Evaluation and Analysis of the Leadership Styles under Specific Circumstances - Essay Example

Evaluation and Analysis of the Leadership Styles under Specific Circumstances Introduction All organizations irrespective of their size, context and culture they are operating in require leadership. Leadership style plays an important role in determining the growth and future of an organization. According to Schofer (2002, p.9) empirical evidence has shown that leadership styles play a vital role in bringing about effective organizational change. Leaders need to be flexible in their leadership styles since different styles of leadership are required to be exhibited under different circumstances. In a study, Schou and Storm (1993, p.26) have concluded that constantly changing organizational world now calls for more flexible, position and situation oriented leaders. A lot of research has been conducted in order to investigate the suitable forms of leadership styles under specific circumstances. This essay deals with different leadership styles, their appropriate usage and as an example it will use an evaluation and analysis of the case study of a person named Okuda, who has been the president of the car company Toyota and was famous for the drastic changes he made in the organization during his reign. Various Leadership Styles (and their appropriate usage) Kurt Lewin (1939) was one of the pioneers to investigate on leadership styles in organizational setting. Three leadership styles identified are as follows (Lewin, 1939, p. 273): 1) Autocratic This is the authoritarian leadership style. In this style the boss tells the employees or subordinates what he/she wants to be done and how without involving their opinion in the matter. Such a leadership style may be effective when the leader has all the information required for the decision making process, is sure of what is needed to be achieved and how it can be achieved. It is also useful to be applied on a category of employees who are not trained enough to contribute in the decision making process. 2) Democratic This is participative leadership style. In this style the leader maintaining the final authority in final decision taking involves the employees in the decision making process. This approach can be useful where the decision making process is challenging and the leader alone is equipped with only partial information regarding the issue under consideration. It is effective for a class of employees who have ample knowledge regarding the issue and whose opinion if included can have strong impacts on organizational growth. 3) Free Reign In this type of leadership, the employees are free to take decisions regarding their tasks; the leader however assumes final responsibility for the decisions taken. After Lewin’s study, a lot of research was triggered on the subject. Recent research has highlighted following leadership styles: As cited in Moore and Rudd (2006, p. 6), Zigarmi and Blanchard identified four leadership styles as follows: 1) Directing style This style as the name indicates is authoritarian in nature. According to Hersey and Blanchard (1982), cited in Breen (2002), directive leadership behavior is typically a one way process of communication in which the leader takes up the role of a dictator and orders the subordinates to do what he says. This style is suitable for tasks about which the leader is confident regarding the course to take to achieve the required targets. 2) Coaching style According to Goleman (2002), a coaching leader listens to the opinions of the subordinates involved while clearly assigning and defining the roles and tasks of all individuals involved. This leadership style is most appropriate when the subordinates are responsible individuals who have had exposure to similar situations in the past. This encouraging and inspirational style also serves as a source of motivation for young and energetic employees in an organization, therefore it is useful in situations where the leader feels that he or she can get more out of the subordinates if they are properly guided and motivated enough to grow in their field. 3) Supporting style Supportive leadership style is one step more towards two way communicative leadership. In this style, the leader provides for empowerment of the subordinates and supports cooperation while providing positive feedback to the subordinates. This style is facilitative (Kaviar, 2004). Supportive leadership style is suitable in situations of crisis as well as non crisis. This is more appropriate where team work is involved that requires a large number of people to work together. Supportive leadership must be called for when the leader is faced with managing a group of employees who are young and relatively in experienced. Good potential can be developed among individuals collectively using the supportive leadership style. 4) Delegating style This is the participant leadership style. In this style the employees are free to take decisions. It partially overlaps Lewin’s idea of free reign leadership style. Such a leadership style is usually useful in situations where the leader is faced with the challenge of making decisions regarding issues in a field he or she is not an expert in. Such a leadership style is most appropriate if the employees are well experienced and mature enough to make the best decision in favor of the organization. A lot of research has been conducted as to find out which leadership style is superior. According to Northouse (2007), cited in Rothwell, (2009, p. 163), research that compared the autocratic and democratic leadership style has shown mixed and complicated results. Rothwell (2009) believes that factors including culture, gender, size of firm and group expectations influence the decision of the best leadership style. Okuda’s Leadership style In light of the information provided in the case under discussion, Okuda’s leadership style seems to be directive. He was an autocratic leader. Following arguments will support this statement: The title of the case under study: ‘Toyota’s tough boss’ is itself reflective of authoritarian leadership style. Then the first sentence in the material provided which explains that Okuda is not