Leadership: Major Types of Organizations and Its - Essay Example

PAPER I CULTURE: In its broadest and articulated sense culture is comprised of assumptions, values, norms pre learned disposition extracted from an environment from where either one is born, bred or in any way has any connection or roots to. Culture to day is taken as only a concept exclusive to a country, clan, tribe but in actual culture is a phenomenon which can develop in a group irrespective of its size and objective or even where no common objective exist for instance in the case of a country or tribe or a neighbor hood no common objective may exists although in their everyday activities they might share a same behavior or demonstrate same taste and preference. WHERE DOES IT START? So this is precisely the significance of culture that it binds people together even when they do not share common objectives It might be difficult to put culture in words but it’s a concept one can grab hold of when one sense it ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: So, far we have talked about culture taken in a broader sense, however organization culture is a quite a narrowed down classification of culture and it could differ significantly from organization to organization. For instance the organizational culture of a hospital may differ significantly from that of a not-for-profit organization or a retail firm or even take the example of law firm. There is no doubt that a culture definitely exist in any kind of organization although its manifestation may differ. ORGANIZATONAL CULTURE AND ITS CHANGE: The basic Organizational Culture has some characteristics which if an organization can capitalize can pay them off big time for example culture are made up robust values which are almost impossible to change in a brief period of time so if an organization is able to capitalize on such characteristic it could inject ethics from the very outset of its existence. It could make loyalty, efficiency leadership and many different qualities such as these an integral part of it an employee routine. Some major types of organizations and its cultures are illustrated as follows: EXECUTIVE CULTURE: Employees are highly skilled and tend to stay in the organization, while working their way up the ranks. The organization provides a stable environment in which employees can development and exercise their skills. Examples are universities, hospitals, large corporations, etc. COMPETITIVE CULTURE: Employees are "free agents" who have highly prized skills. They are in high demand and can rather easily get jobs elsewhere. This type of culture exists in fast-paced, high-risk organizations, such as investment banking, advertising, etc. BUREAUCRATIC CULTURE: The most important requirement for employees in this culture is to fit into the group. Usually employees start at the bottom and stay with the organization. The organization promotes from within and highly values seniority. Examples are the military, some law firms, etc. FORTRESS CULTURE: Employees dont know if theyll be laid off or not. These organizations often undergo massive reorganization. There are many opportunities for those with timely, specialized skills. Examples are savings and loans, large car companies, etc. LEADERSHIP ROLE IN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: One very important phenomenon that directly impacts culture or organizational culture for that matter is the concept of leadership itself, a concept as robust as the organizational culture itself. Therefore, in order to set a positive culture a positive leadership commitment to it is as vital as any thing else Although leader-subordinate relations within an organization would seem to be mediated by whether the subordinates belonged to a strong or weak union or to none at all, few empirical comparisons have been made. One would expect, for example, that arbitrary, capricious, coercive management would be highly constrained if workers had a second route to upward influence via a strong and effective union. It is more likely that such management would result in unionization that, in turn, would reinforce management’s rule-bound leadership in place of arbitrariness. The culture of an organization is this shared learned pattern of behavior, transmitted from one generation to the next (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). It includes the values that are shared by the members, the heroes who exemplify the organization’s values, the rituals that provide for the expressive bonding of members and cultural learning, and the stories that transmit the culture’s values and ideas. Intertwined with the philosophy, purposes, functions, and structure of the organization is its culture. Pericles identified the four aspects of the culture of Athens as an organized polity that made it so valuable to its citizenry. First, it was open, democratic, and optimistic about its citizens’ individual capabilities. Job assignments and promotions were based on merit, and the individual’s dignity was upheld. Everyone was equal before the law. Second, its culture promoted beauty, good taste, and personal satisfaction in home, work, and play. Third, it was a culture of innovation; it provided the models for others to follow. Fourth, it encouraged an alignment of the interests of the individual citizen with those of the state. Leadership is also expected to act according to its organizational culture just as it is important for a culture to be shaped by its leadership. There are example littered all over the history of such an impact of leadership on an organizational culture and vice versa. When we talk about a leader and subsequently a related organizational culture we do not necessarily mean a firm, retailer or any corporation, we keep on referring to organizational culture because organization in that respect could even be any country or nation treated as an organization and its culture referred to as organizational