Managers Leadership Style - Assignment Example

Running Head: MANAGERS’ LEADERSHIP STYLE Managers’ Leadership Style [Name of the Writer] [Name of the Institution] Managers’ Leadership Style In managers’ leadership style there are two extremes scales on one end there would be the harsh and vicious person while on the other end is a caring, selfless and helpful leader. While there are a few leaders who can be recognized with just one of these, some supervise to adapt themselves found on the situation. However, the success or failure of any of these looms to leadership depends to a large point on the organisation situation being dealt with. Few leaders in certain settings can make the variation between massive success and devastating failure. Do Leaders Really Matter? The observed effect of managers as leaders on organisational outcomes is minimal for the following reasons: The people selected for leadership positions are those possessing only certain, limited styles of behaviour and the discretion and behaviour of the person in that particular position is severely constrained. Managers’ as leaders typically affect only a few variables that impact the organisational performance as a whole. Organisational researchers have long studied the effects of leadership on firm's performance. These studies have thrown up mixed results. At the forefront, Lieberson and O'Connor's (2002, 120) study of 167 companies showed that environmental factors explained more variation in a firm's performance than organisational leadership factors. Similarly, Salancik and Pfeffer's (1997, 11) study demonstrated that there was a limited influence of mayors on city governments and that change in mayors over time had little impact on city governments. In addition, Hart and Quinn (2003, 555) found that executive leadership roles (i.e., vision setter, motivator and taskmaster) also had little impact on firms' financial performance. These findings thus challenged traditional thinking which held that leaders and higher executives hold key to a firm's success (e.g. Hambrick & Mason, 2004, 195). In addition, well-cited studies in the 1980's indicated that leadership was important to the success of a firm. Weiner and Mahoney (2001, 455) showed that leadership accounted for about 40 percent of variation in a firm's performance (profitability and stock prices) that was not explained by non-leadership factors. A possible explanation for such inconsistent results is a flaw in an assumption underlying these studies. These studies theorize that good leaders and strong leadership are associated with good firm performance whereas poor leaders and weak leadership are associated with poor firm performance. This implicitly assumes that the absence of factors causing poor organisational performance (weak leadership) will lead to good firm performance, and the absence of factors leading to good firm performance (strong leadership) will result in poor firm performance, given the nature of linear relationship between two variables. From an external control perspective, various situational factors affect firm performance. Hannan and Freeman (1997, 930) noted that organisations are subject to various inertial pressures generated from both internal structural arrangements (such as prior investment costs, political constraints and organisational norms) and environmental constraints (such as legal barriers, environmental uncertainty and legitimacy claims). These constraints may limit the influence of individual leaders on firm performance. Moreover, the availability and demand for requisite resources from the external environment, the ongoing and sometimes unpredictable offensive and defensive strategies of competitors, and the bargaining power of customers, suppliers and strategic alliance partners can threaten an organisation's long-term survivability and prosperity, despite the leadership efforts of senior management (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1998, 14; Porter, 2000, Press). However, from higher echelons' perspectives; leaders and top managers, by setting organisational goals, formulating and implementing organisational strategies, are at heart of organisations (Hambrick & Mason, 2004, 199), and hence organisational leadership plays major role in shaping organisational outcomes. Since the arguments from both contextualist and upper echelons' perspectives seem logically sound, Charnchai Tangpong & Michael D.Michalaisin proposed that organisational leadership is a mere hygiene factor i.e. while organisational leadership is a necessary function in organisations, it is an insufficient source of long-term firm success. In effect, they concluded that while lack of proper leadership leads to below average performance of a firm; a strong organisational leadership will not necessarily be associated with the superior performance of a firm. Traditional Approaches to Leadership The trait approach focused on identifying stable and enduring character traits that could differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Research further was directed towards developing ways of measuring these traits and using these methods for selecting leaders. Some important traits included - intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, energy, activity and task-relevant knowledge. The theory invited criticism as slowly writers started relating leadership to traits like, height, sun-sign etc. It also lost credibility as it could not answer how any of these traits were connected to leadership per se. The role of gender, age and national culture were also debated. For e.g. while the American business culture promoted profits and competition, the Japanese stressed more on group cohesiveness and identity. The behavioural approach assumed that the behaviour of effective leaders was constant across all situations and differed from that of the less effective leaders. Two studies focused on this approach: Many leadership studies aimed at identifying leadership behaviour patterns that determined effective group performance. Job-cantered leadership behaviour and employee-cantered leadership behaviour were placed at the two extremes of a continuum. Both the types are mainly concerned with high performance but while the former focuses just on the effective completion of a task, the latter attempts to build effective work groups by paying close attention to the human aspects of the employees. Leadership studies on the other hand identified two significant kinds of leader behaviour - consideration and initiating-structure. When engaging in the consideration behaviour, the leader