Managers Are Less Concerned with Leadership instead They Are More Focused on Getting Things Done - Coursework Example

Management Introduction A close look at the ways in which organizations today function, one can evidently see that most mangers are less concerned with ‘leadership’ instead they are more focused on getting things done and getting through the working day. This can be attributed to the fact that the existing outlook on leadership, effective management and even so business ethics is distorted. Calàs and Smircich (1991: 593) argue that we live in an era whereby our understanding about organization has been seduced by “Leadership.” Dukerich et al (1985; 78) observes that people’s view of leadership is dominated by a highly romanticized heroic outlook on leadership. In this essay, I argue that it is true that most managers are less concerned with leadership mainly due a distorted outlook on the concept of leadership and other related aspects such as business ethics, power and management practices. I am going to highlight the ways in which the outlook on the concept of leadership and other related concepts such as power, business ethics and management practices are distorted and how these distorted outlooks cause managers to be less concerned with leadership. Subsequently, I will conclude that in order for managers to exercise effective leadership there is need to denaturalise our outlook and understanding on the concept of leadership. Managers and leadership The sentiments conveyed by Parker (2002: 2-3), show how the outlook of most people with regards to leadership is distorted. Parker argues that if people experience difficulties in with their work and their lives in general, they often believe that better management can salvage these difficult situations. Better management is often accredited as the universal solution for emerging problems. It is the belief of most people that management protects from inefficiencies and chaos. It is considered as a civic religion and a civilising process. Despite the fact that people don’t have much faith in the current management, they always seem to believe that better management is the answer (Parker 2002). As a result of this outlook a lot of focus is often directed towards the capability of managers to perform and salvage difficult situations. Dukerich et al (1985; 78) observes that people’s view of leadership is dominated by a highly romanticized heroic outlook on leadership. Ideological, psychological, historical and philosophical forces are some of the factors that have contributed to the existing outlook on leadership as a sovereign locus in organizations. (Dukerich 1985). As a result of this outlook company leaders and managers are often demonised for criminality immorality and corporate irresponsibility. They are often presented as evil or a diabolic in instance whereby thing go wrong. Consequently, Wray-Bliss (2007:2) notes that, the process of demonising management unwittingly brings about several problematic impacts which eventually diminish their ethical pledge and focus on leadership. Hence most managers are less concerned with ‘leadership’ and are more concerned with simply getting through the working day. I have argued in the previous paragraph that the outlook of most people with regards to leadership is distorted since it is dominated by a highly romanticized heroic outlook on leadership (Dukerich et al 1985; 78). Similarly, Calàs and Smircich, (1991: 593) note that leadership has been represented in a masculine self image. When it comes to business ethics there is a distorted view that the manager is naturally and rightfully the one to codify and enforce ethics within an organization. The existing outlook on leadership reinforces the view that managers should control the labour power of their employees. It elevated the role of a manger as the superior ethical agent in the organization thus diminishing the claims of employee, customers and the wider community. Personally, I consider that taking such a stance on the part of the manager is not true leadership, rather it is a way of rationalising managers and managerialism as the advantaged inheritors of ‘morality’ within the organisation. Effective leadership entails the power to influence rather than control. This view often held by many managers and as result of this, they focus on controlling and getting things done through the working day rather than influencing positive and ethical behaviours amongst their employees. Furthermore, Wray-Bliss (2007) observes that due to the increasing connection between religion and business culture in society in the United States and other develop countries around the world, the term ‘evil’ has been personified in the modern day CEO’’s and managers. CEO’s and managers are often demonised for criminality, immorality and corporate irresponsibility. They are often presented as evil or a diabolic in instance whereby thing go wrong. Due to this, Wray-Bliss (2007:2) notes that, the process of demonising managers unwittingly brings about several problematic impacts which eventually limit reinforces monotheism and limit the voice of reason or persuasiveness (Olson, 2007). Drawing on to Levinasian ethics, Wray-Bliss argues the act of that demonizing managers or leaders brings about a final unwelcome impact. Particularly, by casting the company leaders or manager as the embodiment of evil or the executor of an immoral role within the organisational, the many diminish their faces from humanity and hence they diminish their power and ethical warrant of influence towards leadership. This in turn causes most managers or leaders to adapt an autocratic management practices that are mainly geared getting things done rather than exercising effective leadership (Wray-Bliss, 2007). The 20th century was characterised by the development of professional management as a specialised occupation and social force. This development played an important role initiating changes within the corporate world and promoting modern bureaucratic enterprises that are based on joint stock but separate the management from the ownership. With this type of structures most mangers headed independent divisions which incorporated production and distribution by managing the flows from the suppliers to the