afraid of speaking his mind supports the assumption of his style being autocratic further. Speaking what they feel or being expressive is a trait of authoritarian leaders. Since authoritarian leaders do not involve employees’ opinions in the decision making process (Lewin, 1939), they subsequently are very expressive in what they want done and exactly how they prefer it to be done. This trait was definitely possessed by Okuda, who according to Robins and colleagues (2006) was ‘not afraid to speak his mind’. As per the material provided, ‘Toyota’s burdensome bureaucracy also bothered Okuda’. This is again supportive of the assumption regarding his leadership style as being autocratic. In a bureaucratic family organization such as Toyota, the important decisions to be taken would naturally take plenty of time to be made since so many persons on high ranks of the company would be required to accept or reject them. An autocratic leader is quick at decision making process and is confident in deciding about important issues. Such a leader is not hesitant in making even the important decisions. Quickness in decision making process may partially be dependent on the knowledge of the decision maker; however, it is a matter of the leadership style in most cases. If the leader is authoritative, he or she will attempt to implement what he or she desires quickly, in case of democratic leadership the leaders wait before implementing a plan unless they are sure that all bodies involved agree with it. An autocratic or authoritarian leader is frank in expression of his demands. Since such a leader does not wish to consider the opinions of other members, he clearly states what is required and then strives to make sure that it is achieved. The case study says towards the end that he was blunt in his demands of change. This shows that he was not considerate in what the impact of change will be on the employees who are not used to it. He just stated and issued new targets like an autocratic leader. According to Breen (2006), an autocratic leader, with a directive style is reluctant to adopt a two way communication process. Dictation is the trait of such a leader. In the case study, the writer has attributed Okuda’s removal from president ship to his refusal to bail out other, senior members of Toyota. He was independent in making decisions like an autocratic leader and therefore was reluctant to consider the opinions of other, even the senior or founding family members of the company. Transactional and Transformational Leadership Modern research identifies two main leadership patterns (Moor and Rudd, 2006, p. 6). These are the transactional and transformational leadership styles. Transformational Leadership According to Tichy and Ulrich (1984) as cited in Pagan (2008), a transformational leader builds something new from an old management system. He transforms the organization completely including it cultural political and managerial system. Bass (1985, p.21) describes transformational leadership as one which broadens the focus of employees beyond self interest and this is achieved by arousing a ‘team’ or ‘group’ feeling among the employees or subordinates. This according to Bass (1985, p 22) can be achieved by four means: inspiring the subordinates, through charisma, by being individually considerate and via intellectual stimulation. According to Aarons (2006), transformational leaders inspire, influence and motivate the subordinates via processes that go beyond rewards, give and take and reinforcement or personal rewards. Transactional leadership Tichy and Urich (1984) have described a transactional leader as one who makes changes or amendments in the existing system of an organization and does not build a completely new system discarding the old one (Cited in Pagan, 2008). Bass (1985, p.22) describes the traits of a transactional leader as: providing contingent rewards, abdicating responsibility, taking corrective action in case of deviation and intervening only when responsibility is not met. Transactional leadership focuses on achieving targets from the employees through exchange and rewards (Aarons, 2006). Moore and Rudd conducted a study in 2006 and reported transformational leadership style as being much more popular among organizational leaders as compared to transactional leadership style. Similarly, in a study conducted at Lynchburg, Virginia, Cecil (2002) demonstrated that leaders who had high overall leadership scores also scored high on transformational leadership as compared to other types of leadership styles. However, one study by Rejas and colleagues (2006) showed that the transactional leadership style is more common among the leaders or heads of small firms as compared to the transformational leadership approach. One definite superior form of leadership style can’t be concluded on basis of present research. Basically, the best leadership style to adopt is dependent on the scenario and circumstances which any organization is facing. Okuda’s Transformational leadership approach This case study is clearly reflective of Okuda’s transformational leadership approach. A transformational leader firstly is confident in bringing about radical changes in an organization which is exactly what Okuda did and is famous for. According to the writer, he was not afraid to bring radical change in the organization. This shows his confident nature and is reflective of transformational approach in leadership. Accepting challenges is another trait of a transformational leader. To be a transformational leader requires being receptive of and confident in accepting major changes if they are required for the growth or survival of the organization. Okuda, the writer says had always been the one to accept challenging jobs that most other workers at Toyota were reluctant to take up. For example, he took up the task of expanding the business in Taiwan that many other members had refused to. This finding trait of transformational leadership existed in Okuda. Since a transformational leader brings about major changes in the company for the sake of its development, he/she must have the drive to overcome any obstacles that might come in his way. Many drastic changes were brought