Leadership and the Organizational Process - Assignment Example

Leadership and the Organizational process This essay is about leadership and the phenomenal effects it has on society and the human mind. Does this age old concept of leadership controls us or do we control it? Does it actually exist or is it the humans who have given undue importance to it? Is it a central organizational process and the premier force in the scheme of organizational events? Is it merely a question of grandiose labeling? Can humans live without this grand phenomenon that has taken control of every aspect of human life? Will we cease to exist without it, or is it simply our subconscious playing games since all humans have a separate identity, its all about how we use it to our best. Leadership Leadership is the ability to lead within organizations. Leadership has resulted from the need to lead companies through change, brought about by an increase in competition, changes in technology and economic conditions. Leaders are often thought to be charismatic people who have something about them that makes them stand out from others. There are certain personality traits for a leader. The best deserve to lead the others since they deserve a reward for the personality they have developed. As the saying goes “May the best man win!” Central Organizational Process Leadership is a central organizational process and not a mere question of grandiose labeling. An organization is a hierarchical structure that moves from the top level management to the bottom. Being at the top is not every person’s cup of tea because they made an effort to achieve it. The others who are not as capable choose to be at the bottom of the structure. The top level management manages through a proper chain of command that every person must report to no more than one entitled boss. The structure gives every manager a span of control that limits the number of subordinates working under each manager. These concepts in the structure help to delegate authority down into the entire organization since every organization has a top-down structure and without a leader the company will go haywire. Leadership is the result of this hierarchical structure that organizes a company into an efficient organization. An organization is a systematic arrangement of people brought together to accomplish some specific purpose. Therefore, without a leader these people will not be able to establish and follow company goals since without the careful guidance of a leader it is impossible for people on positions in the lower end of the hierarchical structure to meet any such goals. The leader gives a start and a boost to the organizational process, a leader is in fact the engine of an organization without which the organization may tend to become dysfunctional. A leader is someone who is able to influence others and who possesses managerial authority. It is important to channel the activities in an organization since then everything will tend to disperse. Leaders set objectives for their subordinates to follow them and achieve them for the betterment of the organization; they demonstrate that change is possible by overcoming inertia, leaders increase self-confidence of team members with their considerable influence on people and help them to relies their potential more fully so they help bring out the best in people, leaders guide, support and influence but they do not control and that is why people look up to leaders since they influence people in a positive way but never try to control them with force and leaders can influence others to perform beyond the actions dictated by formal authority. Leaders motivate workers to do phenomenal things and without the proper guidance of a leader the workers in an organization will not have any path to follow and establish goals. Leadership’s phenomenal role in an organization can be supported by various management theories. Taylor’s scientific management Frederic W. Taylor’s Scientific management is the use of the scientific method to define the one best way for a job to be done. The managers must screen, select and train workers accordingly. Taylor’s scientific principles were designed to reduce inefficiency of workers and managers. It also aimed to reduce conflict between workers and management. Taylor outlined a proper way of doing things in an organization and this proper way is established and directed by the leader since workers can not be expected to know all this by themselves. Taylor had a very simple view of what motivated people at work-money. He felt that workers must receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Thus a worker who did not produce a fair day’s work would loose that day’s earnings. Plus exceeding the target will be rewarded by bonus. Problems with tailors approach The theory does not take into account individual differences, there is no guarantee that the ‘best way’ will suit everyone , Taylor viewed people at work as machines, with financial needs, than as humans in a social setting and Taylor overlooked that people also work for reasons other than money. Without proper management by a manager or a leader it is impossible to run an organization efficiently. Analysis of Taylor’s theory and Henry Fords theory Changes in the organization of work associated with the introduction of new technologies of production, storage, distribution and information processing has led to a change in management organization. The transition from industrial relations to HRM systems may be conceived as the