culture. EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT CONTEXT: Culture can be viewed in explicit and implicit context that is to say that in an explicit context, culture is what naturally emerges as individuals transform themselves into social groups as tribes, communities, and ultimately, nations. Whereas, in an implicit context represents the view that culture is an explicit social product arising from social interaction either as an intentional or unintentional consequence of behavior. In other words, culture is comprised of distinct observable forms (e.g., language, use of symbols, ceremonies, customs, methods of problem solving, use of tools or technology, and design of work settings) that groups of people create through social interaction and use to confront the broader social environment. (Wuthnow and Witten 1988). This second view of culture is most relevant to the analysis and evaluation of organizational culture and to cultural change strategies that leaders can employ to improve organizational performance. THE THREE LEVELS: Culture can represented as consisting of three levels with the most prominent being behavior and artifacts. This is the observable level of culture, and consists of behavior patterns and outward manifestations of culture: perquisites provided to executives, dress codes, level of technology utilized (and where it is utilized), and the physical layout of work spaces. All may be visible indicators of culture, but difficult to interpret. Artifacts and behavior also may tell us what a group is doing, but not why. One cartoon which captures this aspect shows two executives sitting at their desks in an office. Both have large billed black and white checked hats. One is saying to the other, "I dont know how it started, either. All I know is that its part of our corporate culture." VALUE: We go down to next level and we find ourselves at value level of culture. Values underlie and to a large extent determine behavior, but they are not directly observable, as behaviors are. There may be a difference between stated and operating values. People will attribute their behavior to stated values. ASSUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS: The most taken for granted value become the most rooted level of any culture and become to be known as the basic assumptions and beliefs. Underlying assumptions grow out of values, until they become taken for granted and drop out of awareness. As the definition above states, and as the cartoon illustrates, people may be unaware of or unable to articulate the beliefs and assumptions forming their deepest level of culture. Organizational culture does not just drop out of the sky for any organization. The tone in fact is set by the earliest practices in the organization which are also set by none other then the people who are solely responsible for its creation. THE REALITY: Organizational cultures are created, maintained, or transformed by people. An organizations culture is, in part, also created and maintained by the organizations leadership. Leaders at the executive level are the principle source for the generation and re-infusion of an organizations ideology, articulation of core values and specification of norms. Behaviors and in consequences in turn are guided by these behaviors. Therefore, the practices you usually see in an organization and wonder why there is certain amount of similarity in behavior pattern among employees, it is precisely because they are guided by their organizational culture at some level. SUBCULTURE: Introducing now is the concept of subculture. Subculture could be found at any level of an organization, as a matter of fact no organization can be found without having departments or divisions among it, so the existence of subcultures under the umbrella of a much broader organizational culture is inevitable. People sitting together or sharing similar activities are for sure to develop a smaller version of culture among themselves comprising of similar values, assumptions and behaviors which are part of the much larger organizational culture so if you ever wondered why it would so difficult to change the entire organizational culture from the very outset if anyone even dares to do so. However, having said all that one would find it mind boggling, the amount of coherence among different subcultures which all contribute to the larger organizational culture therefore for this very reason organizations which are to do well have to embed efficient and effective practices in the very root of its subcultures. Organizations do not, however, always have homogeneous subcultures. The explicit social products produced by subcultures within organizations can be widely diverse and even result in countercultures. Some people may debate which comes first in an organization: the organizational culture or the organizations subcultures. The question that is relevant to this chapter is how do the ideologies, values, and norms of subcultures compliment the organizational culture advocated by leadership? Explaining this relationship requires an understanding that cultures provide members with a reliable means to interpret a highly ambiguous environment. It is the leaders responsibility to specify the features of the environment that are relevant to the organization and then provide the supporting assumptions and rationale for its operating strategies. HOW CAN LEADERS DETECT DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE? Productive cultural change will occur if leaders correctly analyze the organizations existing culture, and evaluate it against the cultural attributes needed to achieve strategic objectives. Consequently, leaders must first possess a clear understanding of the strategic objectives for their organization and identify the actions needed to reach those objectives. These two tasks by themselves are difficult, particularly for the federal agencies that are experiencing volatile rates of change and