The Effective Use of Power - Case Study Example

"Effective management of both discipline and grievance is achieved by the following the principles of procedures without invoking them in practice" Defining effective organisational behaviour, development and good health is an area that can pose difficulty. An organisation such as Dobusc is made up of different stake holders and each stake holder can have a different view on what constitutes effective organisational behaviour, development and good health. In the case of Dobusc there are 750 staff members throughout the United Kingdom and various other stakeholders. An organisational stakeholder can be defined as "anyone with an interest, or stake, in the actions of the organisation and its members" Buchanan and Huczynski (2004). This definition of organisational stakeholders includes those internal and external to the organisation. The definition highlights that organisational stakeholders will have similar overall goals and objectives but there will be some key differences not only in the importance placed on each but also how the organisation achieves them. An organisation's stakeholders can include an almost endless list of employee's, suppliers, customers, shareholders etc that can be broken down and sorted into various groups with independent goals and objectives designed to meet their own view of effective organisational behaviour. An example of stakeholder conflict can be seen at The Countryside Agency, a government body with the aim of 'improving the quality of the Countryside for those who use it and the quality of life for people in rural communities'. Simply by dissecting the aim of the body it is possible to see that there are clearly conflicting interests at an organisational level because it is trying to satisfy two major external groups at the outset by balancing the needs of those who live in The Countryside with those who visit it. Internal stakeholders such as the finance department view their role as ensuring that any public money that has been spent was justifiable and recorded and stored accurately. This is often to the annoyance of the Policy work areas who feel stronger about improving the countryside than the bureaucratic process of justifying and recording public spending often seeing the financial procedures as a time consuming hindrance. This conflict means that each stakeholder will have a different view of whether the organisation is successful or not and will have different solutions to what they individually see as being the key obstacles to success. When looking at how the management of people can contribute to effective organisational behaviour, development and good health through leadership it is important to establish the differences between management and leadership. Some theorists hold the opinion that leadership is one area of the management role and in order to be a successful manager they must possess some leadership skills by default. The argument for differentiating between leaders and managers was started by Zaleznik (1977, 2004) in 'Manager and Leaders: Are they different?' where he argued "the difference between managers and leaders lies in the conceptions they hold, deep in their psyches, of chaos and order". A more recent argument suggests that "a manager can be regarded as someone who by definition is assigned a position of leadership in an organisation" (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1985). This definition suggests that managers are in positions of leadership but may not necessarily be leaders. The definition therefore suggests that leadership is in some way an extension of the management function. In 'what leaders really do' Kotter (1990, 2001) argues that "Leadership is not necessarily better than management. Rather leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities". In the article Kotter identifies what he sees as the key functions of leadership and management. Management roles are concerned with "bringing a degree of order and consistency to key dimensions like the quality and profitability of products" (Kotter, 1990, 2001). Key aspects of the management function are planning and budgeting, organising and staffing, controlling and problem solving. The emergence of management roles is connected with the growth of large companies where there is a requirement to control subordinates to prevent chaos emerging. The outcomes of good management can be viewed in terms of consistent performance through the implementation of common procedures and practices. Leadership roles are concerned with coping with change. Kotter states that "part of the reason leadership has become so important is that the business world has become more competitive and volatile" (1990, 2001). Leadership is concerned with establishing direction, aligning people and motivating and inspiring. The desired outcome of effective leadership is that they are able to influence organisational behaviour to produce positive sometimes dramatic change. The establishing direction function of leadership identified by Kotter sees the leader trying to influence followers by "gathering a broad range of data and looking for patterns, relationships and linkages to help explain things" (1990, 2001) however "the direction setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies" (1990, 2001). In creating visions and strategies the leaders are looking to involve their followers in organisational behaviour. The leader is showing the followers the direction but allowing them to choose the route. The extent to which the leader's vision is a success is not just about satisfying the followers but also the organisations various stakeholders. Leadership visions that only suit a few stakeholders may not sufficiently influence the organisation's behaviour. The aligning people function of leadership as identified by Kotter is about "communicating the vision and strategy, and influence the creation of groups which accept the validity of the goals" (1990, 2001). Aligning people is a process concerned with the empowerment of the followers. The followers are given greater freedom to work towards the vision than if they were merely just managed. The function of aligning people to work towards the 'shared' vision will help to encourage initiative within the organisation and enable greater flexibility. Kotter's leadership function of motivating and inspiring is about "ensuring followers have sufficient energy to overcome obstacles" (1990, 2001). Leaders motivate by increasing the value of the work to the follower. Leaders often use involvement in decision making about achieving aims to motivate by giving the follower a sense of being in control. Leaders motivate towards the vision by using techniques such as coaching, feedback and role modelling as opposed to controlling methods. Leaders also reward success so that followers feel they have made a key contribution. This