The Role of a Manager in Attaining Organizational Effectiveness - Literature review Example

Introduction

Organizational effectiveness is not all about optimizing business outcomes and sustaining growth. Mihalicz defines it as a holistic approach. A wholesome organizational framework depends on the correlation of different sub-structures within the organization. Leadership/management is one sub-structure that can enhance the overall effectiveness of an organization. The manager is the conduit through which outputs from a business models are connected and transferred to different organizational capacities. In other words, managerial systems determine the outputs of any business model. Essentially, it is the crux of any success in a company (2012, para 1 & 2). Thus, the role of a manager in an organizational setting is crucial. Nonetheless, a critical study of the relationship between managerial roles and its impact is imperative.

Armstrong is fast at emphasizing the purpose of management and leadership on a firm. He effectively describes the role of management as ‘giving direction’ to an organizational scenario. Additionally, he defines a manager as one who organizes resources for the common good (2009, p.3). Hughes states that leadership is a subset of the leader as a person, the followers that he/she directs and emergent organizational situations. He is also astute at revealing that there is a subtle difference between management and leadership. Nonetheless, he views leadership, in any manner, as a process, not a position (2006, p.8).

Peter F. Drucker, an eminent managerial theorist, affirms that humanity, since time immemorial, defined the critical roles of management. Yet, despite this consistency of function, there are dynamics in the styles of management (qtd. in “Occupation or Calling .n.d., p. 19). He affirms that the functions have largely remained the same to espouse uniformity of values, principles and outcomes in any organization. Drucker describes ‘modern management’ as the supervision of knowledgeable workers; unlike in the past where the workforce was ‘machinated’ (Drucker qtd. in “Occupation or Calling, n.d., p. 19).

The success of leaders lies in their ability to comprehend and react to situations. Their reactions must make them rise above their situations by creating, leveraging and adapting to situations in an organizational environment (strategic situationalism). This fact effectively defines the relationship between the leader and organizational effectiveness (Chen & Lee, 2008, p.158). Strategic situationalism can enhance organizational effectiveness because a manager adopts new knowledge. Naturally, a leader ought to accumulate new knowledge as pertains human resources to ensure they effectively work within an organization. A leader’s decisions and implementation frameworks has wide-ranging significance on the operations of a firm; consequently, he/she determines the effectiveness of the territory and resources that he/she controls (Frankel, 2008, p. 37).

A study on the role of management is critical at this stage of discussion. It is justified by a more or less obvious relationship between an organization’s outcomes and its leaders. In order to further this debate, the anatomy of an organization as well as the dynamics of effectiveness must be studied in detail. The objective having been set, the crux of the matter remains the association of theory and practice using current literature, theoretical models and relevant practice (Cameron & Whetten, 1983, p. 1).

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to analyze existing managerial literature in order to understand the distinctive role that a manager and leader plays to attain organizational effectiveness. It has been theorized that managers and leaders have a central role to play in the organization. This fact justifies research on how managers and leaders manipulate the organization and its resources to maximize organizational outcomes. Mainly, this study will distinguish the functions that managers and leaders play in the success of the organization. Additionally, this study will examine the similarities of roles and establish whether or not managers and leaders are ideally the same. Consequently, the study will touch on the characteristics that managers and leaders have that undermine or promote the overall success of an organization.

Discussion

There is little consensus in intellectual circles as to the meaning of ‘organizational effectiveness, let alone the methods of assessing its efficiency (Cameroon & Whetten, 1983, p. 1). However, organizations have embedded within their structures, apt criteria that determine ‘organizational effectiveness’. Thus, effectiveness can be vaguely defined through the relationship between an organization, its parameters and its environment. More importantly, other words have been used to describe the effectiveness in an organizational context; words like success, ability and productivity supplement its meaning. Lawler and Whorley subtly describe organizational effectiveness as a positive response to change in the organizational environment. Most organizations can only attain productivity if they change (2006, p. XIV & p.1). Sims links organizational effectiveness to the proper management of human resources (2002, p.2 &3). He prefers to define organizational success as how individuals in an organization develop their careers; conversely, it is how companies keep those ‘careers’ within their governance.

