4855530/philo_steve_jobs_leadership_analysis.pdf Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadershipwith relational demography variables:A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1003–1018. Ver, H.L. (2009). Conception of Leadership. Background paper 04, Canberra: Developmental Leadership Program. Vliert, E.V. (2006). Autocratic leadership around the globe; Do climate and wealth drive leadership culture?. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 42-59. Wendt, H. et. al. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 358–370. West, T.W. et. al (1996). Reflections on Leadership. CAUSE Professional Paper Series no. 15, Boulder, Colorado: CAUSE. Read More