Delegation and Transformational Leadership Model - Coursework Example

Name Tutor Course Date Delegation and Transformational Leadership Model Introduction Delegation is one of the main aspects of management leadership. It entails assigning of responsibility or power to another person. In most cases, the manager assigns responsibility to a subordinate with specific activities to be carried out (Heathfield, 2014). The level of delegation is always in association with the subordinate earning the trust of their superior. Roussel et al. (2006), argues that delegation is a management concept and a time management technique. It needs training in professional management as well as development in order to accept the echelons within a certain organization. Managers need to be productive and establish rapport with their employees. Before undertaking delegation process, managers think about it, plan, gain knowledge on capabilities and enforce effective interpersonal skills. They need to free themselves from the daily chores and find time to conduct delegation. They need to know their company, their world, their practice, themselves as well as their delegate. The paper discusses the process of delegation as well as the theory of transformational leadership in the application of delegation. There are various activities that are carried out in the process of delegation. Managers train and establish their subordinates. According to the managers, their subordinates are their investment. They present reasons for the activity, details, authority, instructions as well as growth opportunities. Secondly, they plan prior to the action in order to be well prepared for the problems. They also take control of their employees and coordinate their activities. In order to avoid errors, managers need to find ways of measuring accomplished objectives, feedback, credit and standards. Subordinates should know what the expectations of their managers are by being provided with clearly defined tasks, expected results and relations at work. Managers follow up the activities of the subordinates frequently; they identify impending problems based on morale, grievances or disagreements. They need to expect suggestions from subordinates and make use of the feasible suggestions to enhance work quality. The managers also coordinate the activities to avert effort duplications. They then solve problems and make room for new ideas (PST Training Modules). Subordinates are encouraged to take charge of their problems through being given the authority to do so. They accept the desirability of delegation, establish objectives and goals. They find out what capabilities their employees have and how significant or insignificant they consider the task they are undertaking. The standards of performance are established as a guideline to employees. The managers show interest in their subordinates and are keen to listen to their complaints and contributions. After, they assess the employees’ results in relation to the set goals and standards; they reward appropriately and do not take back the tasks of delegation (Hawkins et al, 2006). The Theory of Transformational (Self-Defining) Leader The theory of transformational leader is a significant theory compared to other theories that explain the delegation. According to Belasen (2000), transformational leaders are self-defining. Belasen describes them as ‘high-performance leaders’. They have internalized ideas and values that are strong and which describe their future direction and role of their firms. At times, they are willing to trade their reputation and prestige for the sake of saving their organization; especially when it comes to making decisions that are difficult and affect the firm’s members in terms of the salaries and layoffs. They demonstrate a rigid inner purpose sense as well as direction that others view as huge leadership strength. This implies that they have very high opinion of people. They look beyond their self-interests and medium-term needs. Many a times, they view people as resources as opposed to costs. They trust and establish confidence in their subordinates. Thus they are usually the first to give power and delegate authority in their organizations. Self-defining leaders are capable of energizing their subordinates to undertake activities that are in support of higher purposes as opposed to fulfilling their personal interests. Besides, they are capable of creating a surrounding in which individuals are encouraged to take charge of their opportunities and problems. This is something that truly describes the activities of a delegating manager. They also have the ability of making an allowance for sustainable goals and organizational interests, rather than letting themselves be transcended by medium-term goals. They delegate authority to the subordinates and ensure development in them to further learning and develop a team and work environment that is highly performing (Belasen, 2002). The leaders consider establishing interdependence significant as opposed to creation of dependence in an authority that is hierarchical. Empowered firms mitigate hierarchical authority through initiating self-reliable teams and through sharing the organization’s mission and empowering people. Belasen (2000) attests that the leader’s role is instilling trust, initiating coordination and communication, as well as establishing a learning arena where every individual contributes and participates. The crucial responsibility of transformational leaders is to develop a special group of managers who are competent with internal direction and purpose as well as with congruent values. Given that transformational leaders find impetus in their inner standards and values as opposed to their personal interests or foreign standards, they can establish a basis of their decisions of delegation in a wider context. They are highly motivated in the achievement of high degree objectives. In a way, they assist their subordinates to become transformational or self-defining by themselves. For instance, they help them in taking charge of their tasks and being sustainably goal-oriented like them (Weibler, 2004). Thus, this model is advantageous as it helps in the construction of a wider point of view and a wider comprehension of organizational development. The leader can view the larger organizational mission and the needs of subordinates, as well as their demands. Particularly, these leaders can distinguish between the followers’ needs and those of the leader as well as a team. Also, in crucial times, they can align numerous needs