Leadership in Organizations

The crux of every management job lies in the job-holder’s capacity to obtain the commitment of people to the objectives of the organization, which is another way of saying “to exercise appropriate leadership”. Leadership is a concept, which has fascinated Man for centuries, but only in recent years has any kind of theory of leadership emerged. The following paragraphs describe and discuss some of the major issues associated with leadership in the context of work. Leadership is a function of groups and their behavior.

Leadership: Theory and Practice

In this section it describes and comments on a number of the theoretical and practical aspects of leadership in the work situation. A review of the main theories of leadership is followed by a discussion of the alternative styles of leadership available.

Before attempting a working definition of “leadership”, it would be appropriate to reflect on the various types of leader which has been identified, and to consider some of the practical difficulties arising from these. The most important types of leader are as follows:

The Charismatic leader whose influence springs mainly from personality: Napoleon, Hitler, Churchill, Billy Graham and others. The difficulty with charismatic leadership is that few people possess the exceptional qualities required to transform all around them into willing followers. Another issue is that personal qualities, or traits, of leadership cannot be acquired by training; they can only be modified by it.

The Traditional leader whose position is assured by birth e.g. kings, queens and Tribal chieftains. This is another category to which few people can aspire. Except in small business, there are few opportunities for traditional leadership at work.

The Situational leader’s influence can only be effective by being in the right place at the right time. This kind of leadership is too temporary in nature to be of value in a business. What is looked for is someone who is capable of assuming a leadership role in a variety of situations over a period of time.

The Appointed leader whose influence arises directly out of his position in an Organization. This is bureaucratic type of leadership, where legitimate power springs from the nature and scope of the position within the management hierarchy. The problem here is that, although the powers of the position may be defined, the job-holder may not be able to implement them because of weak personality, lack of adequate training or other factors.

The Functional leader who secured the leadership position by what he does, Rather than what he is. In other words, a functional leader adapts his behavior to meet the competing needs of situation. This particular type will be looked at more closely at a later stage of this article.

Leadership, then, is something more than just personality or accident or appointment. It is intimately linked with behavior. It is essentially a human process at work in organizations. As a working definition, leadership can be described as “a dynamic process in a group whereby one individual influences the others to contribute voluntarily to the achievement of group tasks in a given situation”. There are several points which can be made about this definition. Firstly, leadership is a dynamic process, not a static. This implies a range of leadership style is preferable to any one “best style”. Secondly, the role of the leader is to direct the group towards group goals. In an informal, or unofficial, group these roles will have been agreed. by the group itself. In a formal group, the goals will have been set mainly, if not exclusively by senior managers outside the group. Thirdly, the style of leadership and the reaction of the group will be determined considerably by the situation concerned (the tasks, external pressures etc.).

As per the definition of leadership as discussed above, the key variables in determining the leadership are: the leader, in terms of skill, knowledge and personality, tasks/goals, the group members (subordinates skill and motivation and the environment/situation. Taken together these variables form the total leadership situation. The art of leadership is to find the best balance between them in the light of the total situation.

Theories of leadership

Ideas about leadership in management range from the “ideal” approaches of scientific management and Human Relations Schools to the pragmatic or adaptive approaches of the Contingency theorists. The theories which have been put forward are generally classified under “trait theories”, “Style theories” and “Contingency theories”. These will be looked in detail in the following paragraphs.

Trait Theories In this article, in the discussion trait theories focus on the qualities of leaders. However, by 1950″s over 100 studies in leadership on qualities did not reveal common leadership qualities, which separates leaders from non-leaders.

In these studies, some traits frequently appeared. These traits of leaders are intelligence, energy and resourcefulness appeared most as leadership qualities.

Style Theories The interest in the human factor at work which was stimulated by

researchers of Human Relations, and taken up by the social psychologists who followed them, led logically to an interest in leadership as an aspect of behavior at work rather than of personal characteristics. Since the 1950’s, in particular, several theories about leadership, or management, style has been put forward. These have tended to be expressed in terms of authoritarian versus democratic styles, or people-orientation versus task orientation. In some cases, despite acknowledged inconsistencies in the theories them selves, style theories have tend to quite useful devices for improving training for leadership. A selection of the best-known style theories is discussed below.

Authoritarian-Democratic: Three examples of this approach to management style are as follows:

D. McGregor’s Theory X manager – tough, autocratic and supporting tight controls with punishment-reward systems – the authoritarian. The contrasting style is that of the theory Y manager – benevolent, participative and believing in self-controls – the democrat. These styles flow from the assumptions about people that are original basis of Theory X and Theory Y in terms of people’s nature and their motivation towards work.