On the other hand, leadership is defined as an interaction of situation and circumstances (Hughes. 2006, p. 7). Additionally, Hughes prefers to call leadership an art and a science. Moreover, Hughes provides various definitions to supplement his meaning. He quotes Benis (1959) to define leadership as a process by which an individual induces reaction from subordinates in a strategic direction. On the other hand, Armstrong, in his ‘Handbook of Management and Leadership’, defines leadership as influencing other people to achieve proper goals (Armstrong, 2005, p. 4&5).

Management is described as being from leadership. Armstrong defines effective management as a process of harmonizing individual endeavor to attain a common goal (Armstrong, 2005, p. 3). He further describes management as knowing what to do and when to do it by effectively using available resources. Hughes posits the difference between management and leadership by intimating that leaders ‘do the right things’ while managers ’do things right’ (Hughes, 2006, p. 8). He further says that leadership and management complement each other and contribute to the overall success (effectiveness) of an organization. Yet, he states that management and leadership can be differentiated. Hughes, in his 2012 book, states that management is all about leading people. Additionally, he derives an additional meaning of the word management from the Italian verb menagerie, which means ‘to handle a horse’. Thus, he says, management is about taking responsibility. He says managers make things happen (2012, p.24). Luna prefers to define management by its critical roles; she states that according to modern management theories, a manager’s role can be divided into six categories: planning, supervision, decision-making and task delegation (2005, p. 18). Though leadership can be analogously referred to as management, the converse is largely false. Alternatively, a manager ought to be a leader but a leader does not necessarily need to be a manager.

Though the meanings of “organizational effectiveness” and “leadership” vary across different forums, the concepts are largely the same. There is a common agreement between scholars that leadership is all about change and influence. Furthermore, effectiveness is also about positive change. The underlying presumption takes into consideration the fact that an organization is a dynamic phenomenon. Nonetheless, the parameters under which effectiveness is defined revolve around the proper use of organizational resources. Yet, there are disagreements on what aspects of an organization effectively determine its successful performance. Even though there is an interplay of factors such as leadership, financing and knowledge; there is not much consensus on which of the latter is dominant.

Roles Managers Play in Enhancing Organizational Effectiveness: A Critical Analysis of Literature

Over time, management has changed. The archaic models of hierarchical management have been overtaken with time. In this age of information, a management structure should be flexible. Hence, managers should not live in an ivory tower but rather implement a round table form of governance in an organization. Frankel points out that the old control and command model of management impends growth and transformation. It is because the later model only promotes marginal decision-making by members of within the hierarchy (2008, p. 7). However, it should not be the case. Modern companies are lumped with a plethora of information. A rigid manager cannot process a lot of information to optimize business operations. Therefore, he/she must loosen the ‘iron grip’ and delegate responsibilities. Frankel suggests a boundless organization where there is free-flow of knowledge and information. He not only points out that this will essentially make an organization make effective use of new technology but also deliver crucial decisions in good time (2008, p.36). Therefore, Frankel emphasizes that a manager in an effective modern organization must delegate power and responsibility across a ‘borderless’ organization.

Frankel’s Structure Framework for a Boundaryless Organization (2008, p.34)

Decision Effectiveness in Frankel’s Model of Management in a Borderless Organization (2008, p.35)

Armstrong describes a variety of leadership theories that are implemented in an organization. He explains the relationship of different theories of leadership and how they determine the effectiveness of an organization. Trait leadership, as an example, is behavioral leadership. In this kind of leadership, the aura of a manager’s character transcends the hierarchical borders of an organization and impacts every member of the firm. Nonetheless, Armstrong is quick to point out that the trait model of leadership does not necessary lead to an effective organization. This is in part is due to other superior external factors that affect employee performance in any work scenario (2005, p.7).

