Training Methods for Leadership and Management - Essay Example

Training Methods for Leadership and Management 2009 Training Methods for Leadership and Management Introduction With the onset of the Digital Revolution and Information Age the focus of organizations has been rapidly shifting from physical to intellectual: information, knowledge, and skills have become the key aspects of new economic environment (Guest, 1987). Effectiveness of the traditional “command-and-control” management is gradually decreasing while knowledge-based human resources continue to reinforce their role as the primary asset of modern organisations (Wright & McMahan, 1992). Over the last two decades, organizations have often been described in terms of knowledge and learning with the help of such concepts as “learning organisation”, “intellectual capital”, “people-centred approach” or “knowledge based management”. Cakar and Bititci (2001) perfectly summarise this trend in the following statement: “1980s were all about automation. In the manufacturing industry FMS, FAS, Robots, AGVS etc. were commonplace. The 1990s have been about people, this is evident in the development of… concepts throughout the 90s focusing on delegation, involvement, ownership cross functional teamwork, self managed works teams and so on… The needs of modern business emphasize the role and importance of people and knowledge” (p.2). The ideas of Peter Drucker (1994), whom was the first to use term ‘knowledge worker’, and other theorists and practitioners working in the same direction became popular in 1980s when investments in human resources were increasingly justified as being more cost-efficient than investments in machines. Main Discussion Strong and effective leadership is a critically important aspect of modern human resource management practices and organisation’s functioning. Defining what makes a great leader is not a simple task. Leadership is an exceptionally complex phenomenon and the amount of literature covering various aspects of leading and managing people highlights this complexity. Despite huge amount of books and articles dedicated to the issue, there is still a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the true meaning of effective leadership in contemporary organizational environment. In psychology the phenomenon of leadership has traditionally been associated with in-group dynamics of social interactions. In any group, regardless of its size, members differ in their degree of social influence over one another: “… the person who exerts the most influence on the rest of the group thus affecting group beliefs and behaviour is usually addressed as leader” (Hollander, 1985: 14). Although this definition of leadership allows the reader to grasp the essence of leadership, it is only one of the numerous of definitions that have been proposed in the existing literature (Northhouse, 2004). Absence of agreement between the scholars is partially due to different methods utilised to explore the phenomenon; partially due to varied purposes of defining leadership; and partially due to the variations in theoretical approaches. One of the earliest approaches to understanding leadership was to search for personality traits that caused some people and not others to become leaders. As a result, early definitions (beginning and first half of the 20th century) tended to view leadership as an innate personal quality of the leader, in line with such highly individual qualities as sense of humour, persistence, or piety. Following this tradition, researchers specified certain traits that made leaders. Some of these were intelligence, achievement, responsibility, participation, status, high self-confidence, energy, initiative, emotional maturity, stress tolerance, belief in internal locus of control, pragmatism, result orientation, knowledge, and fluency of speech. Even physical characteristics, such as height, weight, and features have been sometimes viewed as factors that make leaders (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989). Bass lists around 300 studies which aimed to identify the unique qualities that make leaders. Some of these studies provide the reader with huge inventories of ‘leader’s’ traits: thus, one study published in 1940, included a list of 79 items (Madsen, 2001). Skills and behavior approach postulates that the leader does not necessarily possess unique personal characteristics; instead, it focuses upon the nature of managerial work performed by the leader. This approach emerged in the first half of the last century and apparently owes a debt to increased influence of behaviorism on psychological research. The key difference that distinguishes the behavior approach from the trait theory is the notion that leader’s behavior can be learned and changed through practice – a person can be trained to become leader (Bass 1990; Madsen, 2001). However, there is no reliable method to identify these ambiguous leadership skills. The contingency approach (also referred as the situational approach) to understanding of leadership can be addressed as the most comprehensive and promising perspective on leadership. The modern contingency model is consistent with earlier research particularly emphasizing the situational variable. In 1966, A. Korman surveyed about 30 most comprehensive works on leadership, and discovered that while proposing various definitions of leadership and making assumptions as for its nature and core features, no research was available to predict effectiveness of a leader in a changing environment (Hersey and Blanchard, 1995). Korman reasonably concluded that situational variable strongly impacts the leader’s behavior and style of leadership. Such view is also confirmed by a series of other studies reporting specific situations do influence the leader’s behavior (Madsen, 2001). Fred