Rensis Likert four management systems:

System 1 – the exploitative-authoritative system, which is the epitome of the authoritarian style.

System 2 – The benevolent-authoritative system, which is basically a paternalistic style.

System 3 – The consultative system, which moves towards greater democracy and team work.

System 4 – The participative-group system, which us the ultimate democratic style.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s model of a continuum of leadership styles, at one end to democratic behavior at the other. That is, the managers can have different degrees of authoritarian and different degrees of democratic styles in any organization.

Style theories of leadership has a heavy emphasis on the behavior of the leader and has less emphasis on other factors such as tasks, subordinates skill, motivation and environmental factors such as culture and social norms. The democratic style may be applicable in Western countries but may not be applicable for example in other countries. because of cultural and other situational and tasks and subordinates skill and motivational factors. This is a major limitation of these theories in practice.

People-Task orientations: Examples of approaches utilizing two of the leadership

Variables – subordinates and tasks are as follows.

The Michigan Studies – these studies, which were first reported in 1950, analyzed a number of variables between managers of high-productivity groups and managers of low productivity groups. The object was to see if any significant differences could be identified, thus providing some clues to leadership behavior. In many respects (age, martial status etc.) there were no such differences was noticed, and this was that the supervisors in charge of the high-producing groups tended to be employee-oriented while their opposite numbers in the low-producing groups tended, ironically, to be production-centered. The employee-centered supervisors paid more attention to relationships at work, exercised less direct supervision and encouraged employee participation in decision-making. Production-centered supervisors were more directive and more concerned with task needs than people needs. The two different orientations appeared to represent different ends of the same continuum.

The Ohio Studies – these studies were conducted during the 1950’s. Like Michigan studies shortly before, they were concerned to describe leadership behavior. The basis of the initial research was a Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire of some 150 items. When the responses to this questionnaire were analyzed two distinct groupings of behavior emerged. These were defined as “Consideration” and “Initiating Structures”. Consideration described behavior that was essentially relationship-orientated or considerate of employee feelings. Initiating structure referred to behavior concerned with the organization of the work processes, including communication channels, allocating tasks etc. Unlike in the Michigan Studies, the Ohio’s team conclusion was that the two dimensions of Consideration and Initiating Structures was separate dimensions. It was shown to be possible for the supervisor to score high on both dimensions. This finding was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in their concept of Managerial Grid.

Managerial Grid – the grid is a matrix of possible management styles based on the two dimensions of Concern for people and Concern for Production. The grid was developed primarily to aid management development. Its use together with a number of questionnaires, enable managers to identify their current style. Unlike the Ohio studies on which it is based, the grid is basically prescriptive in intention. The five styles in the Grid as indicated are management Country Club, Management Impoverished, Management Team, Management Middle-of-the Road, Management Task. These styles of management are reference points in the Grid. In using the Grid as a development devise, individual managers will find their scored can end up anywhere in the Grid, but can be easily related to one or more of the five leading styles. Of the five styles only one – Team management – is an ideal style, according to Blake and Mouton. The authors of the Grid have claimed that it has been very successful in assisting firms with improving both managerial and organizational effectiveness. However, as theoretical basis for understanding leadership, it is most doubtful if the two dimensions of concern for people and concern for production are the only two significant factors in the leadership equation. So far these have not been validated by empirical research.

The 3-D Theory – this approach by Professor Reddin of New Brunswick University, Canada, takes the Blake-type grid a stage further and introduces a three-dimensional perspective. This adds considerably to the flexibility of leadership styles by including the factor of effectiveness in the dimensions. Reddin’s Grid, is able to consider aspects of the situation in which leadership is exercised as well accounting for the concern for people (Relationship oriented – RO) and the concern for production (Task Oriented – TO).Reddin describes then central grid as the set of basic styles available in the light of the relationship and Task orientations. So, for example, a manager who is high on people and low on task has a basic style that is related. However each basic style has two alternative management styles arising from it, depending on whether the style is appropriate to the leadership situation or not. Appropriate leadership tends to be more effective i.e. achieves the out put requirements of that particular managerial job. Thus, a Related style that is used appropriately is called Developer, whilst inappropriate style is called Missionary. The concept of effectives added to the dimensions of relationships and task orientations, makes up three dimensional perspectives. Unlike the Blake Grid, which has only one effective style the Reddin Grid, Grid has four effective styles. Like Blake Grid, however, Reddin’s ideas have not been validated by research, and whilst useful for the purpose of management development, is not authoritative answer to the question of what is effective leadership.