and subordinate share a relationship of mutual trust, self-respect and two-way communication. The subordinate's feelings and ideas are respected. The initiating-structure behaviour involves clear definition of leader-subordinate roles so that the subordinate is clear about what is expected from him. Focus is primarily on accomplishing the group's task. Unlike in the Michigan studies, these two traits are independent of each other and could be found in the same person in varying degrees. Leaders Make a Difference Modern leadership theory has had two major concerns. The first is regarding who becomes a leader and the second pertains to the question of leadership effectiveness. Who then becomes a leader? People tend to become leaders: When they possess somewhat superior abilities, skills or control over resources that enables the group to achieve its objectives. If their particular personality attribute makes them more visible than other members of the group. They know themselves very well and seek self-improvement - In order to know oneself, one has to understand his or her attributes. Seeking self-improvement implies continually strengthening these attributes. This can be accomplished through self-study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others. They know their job and have a solid familiarity with their employees' tasks. Leaders search for ways to guide one's organisation to new heights. And when things go wrong; they analyze the situation on hand, take corrective action, and move on to the next challenge -- they do not blame others. They use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools. They set an example - Be a good role model for other employees to emulate. They must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we want to see - Mahatma Gandhi. Know one's people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for one's workers. Keep one's workers informed - Knows how to communicate with not only them, but also with seniors and other key people. Leaders develop and instil a sense of responsibility in co-workers - Help to develop good character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities. They ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished - Communication is the key to this responsibility. Train as a team and not as just a group of people doing their jobs. Use the full capabilities of the organisation - By developing a team spirit, a leader will be able to exploit one's organisation, department, section etc. to its fullest capabilities. Characteristics of Effective Leadership An effective leader is a person with a passion for a cause that is larger than they are and possesses values that are life-giving to society. One can become an effective leader by: Effective communication in three critical areas which is the key to winning organisational trust and confidence: 1. Helping employees comprehend the company's overall business strategy 2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key business objectives 3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is performing as well as how an employee's own division is doing vis-à-vis with the strategic business objectives. Combining confidence with humility in the absence of confidence, there is no action and without action, there is no change. However, paradoxically a leader needs to have humility. No matter how creative and bright one is, often the best ideas and thinking are going to come from someone else. A leader needs to be able to identify that, have good people around who have these ideas. This calls for humility, or at least lack of egocentricity. The leader should be focused on the ends and does not have to see oneself always as the creator of the strategy to get to that end. Winning respect without courting popularity. Constantly supporting and backing other employees. Avoiding close supervision and over bossing. Delegating authority as and when necessary; trusting the team; relying on their judgment; permitting group decision and having faith in the creativity of others. Communicating openly and honestly and telling other what he/she thinks. Making others feel important by emphasizing their strengths and contributions. Following the golden rule by treating their followers the way the leader enjoys being treated. Admitting their mistakes. Staying close to the action by being visible to the members of the organisation. Talking to people, visiting other offices and work sites, asking questions, and observing how business is being handled. This will assist in gaining fresh insights into the job and finding new opportunities for motivating other employees. Promoting a game of competition. The competitive drive can be a valuable tool if used correctly. This could be done by setting team goals and rewarding members who meet or exceed them. In addition, one should examine the failures, and celebrate group's success. The stability of a leader's behaviour depends on the stability of the situation and the success of any one style would depend solely on the organisational setting. Some of the theories (e.g. leadership grid) overlooked the complexity of managers’ leadership behaviour, most of them failed to meet their primary goal - to identify universal leader-behaviour and follower-response patterns. The focus shifted to contingency theories with the assumption that leadership behaviour will vary across settings. References Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1998). The External Control of Organisations: Harper & Row. Porter, M.E. (2000). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors: Free Press. Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (2004). The Organisation as a Reflection of its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 193-206 Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1997) The population ecology of Organisations, American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5): 929-964. Lieberson, S., & O'Connor, J. F. (2002). Leadership and Organisational performance: A study of large corporations. American Socio-logical Review, 37, 117-130. Salancik, G.R. and J. Pfeffer, (1997). Who Gets Power-And How They Hold on to It: A Strategic Contingency Model of Power,” Organisational Dynamics. Hart, Stuart L. and Robert E. Quinn (2003), Roles executives CEOs, behavioural complexity, and firm performance, Human Relations. 46 (5), 543-574. Weiner, N., & Mahoney, T. A. (2001). A model of corporate performance as a function of environmental, Organisational and leadership influences. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 453-470. Read More