Fiedler’s contingency theory offers another credible explanation of the leadership phenomenon. Fiedler outlines two basic types of leaders: task-oriented and relationship oriented. A task-oriented leader is one who gives highest priority to getting the work of the group accomplished and is much less concerned with the relations among group members. By contrast, relationship-oriented leaders assign highest priority to group relations, with task accomplishment being of secondary concern (Franzoi, 1996: 541). In 1978, James McGregor Burns introduced a concept of transformational and transactional leaders. Burns assumes that leadership is a relationship between leaders (proposed by Machiavelli) claiming that it implies an interchange between the leader and the followers. Burns proposes to distinguish between two broad types of leadership: transactional where the leader is meeting the simple needs of his followers, while the latter respond with cooperation and transformational, which is more complex (Burns, 1978). The key difference between transactional and transformational leadership is value setting: transactional leaders are more concerned with short-term goals (e.g. honesty and fairness), while transformational leaders are focused on such ultimate values as equality and justice. Correspondingly, transformational leaders have more potential to satisfy their followers than transactional leaders. Besides, successful transformational leadership leads to the elevation of the followers, while transactional leadership keeps both the leader and the followers in their place (Burns, 1978). The central idea of the visionary leadership is about envisioning the organization’s position for long-term future, conveying this vision to other members of the organization, motivating individuals to share and commit to this vision, and aligning resources and processes to accomplish it (Young, 2002). As Cheryl Mabey, a contemporary researcher of leadership, claims, the “… vision theory is …. a premier view of the 1990s and the beginnings of the 21st century wherein the main thrust of the leader is to formulate the future direction of an organization, private or public in nature, and to communicate that vision to others” (Mabey, 1995: 312). Three scholars have shared the credit for formulating the basic concepts of the visionary perspective. Sashkin (1989) views visionary leadership as a sum of the leader’s personal characteristics, behaviour, and situational factors and the system of relationships between these variables: “Visionary leaders share certain characteristics that are different from personality traits on which early leadership focused … they have a deep, basic awareness of key situational factors that dictate what leadership approach and actions are required … [they] not only know what behaviours are required, they can also carry out those behaviours” (Sashkin, 1995: 403). Thus, a visionary leader is a person who establishes a vision or ideal image of the organization and its culture, and constructs a coherent and logic philosophy that describes the vision and develops methods to attain this practice taking into consideration all factors that can potentially affect it. Besides, a leader engages on a one-to-one basis with others to initiate and gain support for the vision (Young, 2002). One common problem characterising studies in the field of organisational leadership is distinguishing between the processes of leadership and management. A good example of the confusion surrounding the divide between leadership and management can be found in a highly influential work of Mintzberg (1973) who was among the first to design an evaluation framework for assessing how effectively a manager carries out his/her functions. He argues that manager’s work consists of several roles at the same time, and depending on the situation the manager might perceive any of these roles as more important than the others. The sum of these roles covers all aspects of managerial performance though Mintzberg was careful enough to state that they might not describe the process of managing comprehensively. Mintzberg (1973) defines the role as “…a set of certain behavioural rules associated with a concrete organization or post” (p.36) and groups the manager’s roles into the three large blocks: interpersonal, informational and decisional. Each of these blocks consists of several roles: 1. Interpersonal block: Figurehead – involves obligation of manager to act as symbolic head performing many routine duties (social or legal). This role is inspirational and activities associated with it are not central to the manager’s job. Leader – involves responsibility for motivating of employees and also staffing, training, development and associated duties. This role is especially important during organization of group: it facilitates adequate integration between organizational goals and individual needs of subordinates. Liaison – involves maintaining self-developed network of outside contacts which provide information, maintaining proper horizontal relationships and establishing external linkage system. 2. Informational block: Monitor – involves seeking, receiving, processing and transferring information required to develop adequate understanding of organization and the environment in which it operates. Disseminator – involves bringing external views to the organization and distributing this information among the subordinates. Spokesperson – involves informing and lobbying others (external to the manager’s organization). 