The Harvard Studies – as a result of studying small group behavior, Harvard researchers identified two distinct groups of leaders: task leaders and socio-emotional leaders, who here mutually exclusive. A person could not be a task leader and a socio-emotional leader as well. The task leader showed a concern for structuring of activities., whereas the socio-emotional leader showed concern for supportive relationships. These two types of leader corresponded closely to the types defined by the Ohio studies i.e. Initiating Structure and Consideration, but, unlike those studies, Harvard results, suggested that two dimensions were mutually exclusive.

Contingency Approaches

Functional, or Action-centered Leadership- This concept of leadership was developed in the United Kingdom by Professor John Adair. It is based on the theory that leadership is more a question of appropriate behavior than of personality or of being in the right place at the right time. Adair’s model of leadership incorporates the concern for task and concern for people that has featured in all the theories which I have mentioned. The functional model, however, distinguishes the concern for individual from the concern for groups, and stresses that effective leadership lies in what the leader does to meet the needs of task, group and individuls. This takes the functional model nearer to the contingency approaches of modern theorists, whose concern is with the variety of factors – task, people and situations – which have a direct bearing on leadership and leadership styles.

The key features of the functional model can be summarized as follows.

Task, Group and Individual Needs are fulfilled in the context of a total leadership situation. The circumstances of each situation affect the priority which attaches to each area of needs. An effective leader is one who is aware of for example, in a situation of great urgency, task needs must predominate over group and individual needs. In another situation, such as the re-building of a football team, it is group needs which comes first, then individual needs with task needs last. Te model thus encourages a flexible style of leadership, which may be relatively task oriented or group oriented or individual oriented depending on circumstances.

Task functions directed towards task needs, include activities such as the setting of objectives, the planning of tasks, the allocation of responsibilities and setting of appropriate standards of performance.

Group maintenance functions, directed towards group needs, include activities such as team-building and motivation, communication, discipline, and acting as group representative to others outside the boundaries of the unit.

Individual maintenance functions, directed towards the needs individuals, include activities such as coaching, counseling, motivation and development.

Adair’s concept of leadership is basically a contingency theory of leadership. It stresses that the leader’s behavior in relation to task, group, individual needs has to be related to the overall situation and therefore has to be adaptive.

The first theorist to use the label “contingency” explicitly was Fielder in the “Theory of leadership Effectiveness”. Fielder named his leadership model as ” the leadership contingency model”. In his view group performance is contingent upon the leader adopting an appropriate style in the light of the relative favorableness of the situation. According to Fielder, there most important variables in determining the relative favorableness of the situation are:

• Leader-member relations
• Degree of structure in task
• Power and authority of the position

These three variables can produce eight possible combinations of situation, of which the most favorable to the leader is when he has good leader-member relations, the task is highly structured and he has a powerful position. By comparison, the least favorable conditions are when he is disliked, the task is relatively unstructured and he has little position power.

On the topic of leadership style, Fielder sees the two main choices as between “relationship-motivated” and task-motivated’. Applying these styles to the range of situations possible, Fielder found that task-oriented leaders tended to perform most effectively in situations in which were either very favorable or very unfavorable. Relationship-motivated leaders tended to perform most effectively in situations that were intermediate in terms of favorableness. Fielder’s theory is another step towards the development of a comprehensive contingency theory of leadership. It is probably at its weakest on the issue of leadership style, but its greatest value lies in its attempt to distinguish and evaluate the leader’s role.

Summary

• The principal leadership types to have been identified are:
• Charismatic leadership based on Personality
• Traditional Leadership based on Birth
• Situational leadership based on the right place at the right time
• Appointed leader based on bureaucratic authority
• Functional leadership based on leader behavior

Leadership can be described as ‘a dynamic process in a group whereby one individual influences the others to contribute voluntarily to the achievement of group tasks in a given situation.

The basic elements in the leadership equations are:

• The leader (personality/skill)
• The tasks/goals of the group
• The subordinates (skills, motivations etc.)
• The environment situation
• Theories about leadership can be placed into three major categories as follws:
• Trait theories based on personal characteristics of leader.
• Style theories based on leader behavior
• Contingency theories based on adaptive leader behavior in light of situation.

.