for the maximization of the organizational development and general performance. Therefore, this theory coherently explains the activities of delegation and why managers resort to it. Effectiveness of Transformational Manager at this Activity and How the Theory Explains Transformational leadership has an important effect on various outcomes. As self-defining leadership is expected to have an impact on the regard emotional needs and values of the followers, this leadership improves the commitment of subordinates to the organization. However, it might not be clear enough on what extent this kind of leadership can influence commitment of the followers to the organization in the presence of some factors like working conditions or the context of an organization. Commitment in the organization is critical as it predicts various variables of outcomes. Employees who accede to firm’s commitment find satisfaction and are expected to get involved in behavior which strengthens a firm’s competitiveness than their rivals (Ribes et al, 2013). They also articulate turnover intentions that are less and are rarely absent from work. Commitment may entail the inclination of an individual to behave in a certain manner toward a certain target of commitment. This act as an impetus that makes an individual stable even in situations where the individual is expected to be tempted and behave differently. Commitment is thus binding. Weibler (2004) gives three types of organizational commitment including affective, continuance and normative. Affective commitment entails an emotional commitment of an employee to the company. The characteristics of attendance include personal needs satisfaction, normal values, identifying oneself with the aims of the organization in combination with pride feelings as well as attachment. Individuals who show high levels of affective commitments tend to abide with the company because they want it that way. Self-defining leadership is meant to address values, as well as emotions among others. This way, a connection to affective commitment is bound. Followers with high continuance commitment abide with their organizations since there exists good reasons for their doing so. Rational reasons entail contemporary investments or even low alternatives. Their connection to the organization bases on whether there are costs, pay offs or investments. Employees who show normative commitment abide with their organizations since they see it as an obligation due to the values and norms they share with the company or since crucial people ask them to stay. They carry the guilt with them once they leave the firm even when they decline better options. Such attribute may be in conjunction with the transformational leadership. The commitment multidimensionality can be considered as a mind-set with different forms. The various forms entail perceived costs, desire, and obligation to sustain a particular action. Another factor that can influence the outcome of transformational leadership is an organizational context. The transformational leadership influence may be altered by organizational context. For instance, it was found out that there are higher transformational leadership correlations and values in non-profit firms and based on lower hierarchy level than in profit firms based on higher hierarchy levels. The important factors of context are uncertainty and insecurity of the surrounding or firm’s change. Thus, the circumstantial strength degree should be considered an impending moderator. This may be in association with particular firm’s lifecycle like the change period or the phase of entrepreneurship. Transformational leaders are more likely to be very effective when it comes to weak circumstances such as the phase of organizational change than in strong circumstances. Strong circumstances entail attributes of norms, a highly structured environment, a set of rules that is elaborated, and an environment that offers coherent expectancies of behaviors for both subordinates and leaders. On the contrary, under weak circumstances, dispositions of individuals affect actions as opposed to context. Thus, the behavior of a transformational leader is unlikely to show up and affect the outcomes in circumstances that are strong rather than in circumstances that are weak. For instance, it was found out that self-defining leadership tends to emerge and get influential under environmental conditions that are uncertain. Moreover, minute enterprises of entrepreneurship depict higher degree of self-defining leadership than well-developed large corporations. Although private organizations’ employees consider leadership as transformational, there are small differences between the established non-profit and profit firms. In general relationship between leadership, working conditions and firm’s commitment, the model of path in prediction of the affective firm’s commitment produces sound fit indices. Whereas the coefficients of the path are important, the transformational leadership influence is not, in fact, strong. The working conditions exert the strongest influence to affective firm’s commitment. In entrepreneurial enterprises that are small, there is a strong leadership influence on affective commitment whereas the working conditions’ effect is much lower. On the other hand, in big developed organizations, both private and public, leadership is a worse predictor than working conditions. Therefore, the transformational leadership impact tends to increase with a lower structure level and lower security, supporting the strong-weak contexts distinction. Self-defining leadership was also found to have an effect on affective commitment under weak context condition whereas the importance of leadership is less in the context of stronger bank. Thus, the significance or effect of leadership on commitment cannot be overestimated. However, it would be too quick for us to dismiss the role of leadership since it is context dependent. While making efforts of improving the commitment of employees as the goal of transformational leadership, organizational the context has to be considered; otherwise the aim of the transformational leadership is bound to failure or likely to be ineffective. An active management of commitment needs to aim at working conditions when bigger well developed firms are of interest. In smaller organizations, self-defining leadership is crucial in influencing affective commitment. In any case no leadership theory is sufficient enough. Moreover, companies that value employees who are independent at work and work toward achieving