To supplement the trait theory, Armstrong, explains the aspects of the contingency theory which takes into consideration the role of an organization in impacting the leader’s behavioral characteristics. He also assumes that leaders can define and navigate through dynamic situations. Chen and Lee, using their strategic situationalism model, explain how stress-making situations

exacerbate an organizational environment. However, they maintain that such situations are effectively managed by leaders who leverage and adapt to situations to optimize business outcomes (Chen & Lee, 2008 p. 134 & 164). Thus, a leader, as Armstrong says, navigates between different styles; directing, coaching, supporting and delegating with an aim of responding to subordinate levels of development (2005, p. 7). This model of effectively managing an organization’s human resources is intuitively favored by many organizations.

Chen & Lee Depicting Sunzi’s Model of Strategic Situationalism: in this model leadership as a process reacts to the situations of its followers.

Nevertheless, leadership is craft, and a leader is a craftsman who owns a set of appropriate skills to manipulate resources within an organization to make strategic decisions on behalf of the organization. However, their decisions must be based on values. Nevertheless, they are responsible for directing change in an organization. The latter is a constant process (“Occupation of Calling”, n.d., p. 19). Their decision must be directed at achieving results. Drucker points this fact out clearly; without results, a manager automatically fades into oblivion. Matters of results and the performance of an organization are always and should always be ascribed to the management. Thus, their role expands to the external environment and it becomes their responsibility to put the business/organization in a strategic market position. Consequently, an organization will be able to effectively compete with other firms (n.d., p. 20).

In the age of dynamic technology and ‘glass-wall” businesses, leaders must be there to help their subordinates to innovate and achieve new ideas. It is a leader’s first priority to interact with his ‘followers’ to create a ‘creative’ environment, not to maintain status quo. Organizations oriented to power are not appealing, and eventually, they affect performance and innovation (Hughes, 2006, p. 39 and 60). Hughes gives a compelling example of how innovative leaders can change the fortunes of company. Michael Eissnner, CEO of Walt Disney Company (1984-2005), ushered the company into a new era of innovation. Together with the president Frank Wells, they initiated marathon meetings in which members of the organization could contribute creative and realistic ideas forcing employees to work overtime. Eventually, their efforts immensely paid off since the company was able to innovate more, expand to other continents and revolutionize the animation industry. Moreover, the company’s financial results improved 6000 times (Hughes, 2006, p.45). The latter is a succinct example of the implication of innovative leadership in an organization.

The ability of an organization to perform is also dependent on the Human resource management. All so often leaders neglect the needs of their subordinates. Sims argues that the ability of employees to effectively carry out their duties is dependent on the HR practices that a manager institutes within an organization (2002, p.3). Employees are the backbone of any organization; hence, some models of organization might argue an organization’s effectiveness is centered on employee satisfaction. Employee attrition is also significant in an organizational climate. The motivation that a leader gives to his subordinates determines the success of an organization and its ability to retain a skilled workforce; Sims points out that satisfied workers bear more load and perform better. Middle-level managers must also be the bridge through which employees can interact with the owners of an organization. Nevertheless, Sims’ managerial model emphasizes ‘inclusiveness’ in decision-making. A good leader should include employees in creating policies to optimize performance (2002, p. 27).

The benefits of employee-centered leadership are inarguable. In this competitive era, organizations must invest in a competent workforce. A competent workforce lowers the cost of doing business or maintaining an organization. Nonetheless, the cost of leadership goes down. It is imperative that a leader understands what employees can do, and optimize its workforce in light of the demands of the day. Thus a leader sets goals for the subordinates in light of what Armstrong defines as a path-goal model of leadership. (2005, p. 7; Armstrong 2012; Sims, 2002, p. 25, 26 &27).

The role of the manager and that of the leader can be sufficiently different. Armstrong describes these differences in a clear fashion. It is not the case that a manager is the same as a leader but a manager can be a leader. This expression supported by Hughes’ argument that a leader is an abstract term; defines a thin line between management and leadership but emphasizes the latter. Managers strive to be leaders (2006, p.45; “Occupation or Calling”, n.d., p. 21). According to Armstrong, a manager’s role varies according to circumstances and the environment in which they work. Managers generally provide direction, facilitate change, achieve results and meet customer needs. They also work with the people, use resources and manage their personal skills. Leaders, on the hand, define a task, achieve the task and strive to maintain effective relationships. Those are the most important functions of a leader (Armstrong, 2012, p. 19 & 33).

