Leadership, Self and Creating the Future - Essay Example

LEADERSHIP, SELF AND CREATING THE FUTURE Essay The term leadership and management are used in an interchangeable due to lack of distinction in the standard definitions for the two terms. This sparked off a heated debate about how to draw the distinction between the two. The distinction is however a bit blurred since both managers and leaders need to have traits of the other in orders to be able to perform effectively according to Arthur (2011:34). My experiences in life so far have proved to me as stated in various studies, leadership holds the key to determining an individual’s performance and by extension that of the entire organisation they work for as argued by Balocho et al (2010:17). For this reason one can rightly conclude that the key to establishing a good organisational culture, good values in the organisation and effective dynamics to be successful in the market lies in the hands of the managers. I have learnt that high business performance cannot be achieved in an organisation that has poor leadership. Chi and Chang (2007:56), argue that this is because at the front line of each organisation is the management and hence their failure in offering leadership can be equated to jeopardising the organisations success rate. It has also dawned on me that when it comes to shaping the future, the leadership of the organiation and at all levels of management is vital. This is because the top level managers will not be able to meet their targets if the middle level and the supervisors are not able to meet their targets. Good leadership is one that gives room for the engagement of the people being led. For this reason many research has shown that one of the drivers of business success is employee engagement in the affairs of the organisation. The engagement of employees calls for the trust of the managers on the part of employees so that a working relationship can be established (Fedor et al, 2006). I have learnt that this can be done by ensuring that one chooses a good model of leading the organisation among the many that do exist. One of the many ways of leading is the dictatorial method where the manager is the one who makes all the decisions and then enforces them single handedly which could lead to some resentment on the part of many employees who work under him. From my observation, this method deprives the organisation of the advantage of enjoying the contributions of the employees in weighty matters. I have also learnt that another method that could be tried is that of autocracy leadership. This is where a manager makes decisions and then announces them to employees. Boevner (2007:56) state that this is somewhat seen as giving room for employees to decide whether to follow the direction given by the manager but in the real sense their contribution are not allowed in the making of the decision and hence no employee participation This kind of leadership breeds the “dissatisfaction toxins” which go a long way in altering the success of the organisation as argued by Bovner (2007, 57). The first instance is that the management team risks being misunderstood given that they run everything. In any case when a misunderstanding occurs, the most likely result will be that the operations of the organisation may not run as required. Due to the likelihood of being unrealistic the instructions of the leaders may lead to being ignored and hence the smooth running of the organisation can be interfered with. I have experienced that an inhibition of the operation of the organisation may occur due to the lack of proper guidance or the misunderstanding of the organisation operations (Lord & Brown, 2004:34). There is over direction and hence limiting the autonomy of the employees as the leaders take all the thinking roles. This deprives the organisation of a wider range of creativity. This disruption of the organisation due to lack of proper leadership may lead to lack of the organisation failing to achieve the required results. There are two forms of leadership which give the employees a level of participation although at different levels. These include the leadership style of democracy and that of Laissez-faire. An organisation which wants to ensure employee participation could opt for the method of democracy. This form of leadership gives some room for employee participation since the manager will suggest hi/her ideas and then ask the employees to give their own suggestion. The suggestions given are then modified to suit the will of the manager. Hence this method does not fully allow for the participation of employees according to Browning (2006:23). Despite this, the management team still wins some level of cooperating from the employees as they can see traces of their input in the decisions made by the management team of the organisation. Having said that, one method of leadership known as laissez-faire, stands out in terms of encouraging employee participation. This method when properly applied accords employees the greatest chance of participating in the affairs of the organisation. Here the manager will present the challenges that face the organisation to the employees and then ask for their suggestions on how to solve the problem. The suggestions are then incorporated in the final decision of the manager. Form my experience which concurs with Davenport (2010:32), this is one of the best forms of leadership since the employees will tend to own the solutions that are reached since they came from them. Studies show that employees are more motivated when they are led to the source of power which is their own and making heroes out of the employees. This ensures that the manager gets more cooperation from the employees. There are other emerging theories that suggest that one should develop a relationship with those whom he/she leads. This is seen as going beyond the simple approach of modifying the style of leadership to encourage the participation of employees. The theory called leader-member exchange theory is one of the proponents of this idea. Here it is suggested that managers and by extension all leaders should strive to develop a closely knit relationship with the staff or the members of their teams as stated by Felfe & Schyns (2004:55). This brings various benefits such as improved performance, job satisfaction and increased commitment in the part of both the employees and the managers. On the part of the employee there is a need to change their view of leadership. This is because the employees’s mentality has a bearing on the respect they accord their leaders. Employees form a mentality on what they would want to see in their leaders and rate leaders as good or bad based on this mentality and not their performance at all. As was seen with the styles of leadership, some