reorientation. Nevertheless, without these specifications, any cultural transformation is a blind exercise. Next conduct an analysis of the organizations existing ideologies, values and norms. Two critical questions that leaders should ask are: (1) Are existing explanations of cause and effect relationships, and acceptable beliefs and behaviors applicable to the organizations achievement of strategic objectives? (2) Are organizational members facing ambiguities about the external environment and internal work processes that can only be clarified by organizational leadership? What leaders pay attention to, measure and control. Something as simple as what is emphasized or measured, over time, can have an effect on an organizations culture. One example of this is an emphasis on form over substance. If leaders pay more attention to form, an organizational culture can develop where people start to believe that the substance of a recommendation is less important than the way it is presented. One can recall when more attention was paid to the format of viewgraphs used in a briefing than what was said; what we characterize as "eyewash." Where do you think people will focus their effort once it becomes accepted that a slick presentation is what the leaders are looking for? How could you go about changing that aspect of the organizations culture? Consider cultural assumptions and beliefs underlying a "zero defects" organizational mentality. "You must always be perfect; mistakes arent allowed." If this assumption reflects a dysfunctional aspect of an organizations culture, how would you go about changing that perception? Leader reactions to critical incidents and organizational crises. The way leaders react to crises says a lot about the organizations values, norms and culture. Crises, by their nature, bring out the organizations underlying core values. Often, this is where rhetoric becomes apparent. Reactions to crises are normally highly visible, because everyones attention is focused on the incident or situation. Disconnects between actions and words will usually be apparent, and actions always speak louder than words. Additionally, a crisis not only brings a great deal of attention, it also generates a great deal of emotional involvement on the part of those associated with the organization, particularly if the crisis threatens the organizations survival. This increases the potential for either reinforcing the existing culture, or leading to a change in the culture. Such a crisis can provide an opportunity for a leader to influence the organizations culture in either a positive or a negative way. Deliberate role modeling, teaching, and coaching. Nothing can take the place of leaders "walking their talk." The personal example of a strategic leader can send a powerful message to the members of an organization, particularly if it is ethical and consistent. Reinforcing that example with teaching and coaching will help others to internalize the desired values. Criteria for allocation of rewards and status. The consequences of behavior-what behavior is rewarded and what is punished-can significantly influence culture. If the organization reacts to new ideas by ridiculing the ideas and those who propose them, it wont take long before people believe that new ideas are not welcomed or desired. One belief of perceived organizational culture is reflected in the statement: "Dont raise questions or suggest improvements, because nothing will come of it and you will just get in trouble." If you were in an organizations strategic leader, what steps could you take to alter the reward system to change this aspect of the culture? Criteria for recruitment, selection, promotion, retirement and excommunication. One of the powerful ways of changing an organizations culture is through the type of people brought into, retained, and advanced in the organization. You should be able to establish a desired culture base in an organization by bringing in and advancing individuals with the values you want, and eliminating those with undesired value bases. I, as my insights in to theories and reflection through the prism of those theories have five guidelines for the leader: 1. Dont oversimplify culture or confuse it with climate, values, or corporate philosophy. Culture underlies and largely determines these other variables. Trying to change values or climate without getting at the underlying culture will be a futile effort. 2. Dont label culture as solely a human resources (read "touchy-feely") aspect of an organization, affecting only its human side. The impact of culture goes far beyond the human side of the organization to affect and influence its basic mission and goals. 3. Dont assume that the leader can manipulate culture as he or she can control many other aspects of the organization. Culture, because it is largely determined and controlled by the members of the organization, not the leaders, is different. Culture may end up controlling the leader rather than being controlled by him or her. 4. Dont assume that there is a "correct" culture, or that a strong culture is better than a weak one. It should be apparent that different cultures may fit different organizations and their environments, and that the desirability of a strong culture depends on how well it supports the organizations strategic goals and objectives. 