The Need of Great Leaders for Organizations in the Light of Leadership Theories - Essay Example

Leadership and manager identity ‘All organisations need great leaders’. Discuss with reference to relevant theories of Leadership and theoretical perspectives. Table of contents 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Leadership, in general 1.2 Management perspective 4 2. Theories and Models of Leadership 2.1 A Brief 5 2.2 Scope 7 2.3 Critical evaluation 8 3. Association with real-life experiences and organisation in practical sense 9 3.1.1 Success stories of organisations with effective leadership 10 3.1.2 Failure of leadership leading to failure of organisation 11 4 Conclusions and learning 12 Bibliography Word count: 2925 words. 1. Introduction: Leadership and management are terms strongly interlinked and better understood in relation with each other. Leadership has been defined by many scholars and researchers in different ways and from different perspectives. According to my understanding, leadership is not a phenomenon or a concept that can be precisely defined or theorized because, not only leadership has been explained and defined in different ways, the way leaders have been emerging in different situations has also been changing continuously time. In contemporary times, we tend to understand and relate to ‘leadership’ in relation to management of people for attaining specific goals. Through this session, a deeper understanding of reasons why leadership and management are so closely related has been obtained by studying the trend of evolution of leadership concept with respect to management. Most of these theories have been based on different attributes of leaders, which made scholars define leadership and theorists theorize the concept of leadership. When these attributes no longer seemed to exist and/or situations had changed, the contingency theory of leadership emerged based on incidents and changing nature of management and demands. A concise view of leadership from emerging contemporary perspectives of management further throws light on how leaders are made and what makes leaders emerge. 1.1 Leadership, in general: Leadership can be regarded as a philosophy, with different viewpoints and ideologies. In general, it can be explained in relative terms based on the qualities and skills possessed, and situations. The underlying essence of leadership is to guide others and set new directions to achieve a goal or accomplish a task. The present leadership philosophy is an outcome of great leaders’ achievements of past. The leaders of past were not involved in management, but were able to direct, guide and mobilize people systematically for achievement of a common cause. Most of such known leaders from history are remembered even today, for example, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi to name a few, were leaders who changed the world through their principles based on humanity and spirituality. On the contrary, Adolf Hitler is also counted among the leaders of the world known for his able administration and creation of strong military regime that was able to devastate the entire world. These perspectives could be the precursors of development of different leadership concepts. 1.2 Management Perspective: From a management perspective, Henri Fayol (1917) was the first to define leadership based on management functions including planning, organising, leading and controlling. Basically, management encompasses a systematic controlling and guiding people and resources according to principles and standards or rules established to accomplish pre-determined goals and objectives. Evolution of this concept is traced back to Frederick Winslow Taylor’s scientific management, also known as Taylorism; later refined by Henry Ford, known as Fordism. These management practices were framed to direct workers to follow specific steps that will help in achieving the larger organisational goal; people driving these actions were managers (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). A drift of management practices and styles from directive to facilitative type has occurred, causing management to adopt a more humanistic view. Much ahead of others, Fayol (1917) had proposed that leaders get formally selected in the roles of managers based on capabilities of performing different management activities such as planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and taking control, Henry Mintzberg (1994) hypothesized, based on his studies related to five chief executives from different organisations, that managers perform ten different roles under interpersonal activities including figureheading, leadership, and liaisoning; informational activities such as reception of information, dissemination, and as a spokesperson; and decisional activities such as entrepreneurship, conflict-resolution, resource allocation and negotiation. 2. Theories and models of Leadership: 2.1. A Brief: Based on different traits and behavioural aspects possessed by the business owners, three distinct management styles were identified by Lewin and Lippitt (1939): autocratic which is highly directive and has centralized decision making; democratic style involving employees in decision making, and less directive; third, laissez-faire in which complete decision making authority is given to employees except in setting goals. Following this, the Ohio State leadership Behavioural model proposed by Flieshman and his team (1967) identified two dimensions to leadership behaviour, namely, consideration and initiating structure. While consideration emphasizes building human relations through trust, respect and interaction, the latter refers to planning, organising, coordinating and controlling functional aspects of management (cited Landy & Conte, 2006). Then the Michigan Survey studies (1950) inferred two