common objectives, the self-defining leader is suitable for that company. Overall, it is advisable that all leaders acceded to the transformational leadership style even though at times leaders need to consider other theories such as team player and operators. This is because the transformation model transcends all the styles. Additionally, managers need comprehend that the followers’ developmental level influences the appropriate leadership as well as the style of delegation. A particular approach may fail to work since the employees have not attained the stage of understanding yet they are motivated by the considerations of higher levels. This is not the manager’s or the environment’s fault. A leader’s ability to make choices in a series of appropriate style is also crucial. Since Transformational Leadership Model transcends the other models, it is likely to make appropriate choices regarding the models. Operator’s model and Team player model cannot reflect fully through the three leadership theories. Thus, they are likely not to delegate effectively as Transformational Leadership Model, which reflects through the other models. Transformational leaders allow delegation to become the subject of definition and provision of opportunities to followers to enable them get involved in the courses of action that explores compatibility through personal standards, strong values and firm’s standards. That is self-defining leaders are capable of delegating tasks that are not in line with their personal agendas or that may be viewed to be inequitable to other followers; if the delegation will consequentially enhance the professional advancement of an individual as well as the general performance of the firm. A leader can assist a subordinate in their advancement and professional development through comprehending their point of view and them assist them confront the issues that underscore that view’s disadvantages. Strengths and Weaknesses of Transformational (Self-Defining) Theory Strengths The main strength of this model is that it transcends all the other leadership theories. It is comprehensive and inclusive of the other models (Hollander, 2012). The transformational leaders of the self-defining model further the views and ideas of the Team player model attesting that their teams’ needs are served soundly via attaining the needs of an individual that are of purposes that are worthwhile. This implies that transformational leaders tend to view delegation as an organizational development means as well as the individual’s means since they are aware that appropriate performance of a firm lie on the whole firm’s creativity and its mission dedication as well as commitment. They are mainly focused and goal-orientation since their aim is to establish future transformational leaders like them or more. Transformational leaders are very transformational. They have attained maturity in their development. They are accountable and responsible when it comes to undertaking their activities and considering options before making a final judgment. Their choices of courses of actions do not rely on their own interests, neither do they depend on the interests of the subordinates but because the action is right or wrong in itself. They view the world as fixed and stable seeing every circumstance in terms of ‘truth versus falsehood’ or ‘right versus wrong’. Moreover, transformational theory of leadership is the most researched leadership theory in the modern world (Petran, 2008). This is because the model is multidimensional. Also, the behaviors in association with the self-defining theory including inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence and individualized stimulation have proved effective in several areas such as military, non-profit organizations, industry among others. Transformational leaders are very well developed when it comes to cognitive structures. This enables them to deal with problems and issues from myriads of perspectives. Besides, they can skillfully deal with impending interdependent and contradictory data at the same time (Petran, 2008). Weaknesses Despite trying to show how non-partisan they are, transformational leaders have the ability of make decisions based on the group interests as opposed to their self-interest. This shows that their morality is paradoxical in itself (UK Essays, 2003). Under some circumstances, they are no different from the other leadership models. Although self-defining leadership can take place at every level within the firm, executives at the higher levels of the firms are automatically expected to be transformational leaders. This makes puts them in the spotlight where they have to cope with the operations of day to day, sustainable issues of the organization, as well as their firm’s effect under a bigger social arena (Petran, 2008). Conclusion In a conclusion, it is clear that transformational model is intricate yet very effective as a model. It has few weaknesses, but these do not bring down its high opinion in explaining the effectiveness of delegation within organizations. It displays its characteristics in so much charisma that a leader has no choice but to accede to it. Works Cited Belasen, A. Leading the Learning Organizations: Communication and Competencies for Managing Change. New York: SUNY Press, 2000. Hawkins D, Lake D, Nielson D and Tierney M. Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Heathfield, S. Effective Delegation in Leadership and Management. 2014, Retrieved 15th October 2014 from Hollander, E. Inclusive Leadership: The Essential Leader-Follower Relationship. London: Routledge, 2012. Petran, M. An Explanatory Study of Executive Transformational Leadership, Wisdom, and Emotional Intelligence in Management Process Turnaround Situations. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 2008. PSTraining Modules. Why Delegation is Important. Retrieved 15th October 2014 from http://www.ncsu.edu/project/parkprgrd/PSTrainingModules/delegating/delsec1.htm Ribes D, Jackson S, Geiger S, Burton M and Finholt T. Artifacts that Organize: Delegation in the Distributed Organization. 2013, Retrieved 15th October 2014 from Roussel L, Swansburg C and Swansburg R. Management and Leadership for Nurse Administrators. Burlington: Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2006. UK Essays. Management Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership Management Essay, 2003. Retrieved 15th October 2014 from Weibler, J. (2004). New Perspectives on Leadership Research, Volume 18. Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Read More