5. Dont assume that all the aspects of an organizations culture are important, or will have a major impact on the functioning of the organization. Some elements of an organizations culture may have little impact on its functioning, and the leader must distinguish which elements are important, and focus on those. PAPER II INTERVIEW To illustrate leadership one would not have a better option than Bill Drayton. So, now we start to tread along the journey of long hard hitting interview with the king of software organization who gave leadership a new dimension. Bill Drayton is probably the best-known person in social entrepreneurship. He has a vision and an organization that is shaping the future of the “citizen sector.” Drayton founded Ashoka to find, fund and support the world’s leading social innovators. From child-abuse hotlines in India to treatment for AIDS patients in South Africa, Ashoka has helped fund important social causes across the world. we interviewed Drayton about Ashoka, social entrepreneurship, and how social leadership defines the organizational practices. Q) How do you describe yourself as a leader? A) Well, Social Entrepreneurship requires a leadership style in which followers need are to be given special attention and therefore a leadership style based on delegation is required which do has its pros and cons. Q) What does Ashoka do? How did you come up with the idea for Ashoka? You came up with the idea as an undergraduate? That’s reassuring. A) It’s embarrassingly logical. What is the most powerful lever you can imagine? A big idea, but only if it’s in the hands of a truly outstanding entrepreneur. It starts with the person and the idea, and then grows to the institution. All three are intertwined. Ashoka helps launch the best ideas, entrepreneurs and institutions we can find anywhere in the world. We have to believe that the combination of the idea and person is going to change the pattern in that field — health, environment, human rights, whatever — at least on the continental scale. That’s an unusual idea and person, but they certainly exist. I have always vowed to myself(of course, at that time I could not vow to anybody else except myself) from a very young age to change the society for the better, I just don’t know, it was there in me all the time it wasn’t that we were poor or something like that, and as far as education is concerned as an undergraduate entrepreneurship and courses and social responsibility were the most motivational, I always wanted much more than just getting good grades in those subjects, I really wanted to understand them. Q) What do you see for the future of the citizen sector and social innovation as challenges? What is the meaning of integrity in todays workplace? A) It was an accident that the two halves of society’s operations split. Business became entrepreneurial and competitive three centuries ago and the citizen sector didn’t. But now we have the same architecture, and we are closing the productivity gap. So now the potential for reintegration is there. Is the citizen sector going to integrate? Or is it going to continue inertially on the path of division? Again, the stakes are high and the results far from certain. Q) There are many entrepreneurs coming up especially in the social sector and many of them might also go down as great leaders as well, what do you have to suggest them? A) Its simple but tough, be patient this kind of entrepreneurial leadership require active participation and delegation from the followers and workers. The message and objective should go down clearly and vividly to the followers, and be creative to any initiative you take. HOW I VIEW LEADERSHIP IN MY INTERVIEW FOLLOW ON: Well to follow on with the interview I would rather present my perspective of how I view the phenomenon of leadership. And this should not come as a surprise that most of what Bill Gates has to offer as answers in his interview would coincide with the mental mind map I have in mind of the concept of leadership and what has up till now been discussed with a comprehensive detail in the light of organizational cultural context. However, what would be my perspective on the leadership is quite simple, a leader should be the one who is able to translate his or her ideology to the followers and transform the organization in an human like entity which is able to think and work like the leader him or herself or even more efficiently. Leaders must be able to adjust their leadership style to the situation as well as to the people being led. Leaders are not limited to one style in a given situation and, with the nature of the organizational battlefield today and tomorrow, being able to adapt appropriate styles will influence soldiers success. Techniques from different styles are used to motivate people and accomplish the mission. A leaders judgment, intelligence, cultural awareness, and self-control "play major roles in helping you choose the proper style and the appropriate techniques for the task at hand. PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT: Leadership should be viewed as a way of not just organizing things in an orderly fashion so as to be efficient it should be done in a way to be effective as well. Unlike, managerial Leadership skills are much more priceless because of the creative juices flowing through it. That’s why every entrepreneur is first and foremost viewed as leaders and latter as managers, which is also quite important. Leadership is a quality with unstrapped harness and a will to break the ice. Therefore, it is absolutely right on the money when it is said that “Leaders do the right things whereas managers do things right.” I on my view of leadership stand somewhere between the Great man theory that leaders are born and behavioral theories that leadership can be classified as an skill also which can be learned through observation and teaching. However when I say that leaders are born then I mean those people who show sign of certain traits, Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioral characteristics shared by leaders. But if particular traits are key features of leadership, how do we explain people who possess those qualities but are not leaders? This question is one of the difficulties in using trait theories to explain leadership. So, I find myself in the middle of trait theory as well. So I can say any person who do posses a view on leadership will find that all the theories that exist will hold valid to a large or small extent for any leader that exist, existed or born for any time to come. Up till now we have been