other theories propose that there be shared leadership among the teams. This is a change from the traditional way of thinking where the leaders held all the powers. Here the leadership is to be shared among the team members in a rotational manner according to Ismail et al (2009:21). The motive behind this ensures that no one single person holds the position of leadership for a long period of time to the point of monopolizing the knowledge of the organisation. Monopolisation of the organisation knowledge is a very risky affair since once the person leaves their post, the organisation is left with a big gap that is supposed to be filled. The person who fills this gap may not very well be as knowledgeable as the predecessor and it takes time for them to learn all the undertakings of the organization. The theory introduces a new concept in leadership since the employee status and leadership status are seen as only passive and one is liable to appreciate the job others do when their turn comes since they will have both the knowledge as employees and as leaders. The theory here suggests that it is important that leaders should be able to look at issues from the eyes of the followers (McElroy, 2001:89). Leadership could also be approached from the perspective of value. From my experience sofar at this point Here the focus shifts to the behaviors and characteristics of the leaders. These include things such as integrity, ethics, morality, and honesty. Lack of acceptable behaviours and characteristics on the part of managers is not excusable and can lead to very severe consequences as has been seen in the areas of politics and other high profile sectors which attract the attention of the media. One of the theories that propose an emphasis in this area is that of ethical leadership. Avolio (2004:65), asserts that here the leaders are supposed to demonstrate a conduct that is regarded as normal through their interpersonal relationships and personal actions while at the same time trying to promote the same conduct among his followers mainly by way of motivation. The leader will at all times be able to emphasize on shared values, integrity and fair treatment of the team members. When the leaders remodel ethical conduct inspires others making them to behave and act in a similar manner. This leads to some positive outcome such as increased organizational commitment, increased willingness to share problems, job satisfaction for all parties and even better organizational in the work place. Ethical leadership has been linked positively to the effectiveness of the top management and at the same time fostering employee optimism over their future. Many things have been proposed as the motivators of leaders to acquire ethical standards when doing their jobs (Baloch et al, 2010:78). Among the major motivational factors that have been proposed include social responsibility and an organizational culture that promotes ethical behaviour among the employees of the organisation. Another model of leadership that has been proposed and adopted of late is that of authentic leadership. Here the leaders come out as persons who are conscious of their thinking and behaviour while at the same time remaining cognizant of the perspectives of the employees moral issues, knowledge and employee strengths. The leader has to make decisions objectively when applying this style of leadership since they are aware of the capabilities of the employees and also their shortcomings (Browning, 2006:90). The leader is also guided by some level of internal standards of morality since they are conscious of what they think of and how they act pertaining to all matters of the organisation. Both the leaders are supposed to present their thoughts and feeling in an open manner so that they can foster a better relationship. When a leader is aware of their behaviours they are able to influence and at the same time be able to remodel other employees who are working with them through influence. The employees are not to be disregarded here as they also contribute to the overall outcome of the application of this model in the organisation. There is also the contextual leadership model which indicates that a leader has to understand the contextual factors that leadership is embedded on so as to apply the leadership process in a manner that is applicable to the specific issues that face the organisation in question. Here the leadership approach shifts from that of hierarchical approach to that of leadership being seen as a process (Avolio, 2004:53). This process is also riddled with operational social systems and role structuring. Here the argument is that leadership should shift focus from the leaders himself to include other parties in the organisation such as the employees. Such as leaders is in a position to understand the organisation and other employees better since the approach is one that is all encompassing for the team. Problems could be easily shared and more amicable solutions are sought for the existing problems in the organisation. This theory introduces some level of change in the leadership as here the leadership which takes the form of a process is a different concept from what is usually seen which as the static form of leadership (Fedor et al, 2006:76). The leadership is dynamic and the changes have to come about due to the changes in the environment of the organisation or the environment in which the leadership takes place. The concept of environment is also reemerging in this form of leadership as the leader are not to stick to one type of leadership but to try and adapt to the changes in the environment so that they can create some level of dynamism in their leadership. The environment can be shaped by various factors that include culture and the extent of globalization which both bring about diversity in the environment in which the business is operating in (Davenport, 2010:45). Research has indicated that there is a lot of emphasis on theory development as it concerns leadership with little efforts being done to identify the applicability of these theories. The assumption of many researchers is that once a theory is developed and leaders are trained on it, then they will be in a position to apply it in their organizations. This is could be true but the reality hits the industry as this is only a short term solution and cannot be relied on to ensure that there is sustainability of the leadership adopted (McElroy, 2001:52). The little efforts that scholars have put in the attempt to try and find out the applicability of the theories proposed indicated that there is a need to ensure that leadership is integrative. This ensures that one is able to show effective and good leadership by their behaviours and actions. Other aspiring leaders are assumed to be in a position