concepts that closely associated with leadership behaviour, i.e. employee orientation and production orientation. Employee-oriented behaviour reinforces employee relationship that can enhance performance at job; Production orientation stresses on production and technical aspects of the work (cited by Bowers & Seashore, S.E, 2004). Subsequently, the Managerial Grid was proposed by Blake and Mouton (1964/1971) in which the interplay of three organisational universals, as proposed by Blake, i.e. people, production and hierarchy, is studied through a grid depicting different ways how managers are concerned about production and people and their impact on each other. Typically, concern for production is indicated on horizontal x axis and for people on vertical y axis, and graded from 1 (minimum) to 9 (maximum). The grid resulted in a number of additional theories, with each theory related to possible assumptions for linking hierarchy to link people to production. Another way of looking at leadership philosophy that emerged was based on the situations, giving rise to the contingency theories like Fielder (1967) contingency model, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership and Path-Goal theory (1971). The Fielder model basically postulates that two types of leaders exist, i.e. task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders; however, these styles are more effective only if they fit the situation. In a start-up project, a task oriented leadership works well because the members of the team need directions to perform the tasks; however, once the project is stabilized, task orientation may be harmful as the members are experienced and will not like being told what and how to do their job. In such cases, a relationship-oriented leadership will work well. Fielder’s theory proposes change of situation to fit leadership style; however this does not seem to be possible always. Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership models exactly this concept from a follower perspective. This means, leadership should match the developmental level or readiness of followers in order to achieve desired results. For example, in a team of ten people, leaders need to know that those who are new or untrained in work need to be handled through a task-oriented leadership and those who are experienced should be dealt on the basis of relationship. The former, new, group requires constant monitoring, feedback, and acknowledgement for good work; however, the latter requires acknowledgement and empowerment with more challenging responsibilities. The path-goal theory proposed by House and Mitchell (1986) refers to the leader’s behaviour that changes according to the situation based on satisfaction and motivation of the followers. Four behaviours identified in this context include achievement-oriented, directive, supportive and participative behaviours (Landy & Conte, 2006). Much study and observation on leadership philosophy has made contemporary researchers to believe that leadership cannot be defined or confined to specific attributes and/or situations. An effort to combine all of these along with views from different dimensions has given birth to the vision, charisma and transformation aspects, with all of these closely associated. Gill (2006) quotes Sir Richard Branson of the Virgin Group and Sidney Harman of Harman International as contemporary leaders with these attributes. 2.2 Scope : On a broader sense, Fayol’s (1949) 14 management principles may be applied in decision making process, enhancement of skills, simplification of management functions, and in organisational change management. In my opinion, Fayol’s management perspective is very comprehensive, and in a way determines what and how managers can impact organisation and people; these principles guide managers to do the right things. However, it does not encompass behavioural aspects impacted by personality. The other behaviour-based theories are outcomes of specific studies, and hence may or may not be applicable universally. In that regard, the Managerial grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964/1971) provides exhaustive number of interpretations, and practically applicable solutions; however, the behaviour cannot be concluded as fit for specific situation because other factors such as the type of organisation, situation, values, personality, and opportunity also have their impact. The contingency models can be better applicable from the followers’ perspective; i.e. the leader ought to know his/her followers’ personality, developmental level, and motivational factors. This also highly depends upon the leaders’ abilities in terms of knowledge, ability to anticipate consequences for their actions, and other qualities such as communication, decision making, and emotional strength. For example, a newly appointed manager may not be able to effectively direct new workers on job; performance monitoring and feedback process also will not be effective; further, workers’ confidence in achieving desired levels could be low which could lower their motivational levels. 