talking about my view of leadership as reflected by the various developed theories of leadership. We can also say that as observed in any leadership scenario a strong system of reward and punishment. Managerial theories are often used in business; when employees are successful, they are rewarded; when they fail, they are reprimanded or punished. However I feel that coercion from leader can backfire most of the time and I feel that its only the positive reinforcement with which a leader can obtain the desired results from his followers or subordinates. A leader can only be inspirational when what he expects to get done from his followers are performed by him and which can be took as an example and the attractiveness the goal set by the leader. Now, these were the views as sought through different theoretical prisms and used to develop a sense and superficial view of the leadership concept. It then all comes down to the leadership style and how effective that style can be bearing in mind the difference in situations. As for sure none of the scientific research will advocate a style of autocracy nor do I. I personally would recommend autocracy as a negative rather than a positive trait but, it’s a trait that will be found to some extent in every leader and I guess that’s what which distinguishes a leader from an average person. However autocracy demands power and Power is attractive because it confers the ability to influence decisions, about who gets what resources, what goals are pursued, what philosophy the organization adopts, what actions are taken, who succeeds and who fails. Power also gives a sense of control over outcomes, and may in fact convey such enhanced control. Particularly as decision issues become more complex and outcomes become more uncertain, power becomes more attractive as a tool for reducing uncertainty. Power and the ability to use it are essential to effective leadership. Strategic leaders who are uncomfortable with either the presence of great power in others or its use by themselves are probably going to fail their organizations at some point. The critical issue is why the leader seeks power and how it is used. Some see power as a tool to enhance their ability to facilitate the work of their organizations and groups. Others value power for its own sake, and exercise power for the personal satisfaction it brings. There can be good and bad in both cases. However, the leader who uses power in the service of his/her organization is using power in the most constructive sense. The leader who seeks power for its own sake and for personal satisfaction is at a level of personal maturity that will compromise his/her ethical position, risk his/her organizations effectiveness, and perhaps even jeopardize the long-term viability of the organization. And I believe that Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group. Although I believe that autocracy when applied to the full extent I also believe its an essential component of leadership. Delegative and Participative leadership although not as effective as Autocracy might prove fruitful where the object is to foster creativity and full regard has to be given to the followers’ interest and where a leader’s best chance of achieving the goals rest decentralizing the authority as in the case of Ashoka. COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT: Leaders can improve by combining conceptual training, developmental feedback, an environment for continuous learning, a performance appraisal system that attends to both development and selection, and a system of promoting leaders based on more than written reports. This combination has proven effective in the private sector but is deficient in developing military leaders in the field. LEADERLY COMPETENCE: Based on my peers and extracurricular activities evaluation I find myself rated as follows on the following skills, knowledge and competence level. Very low Low Average High Very High Inspired √ Motivated √ Accommodating √ Pressure Handling √ Creativity √ Environmental Knowledge √ Risk Aversion √ Gut feeling √ DEVELOPMENT PLAN: There would be certain areas to work for as established through the above evaluation and to get to the desired level. As can be said by the above evaluation that as per my personal philosophy of the leadership the inspirational and motivation factor is always there in me, but I would fall a little short in pressure handling situations and therefore tend to make highly risky decisions even when situation would reflect the obvious. Therefore, I need to keep my cool whenever I am faced with a situation where the outlook might look gloomy. The unaccommodating nature of mine can be attributed to my personal philosophy of autocracy. I intend to face the upcoming situations in a way so to develop on the competency levels I feel I lack. I would go on to take any future challenges with a certain degree of confidence while also making sure to avoid overconfidence and bring out the teamwork that yields best outcomes. Objectivity is the ability to "keep ones cool" and maintain composure under conditions that might otherwise be personally threatening. Initiative/Commitment is the ability to stay involved and committed to ones work, get things done, be part of a team effort and take charge in situations as required. Working on such abilities would give me a better idea as to handle unique situations. References Major George W. Yeakey (January, 2002). Retrieved November 5, 2007, from website http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/yeakey.htm Retrieved November 5, 2007, from website http://www.leadership-outfitters.com/ Edgar Schein () Strategic Leadership and Decision Making. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from website http://www.leadership-outfitters.com/ Adam Stone and Lija McHugh (February, 2005) Finding the next social entrepreneur: interview with Bill Drayton, from website http://daily.stanford.edu/article/ Read More