to learn from the observation of the exemplary leaders in the field in question (Felfe & Schyns, 2004:66). These new theories present a very dynamic form of leadership which differs from what the business arena is used to. For this reason, caution has to be observed in the introduction of these new theories. There is a need to create a sense of urgency in the environment which one intends to introduce these changes. This will in itself spur the desire to sacrifice so as to ensure that the changes which are not easy to implement are seen through. Given that the new changes are bound to introduce some form of disharmony, it is important to have a guiding coalition. This will ensure that a sequential pattern is followed in the implementation of the new changes. If not fully adhered to, the changes could end up disrupting the working of the organisation and hence more losses emanate. A new vision and strategy needs to be developed as per the new form of leadership that will be adopted (Arthur, 2011:18). This will go a long way in offering guidance in the manner in which the organisation under the new leadership forms. The changes cannot be achieved without the full participation of the concerned parties. Changes instituted in an organisation can fail not because the changes were not good, but just because the people involved were not given enough information on their roles. For this reason, the importance of communication during the process of change is very vital. The changes that are going to come with the new form of leadership need to be communicated in a manner that will leave all the parties well informed of their specific roles in the organisation. Avolio (2004) states that this will play a big role in ensuring that every person knows their role and are able to execute it to the fullest hence ensuring that there is continued growth despite the changes in leadership format. The communication is important in ensuring that the employees are well empowered to do their roles. Lack of information will incapacitate the entire team leading to disastrous consequences. There is need to evaluate the change process so as to see if it is able to deliver the intended results. The best form of evaluation can be achieved by way of establishing goals which are short term (Ismail et al, 2009:67). Once the goals are established and well communicated to the team, the expected results can be evaluated so as to offer results that will show the direction in which the new changes are taking the organisation. The adopted leadership styles need to be anchored into the organisation culture for the purposes of making it a part and parcel of the organisation. The anchorage of the changes into the organisational culture ensures there will be continuity of the changes. The employees that work under these conditions enjoy satisfaction nutrients. The employees feel valued by their respective organisation since they are able to make suggestions about the running of the organisation and see these suggestions being applied. This is a motivation for the clients and makes them to continue bringing in their suggestion and hence betterment of the operations. The fact that the employees feel respected they are bound to establish some level of commitment to their organization and hence work even harder to ensure that higher results are achieved (Lord & Brown, 2004:54). Changes are bound to be noticed in the long while as the operations go on. There may be some need to ensure that there is some coaching for the establishment of uniformity. The coaching would not be problematic in any way since the employees feel that they would be willing to offer their knowledge to the colleagues. On the issue of changes being instituted in the organisation, when an able team of employees which is empowered is in place the changes can be easily instituted. Having employees who feel as part of the team, there is bound to be more success in the organisation. With the right nutrients an organisation will enjoy a wealth of advantages. These include a higher level of commitment to their work due to the fact that they feel as part of the organisation. The other major advantage of the establishing this form of leadership is that the employees feel more responsible for their work and are hence able to work selflessly in ensuring that the organisation is able to deliver (Baloch et al, 2010:35). On the other hand as we have been able to see, the use of poor leadership models in an organisation breeds dissatisfaction toxins. Some of these include lack of compliance to the organization’s operations and hence poor results and lack of harmony. Avoidance of work may also be evident in that employees do not enjoy what they are doing but they are just doing it since there is a requirement that they must do it. Disrespect may creep into the organisation and hence further contribute to the disharmony of the organisation References Arthur, J. B., 2011. Do HR system characteristics affect the frequency of interpersonal deviance in organizations? The role of team autonomy and internal labor market practices. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50(1), 30-56. Avolio, B. J., et al., 2004. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968. Baloch, Q. et al., 2010. Relationship between HR practices and perceived Eemployees' performance of bankers in NWFP, Pakistan (An empirical evidence). European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(2). Boerner, S., 2007. Follower behavior and organizational performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15. Browning, V., 2006. The relationship between HRM practices and service behaviour in South African service organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(7), 1321-1338. Chi, H., & Chang, P., 2007. Investigating the relationship among leadership styles, emotional intelligence and organization commitment on job performance: A study of salespeople in Thailand. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3(2), 199-212. Davenport, J., 2010. Leadership style and organizational commitment: The moderatin effect of locus of control. 17(1), 277-290. Fedor, D., et al., 2006. The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1-29. Felfe, J., & Schyns, B., 2004. Is similarity in leadership related to organizational outcomes? The case of transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 92. Ismail, I. et al., 2009. Prelationship between transformational leadership, empowerment and followers’ performance: An empirical study in malaysia. Revista Negotium, 5(13), 5-22. Lord, R., & Brown, D., 2004. Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McElroy, J. C., 2001. Managing workplace commitment by putting people first. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 327-335. Read More