2.3 Critical evaluation: The fundamental principle in Mintzberg’s (1994) postulation emphasises the roles that define leadership, to be possessed by managers/leaders, and that leaders may not necessarily be formally chosen. Thus, the one who exhibits these qualities is the leader, and not necessarily be a manager by position. If we consider the 14 principles of management proposed by Fayol (1949), these can be related to activities identified in Mintzberg’s three main roles. However, what was missing in Fayol’s principles, Mintzberg’s concepts, and all trait and behaviour-based theories is covered in the contemporary forms of leadership, i.e. transformational, visionary and charismatic leaderships; the reason to look at these theories critically is that great leaders with these qualities have existed even then and much before that. In addition, the conventional theories of leadership have been proposed based on specific measures and specific situations; even Fiedler’s contingency model proposes alteration of situations and leader match training as possible solutions to match the situation; however, both may not be possible in all cases. Fiedler’s (2005) own view is that leader match training enhances self-confidence, self-efficacy and motivation, and hence the contingency theory cannot claim the outcome after this training. I found the managerial grid concept most applicable to describe leadership philosophy, but not complete. As aptly quoted by Gill (2006; p.60), ‘a related shortcoming of current leadership thinking is the separate tracks-cognitive, emotional, spiritual, and behavioural- along which leadership theory have moved.’ None of these leadership theories covers the ‘spirituality’ in leadership, exemplified my many great leaders, like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. If we consider any socio-political leader that moved the world, these attributes that contemporary leadership demands, i.e. vision, transformation, and charisma can be envisaged. They had the ability to envisage the future in terms of impact of their decisions on the future; were able to mobilize people for, what they believed as, the right cause; attract large masses at national and international levels; and achieve long-lasting results through their humble, honest, merciful personality. Surprisingly, we can find contrasting personalities being defined by these attributes; for example, Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler are considered as charismatic leaders because both were able to attract huge number of people through inspiration and devotion (Giddens & Griffiths, 2007; p.845). 3. Association with real-life experiences and organisation in practical sense: Most of these leadership qualities described through these theories can be understood by relating them to the real life situations, results, patterns in the contemporary world. The best application would be that of a parent-child relationship. This relationship neither remains constant through the life time, nor is same with every parent and child. All kinds of behavioural and trait patterns, as studied in the behavioural and trait leadership theories, can be found in this relationship; for example, strict and dictating parent (autocratic), friendly parent (democratic and participative), and carefree parent (laissez-faire); parent teaching the child how to perform an activity (task-oriented) and a parent facilitating or helping the child how to perform an activity (relationship-oriented). Even the contingency models can be exemplified through this relationship. The best one I can think of is the Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational leadership model; this aptly fits the parent-child relationship beginning from infancy to adulthood because parent’s style of dealing with the child changes with the age and development of the child. Although the same concept applies to an employee in an organisation, it cannot be applied unless the manager/leader knows how to deal with the employee based on the situation or developmental level. I believe that any person who is able to modify his/her behaviour towards another person according to the situation and is focused towards the goal/task is a leader; a concept derived from Mintzberg’s ideology. 3.1 Success stories of organisations with effective leadership: We have known many leaders that have transformed the way organisations function through their actions. Some of these leaders can be identified with specific leadership attributes mentioned in the leadership models. For example, Jack Welch of General Electric exemplified his vision of creating a boundaryless company by dismantling bureaucracy; he was transformational in defining a new culture of openness, values, principles and integrity; bringing flexibility in business strategies and organisational objectives; tough decision making to eliminate conventional management practices; facilitating continuous learning methods and practices; and driving a performance driven culture. Jack Welch’s excellent leadership qualities and way of looking at things made his dream of making GE the most competitive enterprise on earth possible. Jack Welch is one of the very few such great leaders who were able to transform and set new benchmarks in the corporate business worlds. Another noteworthy leader is Narayana Murthy, the founder and first CEO of Infosys, an Indian IT company that built a global empire in two decades. This CEO has been voted as most admired CEO in India for five consecutive years, and is known for his ethics, values and leadership style; precisely demonstrating simple living and high thinking. On leadership, he stated, ‘I have always believed that leadership does not exist in vacuum, you needs lots of good people to lead, you need people who have the same or higher level of passion, energy and aspiration’ (cited by Gopalakrishnan & Kaur, 2009; p.315). This depicts inclusive or shared leadership that brings people together through empowerment of authority and accountability. Values of shared leadership were demonstrated by Nelson Mandela through compassion that eventually brought results that the South Africans would cherish forever. 