3. Decisional block: Initiator/changer – involves designing and initiating changes within the organization. Disturbance handler – involves the ability to deal with unexpected issues. Resource allocator – involves the ability to adequately the resources (money, personnel, reputation, etc) across the organization to ensure effective operation. Negotiator – involves responsibility for negotiating activities with other organizations. Another very popular model of management known as POLCA includes planning, organizing, leading, controlling and assessing (Morgan, 1986). One may notice that these functions interfere with the process of leadership described in the above discussion. Evidently, many authors tend to equal these processes and the concept of leadership is often used to describe managerial functions and visa versa Though a number of management studies deal with the planning, organization, administration, monitoring, and control of organizations – traditional dimensions of management – there are also many works that highlight motivation, inspiration, participation, vision, and value creation as the key elements of managerial practices. The same elements reflected in various definitions of leadership shape the core of leadership too (Bass, 1994; Rost, 1991; Madsen, 2001). Although the variety of views on the difference between leading and managing is almost the same as the number of theories that seek to explain the leadership and management phenomena the existing literature provides sufficient information to understand the difference. For example, Kotter (1996) argues that leaders create vision and general strategies, while managers do more tactical planning. Leaders align group members onto the goals of the group and inspire them to persist in achieving these goals; managers divide the work into tasks and jobs and the people into departments and teams; they organize how the work will be done, and check on whether and how well it is being done. Managers are better at conserving the processes of the organization and leaders come in handy when the organization needs to face change. It follows that managers are sometimes good leaders and sometimes not, leaders are sometimes good managers and sometimes not. Leaders are perceived to be specialists in motivation and overall assessment and strategy, while managers are seen as better at organization and control. In similar vein, Warren Bennis (1988) claims that “…the difference between managers and leaders is fundamental. The manager administers, the leader innovates. The manager maintains, the leader develops. The manager relies on systems, the leader relies on people. The manager counts on control, the leader counts on trust. The manager does things right, the leader does the right thing” (p.173). By contrast, Thomas argues, “…increasingly, the people who are the most effective are those who essentially are both managers and leaders” (Blagg and Young, 2001: 33). In a more recent study, Bartlett, another well-known authority in this field, notes, “Good management is about achieving results through others and I think that it always encompassed leadership” (Doh, 2003: 65). John Kotter, a professor at Harvard Business School and probably the most known authority in leadership and management studies, is the author of many articles and several books which explain the nature of distinctions between the two processes. Kotter’s key idea is that while leadership involves the processes of developing vision and forward-thinking strategies, innovations, change, and empowering followers, management deals with the effective functioning of an organizational system, which includes planning, supervising, budgeting, organizing, controlling, staffing, etc. However, he also acknowledges that leading and managing are not mutually exclusive processes: a good leader can be an effective manager as well, while a good manager can be an effective leader to the subordinates (Kotter, 1996). On the one hand, management and leadership should definitely be viewed as complementary processes; on the other hand, a number of differences between these two processes have been acknowledged by hundreds of reliable studies, which hardly leave any opportunity to simply neglect it. Despite lack of clarity on the issue, modern scholarly literature apparently leans toward more consolidated view on leadership and management. Lack of clarity regarding the specific features of management and leadership as well as ambiguity surrounding the relationship between these two processes highlights the importance of correct methodological framework used to train managers in organisations. Appropriate training methods and suitable learning environment may be very helpful in a situation when it is not fully clear what exactly shall be learned by managers to improve their management and leadership skills. Flexibility and systematic nature of training methodology are critical in this regard. In the past, organisational learning focused primarily on individuals: people worked in large bureaucracies or assembly lines and, consequently, the goal of learning under such circumstances was training of the skills required for their functioning. However, since approximately three decades ago, the focus of learning in organisations began to shift individuals to groups, and, what was even more important, the meaning underlying the constructs ‘learning’, ‘training’ and ‘development’ transformed dramatically. Modern scholars conceive these constructs as continuous rather than occasional while the purpose and the process of learning has also been also reformulated and recognised as vital for effective organizational performance (Harrison, 2005). The definitions of training found in the existing organisational literature are rather similar reflecting several primary characteristics and objectives formulated also in the mainstream approach to training. Thus, Armstrong (1996) defines training as “the planned and systematic modification of behaviour through learning events, programmes and instruction which enable individuals to achieve the levels of knowledge, skill and competence needed to carry out their work effectively” (p. 