breakdown of Taylorist management systems where work is seen as a totally impersonal process and operatives are treated as means for the achievement of management objectives and not as end in themselves. Taylor emphasized the importance of measuring work in time units and of disciplining workers to ensure production on the basis of time schedules. Taylor outlined the theory and practice of assembly line production systems. He deliberately sought to develop a standardized work system in which there was no scope for recognizing the worker as an individual. The purpose of this pattern of work organization was to reduce management’s dependence on the individual initiatives of the operatives and to make workers as easily replaceable as the parts of a machine. In the Taylorist organization thinking was assigned to managers and acting to workers. Work was divided into specific tasks, each task was standardized and there was little scope for skill formation. Workers were cheap and expendable precisely because they had little or no skills beyond the ability to do what they were told to do in the time allotted for the task. The only responsibility of the worker “was to do the work assigned willingly with a degree of steady intensity… (and to have) a positive interest in accuracy” (Bendix 1963 Pg 204). The worker should be regular and diligent and accept the authority of the manager as both a moral and a technical necessity. Henry Braverman (1974) in his classic study saw this work ethics as necessary for the survival of monopoly capitalism and argued that its ultimate justification lay in the higher standards of living it produced for the working class. Thus, this theory just proved that leadership is a central organizational process and not just a label. Capitalist systems of production transfer the control of the work process from the workers to the managers. This appears as a self-evident truth in the case of the “dark satanic mills” of the 19th century Britain. It is also characteristic of the organization of work in a typical Fordist factory (Henry Ford extended Taylorism since Fordism was about high wages and low cost production through assembly line with specialized machinery and catering to the mass market). In pre-capitalist system it was usually the (self employed) worker himself who decided how long to work and what to produce. In capitalist order both Fordist and Post Fordist it is the manager who takes these crucial decisions. The workers can no longer choose the pace or the object of work; he can only choose whether or not to enter the labor market. In underdeveloped capitalist economies this is not really much of a choice for the real alternative to employment is starvation. Marglin (1974) points out that there is not really much of a choice in mature capitalist societies either for these societies institutionalize scarcity by generating unlimited wants on the one hand and relative deprivation and distributional inequalities in the other. To work in the factory is to work on management terms. When management finds its right to manage is being challenged it is involved in a political struggle but since capital is inherently flexible, against the might of capital the power of labor is ultimately negligible, (Beynon 1984 Pg 372) nevertheless oppositional activity by workers, even when not backed by nationally powerful trade unions can inflict serious costs on individual firms and these costs have risen as skill requirements have increased generally and in industry due to applications of advanced technological systems in particular. The need for legitimate managerial control of the work process has therefore increased. HRM systems have therefore been concerned to restructure recruitment, salary, benefits promotion, retirement and pension arrangements to enhance workers acceptance of managerial hierarchic control of the production process. Several studies summarized in Roussouw (2004 pg 143-150) stress that rapid technological development and growing market uncertainties undermine the efficiency and effectivity of Classical Webercan beaureaucratic organizational structures. In the presence of continuing technology change and market uncertainties there is a need to adopt what Burns and Stolker in their pioneering study described as an “organic system” of management. Organic systems need to be adopted when problems and requirement for action arise which can not be broken down and distributed among specialist roles with a clearly defined hierarchy. Individuals have to perform their special task in the light if their knowledge of the tasks of the firm as a whole. Jobs in terms of methods, duties and power have to be continually redefined through interaction with others. Treating workers as ends in themselves and not as means, the ideal is to regard workers as part of the management team and to include them in all decision making structures in which they have the capability to contribute to enhance productivity. Lean production systems management empowers the workers and gives them greater control over their work. They are given broader responsibilities; repair and maintenance skills and they are rewarded for any suggestions they give that enhance production and profitability. Post Fordist theory implies that empowering employees is essential for quality enhancement because it supports the fact that workers aiming to maximize profits know how to discipline themselves and also use their creativity to overcome any discrepancies. Real life is obviously more complex so creating