3.2 Failure of leadership leading to failure of organisation: Managers/Executives in a leadership ought to be visionary in order to take appropriate decisions that will help their people and organisations. I realized this when I read about IBM’s losses due to leadership failures caused due to inappropriate decisions and inability to envisage market trends from a futuristic point (Vasu, Stewart & Garson, 1998; p.89). The most dreadful downfall of organisation caused due to leadership failure in recent times is that of Lehman Brothers’. Factors leading to this failure include bureaucracy, lack of cognition and vision, resistance to change, egoistic and selfish motives and lack of courage in leaders at various levels (George, 2008). In addition to inappropriate leadership traits and behaviour, my attention was drawn to what Bass and Riggio (2006; p.222) pointed as factors that inhibit or ‘neutralize’ leadership effectiveness. Firstly, characteristics of subordinates, nature of tasks, and organisational policies may influence leaders’ capabilities and inhibit the leaders from making certain decisions or taking specific actions. Managers face such issues more often in cross-cultural and cross-national organisations (Hofstede, 2007). Secondly, physical distance between leaders and subordinates may impact the leaders’ efforts in bringing changes to performance as well as people’s way of thinking and working. Thirdly, nature of the organisational structure, for example, in bureaucratic and paternalistic organisations, employees at lower levels have least or no opportunity to propose changes or take initiatives; also career progression happens on a seniority basis. Another reason could be organisational culture that does not promote doing the right thing will not help leaders to emerge, because they fall into trap between management and their self-concept that may be contradicting in nature. 4. Conclusions and learning points: Till now, I have observed that different paradigms in management have proliferated different views on ‘leadership’ owing to the leaders’ actions that caused changes and success in management of people and organisations. Most of these paradigms are outcomes of specific situations, specific personality types, and a combination of both; in some, they are also outcomes of perceived possibilities, as seen in the Managerial Grid. However, the trend of postulating leadership theories and models has been more complex and intertwining with different aspects of business, production process, sociology, culture, politics and management. As these concepts are an outcome of never-ending specificities, as mentioned above, I believe that leadership cannot be defined or postulated. It can be viewed from different perspectives and these perspectives are further shaped by the theorists’ understanding of emotional, cognitive and sociocultural influences. Nonetheless, I learnt that true leaders possess specific qualities such as principle-oriented, courageous, knowledgeable, dignity, integrity, humility, compassion and trust. They are strongly inclined towards relationship-building; are driven by morals and follow ethics by doing the right thing; ensure to collect much information before taking decisions; yearn to improve further; and lead in a big way with the help of equally passionate and honest people. With these qualities, I feel, one can imagine or even define how a person would behave when confronted with situations that the theories have been based upon. Hence, leadership cannot be generalized because situations cannot be defined or predicted; however, through cognition leaders anticipate the situation and prepare themselves accordingly. Thus, leadership is a philosophy that will continue to teach us new concepts in future also. References Bass, B.M and Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Routledge Blake, R.R and Mouton, J.S. (1964/1971). The Managerial Dilemma,’ in The Managerial Grid: Key Orientations for Achieving Production Through People. (pp:5-17) TX: Gulf Publishing Company. Bowers, D.G and Seashore, S.E. (2004). Predicting Organisational Effectiveness with a Four-Factor Theory of Leadership. In In Wren, J.T, Hicks, D.A and Price, T.L’s (2004) The international library of leadership, Volume 2. (pp: 133-158) U.K: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayol, H. (1949). General Principles of Management. General and Industrial Management. Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd. pp: 19-42. In Wood, J.C and Wood, M.C’s (eds.) (2002) Henri Fayol: critical evaluations in business and management. Volume 1. London: Taylor & Francis. Fiedler, F. (2005). Contingency Theory of Leadership. In Miner, J’s Organisational behaviour: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Giddens, A and Griffiths, S. (2007). Sociology. (5th ed.). Cambridge: Polity. Gill, R. (2006). Theory and practice of leadership. London: SAGE. Gopalakrishnan, S and Kaur, R. (2009). Cultural Mythology and Global Leadership in India. In Kessler, E.H and Wong-MingJi, D.J’s Cultural Mythology and Global Leadership. (306-324). Glos, U.K: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hofstede, G and Fink, G. (2007) ‘Culture: organisations, personalities and nations. Gerhard Fink interviews Geert Hofstede, European Journal International Management, Vol 1, No 1/2, pp 14-22. Landy, F.J and Conte, J.M. (2006). Work in the 21st century: an introduction to industrial and organisational psychology. 2nd Ed. MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Lewin, K and Lippitt, R. (1939). Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in Experimentally Created “Social Climates.” The Journal of Social Psychology. Vol: 10, pp: 271-299. In Wren, J.T, Hicks, D.A and Price, T.L’s (2004) The international library of leadership, Volume 2.(pp:99-119) U.K: Edward Elgar Publishing. Vasu, M.L, Stewart, D.W and Garson, G.D. (1998). Organisational behaviour and public management. New York: CRC Press. Welch, J and Byrne, J (2003). Straight from the gut. Published by Warner Books. News Article George, B. (2008, 3 October) Wall Streets Latest Crisis of Leadership. Business Week. Accessed March 20, 2010 from, http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2008/ca2008103_709013.htm Read More