Sign of a Healthy and Productive Organization - Essay Example

At the micro-level, the leader is concerned with influence between individuals, and at the macro-level there are leadership activities targeted on changing social systems and reforming organizations (Burns, 1978)1. House defines "leadership" organizationally and narrowly as "the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members" (House, R. J. 2004: page 15). Organizationally, leadership directly impacts the effectiveness of costs, revenue generation, service, satisfaction, earnings, market value, share price, social capital, motivation, engagement, and sustainability. Thus leadership behavior can come from an individual, a collective group of leaders, or even from the disincarnate — if not mystical — characteristics of a celebrity figurehead. Followers often endow the leader with status or prestige. Aside from the prestige-role sometimes granted to inspirational leaders, a more mundane usage of the word "leadership" can designate current front-runners that exercise influence over competitors, for example, a corporation or a product can hold a position of "market leadership" without any implication of permanence or of merited respect. Note that the ability to influence others does form an integral part of the "leadership" of some but not all front-runners. A front-runner in a sprint may "lead" the race, but does not have a position of "leadership" if he does not have the potential to influence others in some way. Thus one can make an important distinction between "being in the lead" and the process of leadership. Leadership implies a relationship of power — the power to guide others. In 1994 House and Podsakoff attempted to summarize the behaviors and approaches of "outstanding leaders" that they obtained from some more modern theories and research findings2. Power obviously is a pervasive reality in the life process of all modern-day organizations. Leaders regularly acquire and use power to accomplish specific work goals and to strengthen their own positions vis-à-vis the reading of general or organizational goals. It is possible to see every interaction and every social relationship in an organization as involving an exercise of power3. Hence the term power, influence and Leadership are full of ambiguity for a layperson, or within political contexts. Control under organizational change can be transformed into opportunity that exercise influence over the organization of work, and thus create opportunity for sustained growth. Leadership process has been conceptualized in numerous ways ranging from a hierarchical process to a dynamic group process. For example, charismatic and transformation theories have stressed the importance of group processes (Northouse, 1997)4. In contrast, military leadership has historically stressed the importance of tenacity, willpower and the ability to impose direction through rank (Horn, 2000)5. Thus, the role of power and the appropriate use of different types of power within each of these models differ significantly. Again, French and Raven’s6 taxonomy of the six bases of power can be subsumed under Bass’ position and personal dichotomy of power7. Specifically, legitimate, reward, coercive, and information power all fit under position power; while expert power and referent power can be classified as personal power. But, interestingly rather than focusing exclusively on power as a source of potential influence, research has examined the specific types of behavior used to exercise power. Abusive leadership produces negative outcomes at both individual and organizational levels. Quine (1999)8 found that staff that had been bullied had significantly lower levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of job induced stress, depression, anxiety, and intention to leave the job, compared to non-bullied staff. From depression to reduced productivity at work, bullying may cost organizations billions of dollars through absenteeism, high staff turnover, and legal action (Davenport et al., 1999, or Namie & Namie 2000)9. Thus when a leader uses non-contingent punishment or does not reward performance, this could lead to a sense of injustice. But when supervisor provides a complete and adequate explanation for decisions, and treats subordinates with dignity, respect, and civility, the outcome is quite different, despite greater workload. Thus, Crino and Leap (1989)10 suggested that this discontent with management also leads to reduced loyalty and an increased likelihood of committing an act of sabotage. Again, Raven11 has indicated that coercion power requires significant surveillance of subordinate behavior on the part of the influencing agent. Thus, the leader actually looses power and time spent monitoring his/her subordinates’ every move. Subordinate’s satisfaction with their leader, the absence of behavioral monitoring and fear of reprimand (as opposed to transactional leadership) helps to nullify the feeling of suppression within the powerless employees of an organization, and help subordinates take initiative and creativity in task performance. Thus when leaders in an organization help empower subordinates by encouraging them to take ownership of their work and to strive for continuous improvement, the inspiration motivate subordinates to go above and beyond, exerting extra effort in everything they do. While