a Post Fordist structure will be costly and impractical since it is not necessary that all workers are capable of fitting into this environment. It depends on the economy and the country. Since Post Fordist values have been internalized to greater extends in America, Europe and other fist-world countries whereas, it’s the opposite in the third world countries. Human Relations theory by Elton Mayo Hawthorne Studies: These studies produced by Elton Mayo argue that workers performance is affected by working conditions (hygiene), skill of these workers and also the financial incentives. This gave birth to incentive schemes, payment schemes, and rest periods, lighting and heating. The effect of these changes was closely studied on the performance of the workers. But the research concluded that it was not the effect of these changes that increased productivity every time these changes were brought in to action, it was actually the chance of interaction that the workers got during their breaks and even work that they were motivated to work since man is a social animal with social needs. Secondly, it was the interest that the top management showed in them that to them was translated as to be care on the part of the management that motivated them to work since now they considered themselves to be morally obligated to put in their best. A business must make sure that all personal needs of their workers are being fulfilled and they should be satisfied. Communication between management and workers is important since social needs are important for humans and otherwise it triggers a divorce between ownership and control. Communication helps workers understand the goals of the organization and they aim to fulfill them with great honesty. For e.g. AT&T has empowered its employees and instilled in them great loyalty towards the organization because every employee feels they can make a difference. McDonald’s holds parties and picnics to help make the employees feel part of the McDonald family which motivates them to work. Problems with Hawthorne Studies These studies assume that management and workers share the same goals and there is consensus that exists between them. This is not always true in every case. For e.g. Austin Rover in the 1980’s tried to introduce a program called “Working with Pride.” But the program was not accepted in the organization by the employees and the program failed although it was intended to improve communication and employee commitment. The theory also assumes that communication between management and workers will break down barriers which is again not true in all cases. It has been proven in the Austin Rover case. Lastly, it is biased towards the management. The theory helps management to manipulate workers since management does not care for their workers it’s just the productivity and profits they want. Henri Fayol Henri Fayol laid down 14 basic principles of management which aimed to direct workers efficiently to increase productivity and profitability. Division of labor: Every individual who is specialized in a specific task will do only that since he has expertise in doing it. Authority: The ability, position and right to issue commands to the subordinates. Discipline: Unconditional obedience from employees. They have to obey all that the management tells them to do. Unity of command: This is a chain of command where every worker must report to only one boss. Unity of direction: Shared objectives, values and common goals to achieve. Subordination of individual interest: The goals of the firm are priority. Remuneration: Fair payment on time to workers motivates them to work. Centralization: When decision making is concentrated at the top level of management and the employees must obey. Scalar Chain: This is a hierarchy which is important to organize the company since every person gets a position depending on their abilities. Order: Eliminating wastages like time wasted while handling material and also to avoid social havoc in the organization by screening, selecting and recruiting the right people who fit in the organizational culture. Equity: Treating all employees equally and at the same level. Stability of tenure of personnel: Job security and promotions motivate employees to be loyal to the organization. Initiative: Allowing employees to voice their opinions, suggestions and taking initiatives. Also rewarding them if their suggestions prove to be good for the organization. Espirit de Corps: Team spirit must be encouraged since every one must accept the success of one employee if he/she deserves it without incurring any jealousies. Henri Fayol also laid down the 5 functions of management, namely; planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. Herzberg’s Two Factor theory Frederick Herzberg contributed to the management theories as well. He laid down the two-factor theory. He divided the incidents that initiate job satisfaction into two categories: Motivators which includes all kinds of rewards (financial, social and moral) and Hygiene factors that include the factors that can lead to dissatisfaction among employees like pay and working condition. Herzberg’s factors are linked with job enrichment where workers expand their job experience. Problems with the theory Job enrichment can be expensive for many firms since it all depends on the rate of inflation in the economy the organization is operating in. Antonio Gramsci He was totally against Taylorism since he considered it irrational and unfair to the employees and also pointed out that the