style of motivating increases the follower's sense of control, self esteem and self worth and empowers them towards goal achievement. The leadership functions outlined by Kotter (1990, 2001) will have a beneficial effect on organisation good health. Work place illnesses such as stress are commonly caused by employees feeling that the demands on them are too high and that they have no control over their work. Restricted roles, lack of support and fear of change are common causes of stress within organisations. The leadership functions increase the freedom of the follower in how they perform their role, whilst involving them in goal achievement and offering support all of which are in opposition to the causes of stress. When considering management and leadership influence it is possible to establish that organisations within settled environments can achieve their required targets through effective management. In organisations where the political, economic, social, technological, legal and ecological factors that make up the environment are constantly changing, effective leadership can be one of the key factors in organisational success. Leadership can be defined as "an influencing process aimed at goal achievement" (Stogdill 1950). From this definition it is possible to ascertain that in order to be a leader the individual must have followers and that a leader is able to influence the behaviour of the followers towards the achievement of goals. In "The Effective Use of Power" (Robert C Benfari, Harry E Wilkinson and Charles D Orth, 1986) the authors add to French and Raven's (1958) five power bases to make eight behavioural bases of power, which can be used to influence other individuals or groups. The eight power bases that are identified can be perceived as being negative or positive depending upon whether the follower believes they are benefiting from the situation or not. According to Benfari, Wilkinson and Orth (1986) the most effective leader will have developed their referent power widely and will use reward, expert and information power effectively to influence followers positively. In essence their ability to increase their power base through balancing the type used will affect their ability to achieve goals and positively affect organisational behaviour. Within an organisation a leader could be using their power by influencing the followers towards achievement of organisational goals therefore positively influencing organisational behaviour. Leaders can also use their power to influence followers in a way that is not in the interest of the organisation. Leaders can use their power bases to influence the behaviour of their followers in a way that is focused on achieving personal goals such as promotion instead. When a leader abuses the power they have it could be viewed as negatively effecting organisational behaviour. The achievement of the group's goals will negatively impact on the morale of employees outside of the group and possibly the groups members depending on the type of power used. In "Leadership that gets Results" (Goleman, 2000) the author suggests that leaders need have a combination of styles that they are able to draw upon depending upon the circumstance. The extent to which the leader's style is able to influence the follower and therefore affect organisational behaviour depends upon the circumstance under which it is used. Goleman (2000) also believes that "Leaders who have mastered four or more-especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative, and coaching styles-have the very best climate and business performance" indicating that a combination of styles has the greatest effect on organisational performance. The contingency theory of leadership became popular as research studies began to show that each of the various leader behaviour types could be a success or failure depending upon the context in which they were applied. This style of leadership can be defined as "a perspective which argues that leaders must adjust their style in a manner consistent with aspects of the context" (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004). Situational leadership theory builds upon contingency theory by adding an appreciation of the needs of the followers by including the follower maturity dimension. The results lead to a desire to predict the circumstances under which each leadership type was more likely to produce positive results in influencing follower behaviour. Situational leadership was developed so that greater consideration is given to factors such as tasks, relationships and follower readiness. In "So you want to know your leadership style?" (Blanchard and Hersey, 1981) the authors argue that a leader's task behaviour and relationship behaviour interact with subordinate maturity to influence leader effectiveness. A key development in situational leadership was that the leader could change their leadership style depending on the task required in order to increase their effectiveness. In "Great Ideas Revisited" Hersey and Blanchard agree that "situational leadership is not as much about leadership as it is about meeting follower's needs" (1996). The situational theory of leadership by Hersey and Blanchard (1981) plots the two main behaviours onto grid axis. The horizontal axis displays task behaviour which is "the extent to which a leader is likely to organise and define the roles of the members of the group (followers); to explain what activities each is to do as well as when, where and how tasks are to be accomplished" (Hersey and Blanchard, 1981). Relationship behaviour is plotted onto the vertical axis and is defined as "the extent to which a leader is likely to maintain personal relationships between himself and the members of his group (followers) by opening up channels of communication, delegating responsibility and giving subordinates an opportunity to use their potential" (Hersey and Blanchard, 1981). With the two behaviour types plotted onto a grid axis the authors then identified four basic leadership styles which have since been labelled telling, persuading, participating and delegating. Telling has high amounts of task behaviour with little relationship behaviour. Persuading has high amounts of task and relationship behaviour. Participating has high relationship behaviour but low task behaviour. Delegating has little of either relationship or task behaviour. Situational leadership then looks at follower maturity to gauge leadership effectiveness. In instances where maturity is low; leaders need to provide high amounts of task behaviour. Where maturity is high; they should provide low amounts of task behaviour. When maturity is high or low; leaders should use low levels of relationship behaviour. When maturity is moderate they should provide high levels of relationship behaviour. In "A test of the situational leadership theory" by Blank, Weitzal and