In light to this discussion, leaders/managers perform common functions. Yet again, they are described in opposing schemes. Leaders and managers have the duty to first and foremost perform. Secondly, they must create and utilize available resources and optimize whenever there is scarcity. Additionally, there are defined as decision-makers and as Drucker puts it that they should remain that way (“Occupation or Calling”, n.d, p. 22). Importantly, they are the change agents and should lead the way to change by effectively changing their character and policies to effectively guide an organization toward positive social and financial outcome. They should lead by leading themselves and compelling other subordinates to follow suit. Leaders are the face of the organization and as such should dissipate the organization’s belief, downwards or horizontally. A leader’s style of handling situations will ultimately affect their subordinates

As exemplified by Chen and Lee’s description of subordinate reaction towards leadership style (Chen & Lee, 2008, p.175).

Chen and Lee Description of Subordinate Reaction towards Leadership Styles: Chinese Example.

A manager stands as a crucial ingredient in attaining organizational success. Armstrong links organizational development to organizational success. He states that organizational development aims at espousing collaboration between people in an organization to achieve organizational objectives through the strategic implementation of decisions and the optimization of organizational processes (2012, p. 160). A leader is the main strategist and has the ability to implement collective strategies that would optimize an organization’s operations and achieve organizational success. Nonetheless, Hughes points out that the leadership and management complement each other and contribute to the success of an organization (2006, p. 9). Though he admits that leaders can sometimes be falsely ascribed to organizational failures, there is basic faith that all leaders and managers shape an organization for good or for bad. Finnow, argues that innovational cycles are becoming shorter each and the leader needs to put an organization in a place of rapid innovation in order to keep the business afloat. Yet again, he points out Gore’s motto “Make money and have fun”. It implies that a leader should also make his/her subordinates feel at ease when conducting business operations (2011, p. 4 &6). Modern organizations are opting to secure the comfort of their employees first to maintain a competitive workforce. By offering them stock options, dividends, holidays, regular promotions and on-the-job training, their employee attrition remains high (Sims,2002, p.6).

Unless a leader understands the organizational structure and responds to its needs, there is imminent failure. The most essential tenet of organizational operation is the integration of strategic HR Management into any organizational process. A manager must understand that without good employees, the structure is in jeopardy. It is easy for a leader to forget that the recruitment process is the cornerstone to getting the right individuals for the job rather than training them on the job (Sims, 2002, p.178 &179). Most leaders aim at a perfect complex organization yet this is practically impossible. Lawler and Whorley, suggest that leaders/managers should view an organization as a dynamic object in order to reduce the chances of failure. A manager must delegate change in an easy and appealing manner. Lawler and Whorley refer to creative destruction as a form of destruction which comes from rapid changes in the organizational parameters (2006, p.51). Hence, a manager should implement a dynamic model of governance or else anticipate failure. Armstrong also attributes the failure of an organization to the leader’s inability to communicate and solve conflicts as they arise. Instead, most leaders take a draconian approach to annihilate dissidents/opposition within and organization (Armstrong, 2005, p.241). This, should, however, be the case.

Summative, one can relate a leader’s practices to the effectiveness of an organization. Since a leader or even a manager directs resources to an organization’s set framework, its success will thus be determined by that distribution. Nonetheless, the way a leader interacts with subordinates in an organization determines the outcomes of any organization. An open forum of leadership is recommended to enhance the flow of information in this modern age. It is also vital for organizations to change; the direction in which a manager/a leader takes the subordinates determines the results of that change. Yet, effectiveness should not only be measured by financial outcomes but with other parameters too. A leader’s starts directs and compels innovation; therefore, a leader/a manager can effectively improve an organization’s standing by manipulating innovation as a parameter of success. There are more succinct and synchronized roles that a leader plays, but the fact remains that in order for an organization to properly perform; a leader’s managerial role is essential to the organization’s success.