theory was biased towards the management. He preached “ideological hegemony” which is the extreme influence of one nation over another. Conclusion Leadership is a central organizational process and it matters a lot to the organization. It is a fact that before Taylor the workers used to bring their own tools, work on their own and never got to see the management. The management was least communicative and workers were hand to mouth so they worked otherwise it was not something they would prefer to do. But then Taylor cam up with his theory that helped managers to manage the organization in a better way so that workers are motivated to work but the theory ignored the social needs of the workers since it considered them to be like machines and easily replaceable. This shows there was no job security and the workers were least important. Then Henry Fords theory of Post Fordism came into action which supported delegation of authority and responsibility to the lower levels of the hierarchical structures and workers started to take part in decision making plus they were given due importance and they had job security plus they received good pays. This theory became popular in the first world and is an effective management tool used today since it motivates workers and instills in them loyalty towards the organization. Then Gramsci preached hegemony and was against Taylorism since he considered it to be irrational. Henri Fayol laid down his principles and functions of management to help manage better and to motivate employees further. Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies finally took into account the social needs of the employees. But still the theory is blamed to be manipulative towards the employees. Herzberg’s theory also mentions two factors that help analyze what employees want and then to meet their personal needs to retain them since an organization is useless without employees. Finally, we have reached a conclusion that leadership is a central organization process and not just a label. Bibliography Alvesson, Mats (1996) Leadership studies: from procedure and abstraction to reflexivity and situation. Leadership Quarterly 7/4: 455-485. Bass, B.M (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Traditional management theories and an understanding of leadership.New York: Free Press. Barker, R. (2001) ‘The nature of leadership’. Human Relations, 54, 4, 469-494. Bendix R. (1963) Work and authority in Industry. New York Harper Beynon. H (1984) Working for Ford. Harmondsworth Penguin Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964) The Managerial Grid. Traditional management theories and an understanding of leadership Houston TX: Gulf. Braverman H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital New York. Monthly Review Press. Brown, M.H. and Hosking, D.M. (1986) ‘Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organization in social movements’. Human Relations, 39, 1, 65-79. Bryman, A. (1986) Leadership in Organisations. London: RKP. Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. Traditional management theories and an understanding of leadership New York: Harper and Row. Conger, J. and Kanungo, K.N. (1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organisations. Traditional management theories and an understanding of leadership Thousand Oaks. Sage. Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Traditional management theories and an understanding of leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gramsci A. (1974) Prison Notebooks Harmondsworth, Penguin Gramsci A. (1969) Soviets in Italy (S. Blum Translator) London, Institute of Workers Control. Gronn, P. (2002) ‘Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis’. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423-451. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1977) Management of Organizational Behaviour. Traditional management theories and an understanding of leadership. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. Hosking, D.M. (1988) ‘Organizing, leadership and skilful process’. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 2, 147-166. Marglin S. (1974) “What do bosses do?” Review of Radical Political Economy Vol 6 No. 3 Pg 60-112. Meindl, James R., Sanford B. Ehrlich and Janet M. Dukerich (1985) The Romance of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 78-102. Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1977) The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review. 2/1: 104-112. Pondy, L.R. (1978) Leadership Is a Language Game. In M. McCall and M. Lombardo (eds.) Leadership: Where Else Can We Go? Duke University Press. 87-101. Yukl, G. (1999) ‘An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories’. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 2, 285 Rossouw. D (2004) Business Ethics Cape Town Oxford University Press Stogdill, R.M. (1950) ‘Leadership, membership and organization’. Traditional management theories and an understanding of leadership. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 1-14. Scientific Management. Available from [Accessed 14th December 2007] Henri Fayol Available from [Accessed 14th December 2007] Herzberg Available from < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Herzberg> [Accessed 14th December 2007] Henry Ford Available from < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford> [Accessed 14th December 2007] Elton Mayo Available from < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_Mayo> [Accessed 14th December 2007] Read More