consumers in well defined markets. These divisions carried out their functional activities via specialists department. This form of structuring encouraged the development of professional management and theories which attempt to provide recommendations on best management techniques and approaches. Nevertheless, according to Thompson (2003: 87-99), despite the fact that various theories have been developed in an attempt to illuminate on best management practices, it is still not easy to answer how managers out to exercise effective leadership (Tsoukas 1994). There is no consensus on the right approach to management and as a result, this field has been characterized by much controversy and debate. Consequently, this has made it difficult for managers to focus on ‘leadership’ instead most managers tend to focus on getting things done and getting through the working day. One can assume that in a work setting whereby the staff and management work alongside each other there is genuine cooperation and healthy work relationships. Sadly, relationships between managers and their staff are in many cases characterized by unspoken tensions, pressure and massive contradiction. According to Knights and Roberts (1982), both management and staff act on false understanding and outlook on the nature of power. In most cases, power is considered as an individual possession instead of a relationship between people. As a result, most managers tend to ignore or attempt to deny their need and dependence on their employees, they also use their powers coercively. On the other hand, employees also respond to this form of approach by using counter coercive strategies. The dominating view in most organizations is that managers have the ultimate power whereas employees are subjects (Giddens, 1979:119). With this view in mind it would be difficult to build healthy working relationships that can enable employees to have a positive outlook towards their managers and managers to employ their leadership skill by influencing employees to willing fully achieve the set organizational goals and objectives. Consequently, managers are often forced to overlook the leadership aspect of their management aspect and focus on getting things done regardless of the approach that they use. It is therefore apparent that most mangers are less concerned with ‘leadership’ instead they are more focused on getting things done and getting through the working day. In contrast to the argument that I have presented in this essay, over the years, a good number of companies have exemplified good leadership by adopting corporate social responsibility (CSR) practises. The belief that the only responsibility of a company is to increase its profitability has since been faced off by CSR movements(Friedman, 1970: 233-238).Some of the common CSR practices adapted by a good number of national and multinational companies include; giving donations in form of money and resources to charities, supporting programs on environmental sustainability and linking their business brands to good causes such as environmental protection, anti-drugs campaigns and child protection among many other CSR practices. Nevertheless, just because business leaders implement CSR practices so as to promote their organizations as socially responsible, this does not mean that their claims are legitimate. Companies which pollute and exploit the environment also claim to be socially responsible. Some companies use CSR practices as investments to get favourable media coverage and build a positive public image (Wray-Bliss, 2006: 506). Conclusion My main argument in this essay is that mangers are less concerned with ‘leadership’ instead they are more focused on getting things done and getting through the working day mainly because the existing outlook on leadership, effective management and even so business ethics is distorted. People’s outlook on leadership is dominated by a highly romanticized heroic outlook on leadership (Dukerich et al 1985: 78). As a result of this outlook ethical pledge and focus on leadership has diminished overtime. Hence most managers are less concerned with ‘leadership’ and are more concerned with simply getting through the working day. Moreover, a good number of managers have adapted to an autocratic management practices that are mainly geared getting things done rather than exercising effective leadership (Wray-Bliss, 2007). Moreover, the lack of consensus on the right approach to management and power balance has brought about much controversy and debate that has in turn inhibited managers from a clear focus on effective leadership. It is therefore, essential to denaturalise our outlook and understanding on the concept of leadership. Leadership should be viewed as a privilege position of exerting positive influence. Bibliography Calàs, M. and Smircich, L. (1991) ‘Voicing seduction to silence leadership’ Organization Studies 12(4): 567-602. Dukerich, J. Meindl, J. and Ehrlich, S. (1985) ‘The Romance of Leadership’ Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 78-102. Friedman, M. (1970). ‘The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’, in J. White (ed.) (2000) Contemporary Moral Problems, Wadsworth, London. . p. 233–238. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problem of social theory, Macmillian, London. Knights, D. & Roberts, J. (1982). The power of organization or the organization of power. Organization studies 30(1): 47-63. Olson, L. (2007) ‘Religious affiliations, political preferences, and ideological alignments’ in J. Beckford and N. Demerath (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of the Sociology of Religion London; Sage, pp. 438-457. Parker, M. (2002). Against management. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thompson, P. (2003). Work Organizations: Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. p 106. Tsoukas, H. (1994). New thinking in organizational behaviour: from social engineering to reflective action, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York. Wray-Bliss, E. (2006). Ethics at work. In introducing organizational behavior and management , Cengage learning , New York Wray-Bliss, E. (2007). The ‘evils’ of capitalism: CEOs, critique and the deified/demonic. University of Technology, Sydney. Read More