Stephen (p 579 - 597, 1990) the authors examined situational leadership and found that there was little support for the complex predictions in the theory. The results of their investigation showed that there was little correlation between leadership behaviour in terms of relationship and task against maturity and predicting outcomes. The authors found that the generalised criteria that are used to predict outcomes are not specific enough to guarantee a positive change in follower performance. Situational leadership ideas can only be of limited use when examining the effect of leadership on Organisational Behaviour. The theory of Leadership can also be viewed as a two way relationship where "leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real change that reflect their mutual purposes" (Rost, 1991, p.102). This definition suggests an exchange between leader and follower in order to achieve personal and organisational goals. This definition focuses on the exchange relationship rather than the leadership qualities required, or the situational leadership focus of matching leadership style with the followers and task required. One type of leadership relationship is the theory of transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is based on "a series of exchanges between leaders and followers" (Bass, 1985). Transactional leaders are concerned with the results of the group. Transactional leaders influence the performance of the group using reward and punishment, which suits an authoritarian leadership style. Transactional leaders look to "clarify followers roles and what they must do to obtain designated outcomes" (Politis, p186 - 197, 2002). Politis (2002) views transactional leadership as being aligned to the contingent rewards and management by exception elements of Bass (1985) model of leadership behaviour types. Transformational leaders look to influence and motivate their followers so that they so that they working to the leader's vision. "Transformational leaders seek to raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to higher ideas and moral values such as liberty, justice, equality, peace and humanitarianism" (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders are charismatic visionaries who seek to align the follower's goals with those of the organisation. "Transformational leadership is an expansion of transactional leadership" (Bass and Avolio, 1994 p.3). In addition to the transactional leadership methods of reward and punishment, the transformational leader uses their charisma to motivate followers to achieve more than would normally be expected. Transformation leadership can be aligned to the attributed charisma, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration element of Bass (1985) model of leadership. A slightly different approach to the leader follower exchange relationship is offered in "Transcendental Leadership" (Cardona, p201-207, 2000). This approach can be summarised as "a contribution based exchange relationship in which the leader promotes unity by providing fair extrinsic rewards, appealing to the intrinsic motivation of the collaborators and developing their transcendent motivation" (Cardona, 2000). This type of leader attempts to "influence organisational behaviour by aligning the follower's motivation to those of the organisation" and in addition tries to "develop the transcendent motivation of the follower" (Cardona, 2000). The theory is an attempt to differentiate between leaders who could appear to manipulate their followers to their own gain and those leaders who are genuinely concerned with the development of their followers. The transcendental leader uses unity to influence the behaviour of their followers by creating a sense of responsibility. In conclusion it is possible to determine that leaders are able to influence organisational behaviour, development and good health by establishing direction, aligning people and motivating and inspiring whilst considering the needs of the followers. The degree to which they are successful in doing so depends upon many factors including the organisations culture and environmental context. The degree in which followers are compliant with a leaders influence will also play a large part. Also the leadership style used will affect the degree to which a leader is able to influence. The whole process of leading and following can be seen as an exchange process placed within a complex contextual framework where the leader does not just influence the organisation but the organisation and its environmental context influences the leader. References Bass, B., (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B., Avolio, B., (1994). Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Benfari, R., Orth, C., Wilkinson, E., (1986). The Effective Use of Power. Business Horizons, Vol. 29 Issue 3, p12. Blanchard, K., Hersey, P., (1981). So You Want to Know Your Leadership Style?. Training & Development Journal, Vol. 35 Issue 6, p34. Blanchard, K., Hersey, P., (1996). Great Ideas Revisited. Training & Development Journal, Vol. 50 Issue 1, p42. Blank, W., Green, S., Weitzal, J., (1990). A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory. Personnel Psychology, Vol 43 Issue 3, p579 - 597. Buchanan, D., and Huczynski, A., (1985). Organizational Behaviour An Introductory Text (5th Ed.). London: Prentice Hall International. Buchanan, D., and Huczynski, A., (2004). Organizational Behaviour An Introductory Text (5th Ed.). London: Pearson Education Ltd. Cardona, P., (2000). Transcendental Leadership. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, Vol 21 Number 4, p201 - 207. French, J., Raven, B., (1958). The Bases of Social Power, In Buchanan, D., and Huczynski, A., (2004). Organizational Behaviour An Introductory Text (5th Ed.)., p724., London: Pearson Education Ltd. Goleman, D., (2000). Leadership that gets Results. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 Issue 2, p78-90. Kotter, J., (1990). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 Issue 3, p103. Kotter, J., (2001). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 Issue 11, p85 - 96. Politis, J., (2002). Transformational and Transactional Leadership Enabling (Disabling) Knowledge Acquisition of Self-Managed Teams: The Consequences for Performance. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, Volume 23 Number 4, p186 - 197. Rost, J., (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, Praeger, New York, NY. Stogdill, R.M., (1950), Leadership, Membership and Organisation. In Buchanan, D., and Huczynski, A., (2004). Organizational Behaviour An Introductory Text (5th Ed.)., p716., London: Pearson Education Ltd. Zaleznik, A., (1977). Managers and Leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 Issue 3, p67. Zaleznik, A., (2004). Managers and Leaders: Are they different?. Harvard Business Review, Vol.82 issue 1, p74 -81. Read More