517) Most recent studies in the field of organisational learning and HRM identify five major phases of organisational learning: 1. Analysis The first phase of implies full analysis of the organizational needs, identification of the goals which, when reached, will equip employees with knowledge and skills to meet the organizations needs (Buckley & Caple, 2004). The first questions to be asked in the analysis phase are "Is there a need for training?" and "If something is wrong, is it caused by a performance problem that training will fix?” In the analysis phase the responsibilities/duties required at a certain position are identified and listed. The tasks that must be accomplished to effectively fulfil these responsibilities/duties are analyzed and, if necessary, subdivided into smaller subtasks also termed ‘task elements’. On the basis of the identified tasks and task elements knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to successfully perform them are determined. Tasks are reviewed and characterized by difficulty, importance, and frequency to help determine whether training is required prior to performing the task. Such approach is helpful in selecting tasks on which employees must and will receive continuing training throughout their careers. A more difficult task would have training associated with it. An easy task may not have formal training, but may only have a procedure for the worker to follow. The outcome of the analysis phase is a task analysis that lists the tasks that are performed to accomplish the duties of a position and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to perform the tasks. These become the basis for the design of the training course and for formulating the learning goals (Armstrong, 1996). 2. Design The design phase implies elaboration of a training programme that learners and trainers can implement to meet the identified learning goals. Normally, this stage includes identification of learning objectives (with reference to the learning goals) and the resources needed for the programme (e.g. funding, facilities, course content, sequence of lessons, etc). These activities can be roughly divided in three major groups: 1. Deciding what the student will learn in the class and how that learning will transfer to the job. 2. What will be taught and the instructional methods to be used to teach. 3. How the student will demonstrate competency to do the required work and we develop an examination plan to test the students competency (Buckley & Caple, 2004). Learning objectives also fall into two groups, namely: terminal objectives (explain what the student must be able to do after a given cycle of learning) and specific learning or enabling objectives (what knowledge, skills, and attitudes must be displayed during learning). These objectives must be formulated in language fully understandable for the learners and must not imply any unexpected surprises for learners, instructors, or supervisors. The design phase also helps determine what will be taught and how it will be taught. In this phase the instructional technology and the media to be used. The instructional technology usually includes some combination of the following: hands on practice, lecture, overhead transparencies, video tape, training equipment, computer training, pictures, models, student reading, self study, or on the job training. It is important to decide how the student will practice the skill to be learned (Kenney & Reid, 1994). 3. Development At this stage a training package of required materials and resource must be developed, including, e.g., developing appropriate manuals, lesson plans, videotapes, training aids, audio-visuals, graphics, student handouts, instructions, etc. The essence of this stage is transferring the learning design into concrete learning/training materials (Buckley & Caple, 1994). 4. Implementation This phase includes implementation of the developed training package, delivery of the learning/training, support group feedback, adjusting the materials/resources to better fulfil the identified learning objectives, administering tests and conducting the final evaluation. This phase can also include a wide range of administrative activities, such as copying, scheduling facilities, taking attendance data, billing learners, etc. Basically, in the implementation phase the instructor teaches and the student learns. Although this is the phase that most people think of as ‘training’ it is the easiest phase to perform. The material written during the development phase is used to implement the decisions made in the preceding phase of design. The information learned about the job is typically used in the analysis phase during implementation (Kenney & Reid, 1994). 5. Evaluation In the evaluation phase evaluation of learning outcomes must be carried out. Although this phase is listed as the last fifth element, evaluation is carried out before, during and after implementation of training programmes. The evaluations help organisations measure the effectiveness of learning on learners, and thus justify the substantial investments in both time and resources (Armstrong, 1996; Kenney & Reid, 1994; Bee & Bee, 2003). Despite the importance of this phase, too many organisations tended to neglect it in the traditional learning/training models. Traditionally, evaluation is conducted in four levels, namely: Response – Do learners like the course? Learning – Do learners actually learn the material? Behaviour – Do learners change their workplace behaviours? Results – Does the course achieve the companys business goals? (Kirkpatrick, 1959). In the organisational practices, companies gauge response through quick post-course surveys (often called "smile sheets"). These surveys offer a series of simple questions about the course material, and, therefore, they can not measure