leaders, particularly those who adopt management by exception styles, consistently monitor their subordinates’ work. Constant supervision decreases subordinates’ feelings of accountability and responsibility for providing quality services and decreases overall organizational performance. Organizational leaders and supervisors are believed to be the primary instigators and creators of their organization’s culture and climate. Thus, organizational leaders have a considerable amount of influence on the development, maintenance, and transformation of an organization’s climate, culture, and their ensuing values and behavioral norms. Leaders’ behaviors are interpreted by subordinates to be tangible representations of organizational actions, policies, and procedures. In the context of public organizations, political leadership is about clarifying the leader’s goals, assessing the distribution of power and interests, and building coalitions and linkages to key stakeholders by establishing networks (Bolman and Deal, 1997)12. Bolman and Deal integrate considerations for structuring an organization for performance, performance goals, performance controls, and performance assessment into each of the four frames as a sub-element. However, this study offers a fifth and distinctive frame, the Performance Frame, which can be used in the same manner as suggested by Bolman and Deal to reframe organizations and prescribe a leadership focus. Performance leaders enable followers to link organizational inputs to outcomes by making the relationship between organizational inputs and outcomes clear to followers and themselves, thereby improving the effectiveness and efficiency of organizational work flow. Again, By identifying the individual elements of production, from input through outcome, the performance leader examines the process as an interconnected system and evaluates each component for production effectiveness and efficiency. Performance leaders establish and encourage followers to participate in groups tasked with improving production tools and resource utilization. Performance leaders also create relational networks of communication and cooperation between organizational units and individuals. Programmatic triage, mandates, and sustainable revenues are among the list of organizational development concerns. The leaders also help maintain a stable workforce, improving technology, establishing agency parameters, and “moving target” policy as structural issues that deserve attention at the organizational level. Thus, Organizations striving to remain viable and effective amidst constant change must be willing to assess and adjust organizational philosophy, goals, objectives and processes to meet these changes. A sign of a healthy and productive organization is a congruence between organization’s values and the behaviors of its members. Leadership in Organizations share the specific focus on managerial leadership and attempt at bridging the gulf between academics and management practitioners. Leaders have most impact in a crisis, and the monitoring of the environment by executives is considered essential in the formulation of organisational strategy. Hence, creating and defining a clear and compelling vision is useful to guide the organisation through change, and formulating and helping employees to bide by organization’s vision is the leader’s essential work. This may also help in implementing change at a organisational or people-oriented level that make this whole dynamic evoving and staying functional through practical impacts. Works Cited 1. Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Free Press. 2. Bolman, Lee G. and Terrance E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, 1997. 3. Burns, Bernard M. Leadership. Harper and Row: New York, 1978. 4. Crino, M., & Leap, T. (1989). What HR Managers Must Know About Employee Sabotage. Personnel, 66, 31-38. 5. Davenport, N., Distler, S. R., & Pursell, E. G. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional Abuse In The American Workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing. 6. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The Bases Of Social Power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. 7. Horn, B. (2000). Wrestling With An Enigma: Executive Leadership. In B. Horn (Ed.), Contemporary Issues In Officership: A Canadian Perspective (pp. 123-144). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. 8. James L. Gibson, John M. Ivancevich, and James H. Donnelly Jr., Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes (Plano, Tex.: Business Publications, Inc., 1985), 333. 9. Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The Bully At Work: What You Can Do To Stop The Hurt And Reclaim Your Dignity On The Job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks Inc. 10. Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 11. Raven, B. H. (1992). A Power/Interaction Model Of Interpersonal Influence: French And Raven Thirty Years Later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(2), 217-244. 12. Robert House and Philip M. Podsakoff, Leadership Effectiveness: Past Perspectives and Future Directions for Research in Jerald Greenberg (ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ., 1994 13. Quine, L. (1999). Workplace Bullying In An NHS Community Trust: Staff Questionnaire Survey, British Medical Journal, 318, 228-232. Read More