about by Okuda in the staff of the company. Firstly, almost one third of the senior membership was replaced. This is also reflective of transformative leadership. Removing or replacing senior members of a company is hardly consistent with the Japanese culture but Okuda, being a transformational leader took this step almost immediately after becoming the president. A transformational leader does not consider factors like culture of family loyalty when it comes to development of the organization. He only analysis what is hindering the required change and quickly resolves the issue by making a severe or radical decision that he feels is necessary for survival of the company. Another step taken by him that is reflective of his transformational leadership style was that of restructuring the promotion system. In a company where the promotions had been based on years of experience of seniority up till then, he introduced a performance based promotion system which motivated the people to work harder. According to Bass (1985, p. 22) a transformational leader achieves his goals by several ways, one of which is by being individually considerate. This addition of the performance factor was definitely an individual consideration for the hardworking employees and it resulted in many unexpected promotions plus unexpected achievements on part of many members who were junior in the company. A transformational leader is unique. He is not conventional in his decisions. Okuda displayed many traits that were not common in Japanese leaders and made many changes that were not consistent in the Japanese culture. Okuda, unlike most Japanese executives who typically remain unseen, was outspoken and known as an executive. This is again reflective of his transformational style in leadership. Another similar action on his part was the removal of such a large number of employees from the organization. This is not common practice among the Japanese where removal usually comes only with retirement and is rarely performance related. The above arguments prove that Okuda was definitely a transformational leader who brought about many radical changes in the company Toyota, which rescued the said organization that was at stake under those circumstances. Radical change in Leadership for companies in crisis When a company is in crises, I believe that radical change in the managerial system can definitely be useful. If a company or an organization is in crises it may be due to one or more of the following reasons: lack of hard work and devotion on part of employees, lack of incentives for the employees, lack of expertise specially at the decision making level and mismanagement. I will discuss each of these factors one by one to support my argument. If the employees are not hard working enough, there needs to be either a large scale replacement of them or some incentive based promotion system; both of them will call for a radical change in the organization. Similarly, if the reason for the company’s crises is due to lack of incentives for the employees leading to general lack of interest in work, a new system will have to be introduced that motivates the workers personally to work harder and achieve more. This will again be achieved by bringing a radical change. In case the crisis is due to lack of expertise at the decision making level, some senior management will have to be trained or replaced, which will again be a radical change for an organization that has always been led by such un trained heads. Lastly, if the crisis is due to mismanagement, a new managerial system will need to be introduced to fix it. All these situations call for a radical change. I believe that radical change must be applied to companies in crises. Since a company in crisis doesn’t have much at stake, it might actually be useful to give radical change a try. Radical change can turn an organization around. The example of the company Toyota is reflective of the usefulness of radical change. However, radical change sometimes can result in friction between leaders and subordinates. Such a decision therefore requires great deal of pre meditation and thoughtful discussion originating from some experts in the area. Bibliography Bass, B.M 1985. ‘From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision’. Available: ftp://papers.econ.mpg.de/IMPRS/SumSchool2009/priv/Giessner/ 3%20charism a/Bass.pdf Cecil, V. M 2002. ‘Learning organizations and leadership styles’. Available: http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/tr_02cm.pdf Pagan, N 2008. ‘Transformational leadership: A review of The Leadership Challenge by Ulrich and Tichy’. Available: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~npagan/documents/leadership.pdf Kaviar, K 2004. ‘Leadership styles in professional service firms’. Available: http://www.kunne.no/upload/Gamle%20publikasjoner/Presentasjoner/Leadership%20Style_Kvålshaugen_Kaviar2004.pdf Rejas, L.P; Ponce, E.R; Almonte, M & Ponce J.R 2006. ‘Transformational and transactional leadership: A study of influence on small firms’. Revista Chilena-Ingeniare. Vol.24, pp.159- 166 Breen, A 2002. ‘Leadership: An introduction to fundamental concepts and styles’. Available: http://www.cwru.edu/med/epidbio/mphp439/Leadership.htm Aarons, G. A 2006. ‘Transformational and transactional leadership’. American Psychiatric Association. Vol. 57, pp 1162-1169 Schou, A.J & Storm, P.M 1993. ‘Leadership Style and Leadership Flexibility: some transnational observations’. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Vol. 1 Iss: 2, pp.26 – 28 Schofer, J 2002. ‘The importance of leadership in managing change’. Managing organizational change. Vol. 108:164, pp 8-9 Lewin, K., LIippit, R & White, R. K 1939. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp 271-300 Moore, L.L & Rudd, R. D 2006. ‘Leadership styles of current extension leaders’. Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol: 47: 1, pp 6-9 Goleman, D; Mackee, A & Boyatzis, R 2002. ‘Leadership styles’. Available: http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_goleman_leadership_styles.html Rothwell, J. D 2009. ‘In mixed company: communicating in small groups and teams’. Cengage Learning. NY. Pp 163-164 Read More