complex learning or long-term behaviour changes. Post-course assessments to measure how much people have learned before they return to the workplace. In serious organisations, courses with rigorous post-course examination are also known as certification courses: learners need to pass the certification test before they are qualified to perform new tasks. And finally, in order to measure behaviour changes and actual results, training specialists have to wait until learners return to the workplace. Sometimes, these studies take place months after the learners complete the course. That way, training specialists can measure what behaviours actually changed in the workplace and what results have been achieved: this justifies the notion that the best evaluation of learning/training effectiveness is done on the job (Kenney & Reid, 1994). Conclusion Systematic approach described in this paper provides a logical methodology of organisational learning and development that can be effectively utilised in training of leadership and management skills. The methodological model involves the following major phases: 1. Assessing what knowledge, skills and/r abilities are needed by learners; 2. Designing the training, including identifying learning goals and associated objectives, training methods to reach the objectives, and means to carefully evaluate whether the objectives have been reached or not; 3. Developing the training methods and materials; 4. Implementing the training; 5. Evaluating whether objectives have been reached or not, in addition to the quality of the training methods and materials themselves In a systematic approach to learning and development, each phase of the process generates outcomes required for implementing the next phase. For example, the training analysis phase produces learning goals that are used by the next phase, training design. Training design (often called instructional design) references the goals to design methods and materials from which learners can reach the goals and objectives. Typically, each phase provides ongoing evaluation feedback to other phases in order to improve the overall systems process. Despite certain drawbacks of systematic approach identified in the literature, it still remains the most widely used methodology in the organisational practice. The great variety of qualities, abilities and skills required from effective manager and leaders, coupled with poor measurability of these qualities and skills make the task of training effective leaders and managers extremely complex even within a very effective methodological framework. Further improvement and adjustment of this approach are needed to adequately address these challenges. References Armstrong, M. 1996. A Handbook for Personnel Management Practice (6th Edition), London: Kogan Page. Bass, B. M. 1990, Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, New York: The Free Press. Bee, F. & Bee, R. 2003. Learning Needs Analysis & Evaluation, CIPD. Bennis, W (1994). On Becoming A Leader. 2nd Edition. Addison-Wesley Pub Co. Blagg, D. & Young, S. 2001. ‘What Makes a Good Leader’, Harvard Business School Bulletin, Vol. 2, 33. Buckley, R. & Caple, J. 2004. The Theory & Practise of Training (5th edition), Kogan Page. Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership, New York: Harper & Rowe. Cakar, F. & Bititci U. 2001. ‘Human Resource Management as a Strategic Input to Manufacturing’, IFIP 5.7. International Working Conference on Strategic Manufacturing, Aalborg, Denmark. Doh, J. P. 2003. ‘Can Leadership Be Taught? Perspectives from Management Educators’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 54-67. Drucker, P. 1994. ‘The age of social transformation’, The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 274, no. 5: 53–70. Franzoi, S. L. 1996. Social Psychology, Marquette University: Brown and Benchmark Publishers. Guest, D. 1987. ‘Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 24, no. 5: 503-21. Harrison, R. 2005. Learning & Development (4th edition), CIPD. Hollander, E. P. 1985, ‘Leadership and power’, in G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2, 3rd edition, New York: Random House, 485-537. Kenney, J. & Reid, M. 1994. Training Interventions (4th Edition), London: Institute of Personnel and Development. Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1959. Evaluating Training Programs, 2nd ed., Berrett Koehler, San Francisco. Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading change, Harvard Business School Press. Mabey, C. 1995. ‘The Making of the Citizen Leader’. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages, New York, NY: The Free Press. Madsen, M. T. 2001. ‘Leadership and Management Theories Revisited [Electronic version]’. The Danish Management Barometer, Vol. 4 [available online at http://www.hba.dk/fsk/pdfs/0003090.pdf] Mintzberg, H. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row. Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organization, Sage, London. Northhouse P.G. 2004. Leadership: Theory & Practice, Sage Publications London. Rost, J. 1991. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, Westport, Conn.: Praeger Sashkin, M. 1995, ‘Visionary Leadership’, in J. T. Wren (Ed), The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership through the Ages, New York, NY: The Free Press. Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 1992. ‘Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management’, Journal of Management, vol. 18: 295-320. Young, R. 2002, Leadership: Toward a Visionary Approach [Electronic version]. Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, USC. Columbia [available online at http://www.iopa.sc.edu/publication/leadership.htm] Yukl, G. A. 1989, ‘Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research’, Journal of Management, Vol. 15, 251-289. Read More