dr. hab. Jerzy Supernat Institute of Administrative Studies University of Wrocław

dr. hab. Jerzy SupernatInstitute of Administrative Studies

University of Wrocław

Leadership in organizations

Leadership in Organizations

dr. hab. Jerzy Supernat

Gary YuklLeadership is a subject that has long excited interest among people. The term connotes images of powerful, dynamic individuals who command victorious armies, direct corporate empire from atop gleaming skyscrapers, or shape the course of nations. The exploits of brave and clever leaders are the essence of many legends and myths. Much of our description of history is the story of military, political, religious, and social leaders who are credited or blamed for important historical events, even though we do not understand very well how the events were caused or how much influence the leader really had. The widespread fascination with leadership may be because it is such a mysterious process, as well as one that touches everyone’s life.



Leadership

Amitai Etzioni (Werner Falk), born 1929: Leadership is a special form of power, one that involves the ability, based on the personal qualities of the leader, to elicit the followers’ voluntary compliance in a broad range of matters. Leadership is distinguished from the concept of power in that it entails influence, that is change of preferences, while power implies only that subjects’ preferences are held in abeyance.

Amitai Etzioni

Daniel Katz (1903-1998), Robert L. Kahn (born 1918):We consider the essence of organizational leadership to be the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directions of the organization.

Thus, leadership involves more than simply the normal exercise of authority that is based on a position in the organization or claimed by a member or members of organizations because of the formal requirements of their jobs. It often involves attributions of particular traits and abilities to people by their followers.



From left to right: Daniel Katz, Basil Willerman, Robert L. Kahn, Kermit Schooler, Richard Snyder.

Robert L. Kahn

Leadership positionLeadership is not confined to any particular group or any level within an organization, and at least in theory, does not necessarily involve formal authority. Nonetheless, the vast majority of studies of leadership have focused on persons who have been assigned a leadership position, that is, who have some authority by virtue of their posi-tion.

According to Philip Selznick (1919-2010) formal leaders fulfill four fundamental functions.



Functions of formal leaders as seen by Philip Selznik:

defining organizational mission and role choosing the means to achieve the ends

desired, or ensuring that the structure reflects and is designed to accomplish the mission effectively (the institutional embodiment of purpose)

defending the organization’s integrity (leaders must secure support for the organization from both the pu-blic and their own members, without allowing either external or internal constituents to fundamentally re-shape the organization’s mission)

ordering of internal conflict



G. Yukl identified fourteen functions of leadership:1. Planning and organizing.2. Problem solving.3. Clarifying.4. Informing.5. Monitoring.6. Motivating.7. Consulting.8. Recognizing.9. Supporting.10. Managing conflict and team building.11. Networking.12. Delegating.13. Developing and mentoring.14. Rewarding.



Philip Selznick

Components of leadershipGenerally speaking there are three general types of factors that determine who becomes defined as leader: More or less permanent characteristics and traits of indivi-duals: leadership traits (see the next slide ). Behaviors and styles that individuals may exhibit (leadership often involves two very different types of behavior: 1) task / production oriented and 2) employee oriented). Characteristics of followers and/or particular situation that a group or organization is facing (in one situation, an individual, who exhibits certain behaviors and styles is more likely to be defined as a leader, whereas in other situations, different individuals, exhibiting different behaviors and styles, are more likely to be seen as leaders).



The „big five” personality characteristics / traits:

• extraversion

• conscientiousness

• emotional stability

• agreeableness

• openness

Extraversion refers to a person’s comfort level with relationships. Extraverts are sociable, talkative, assertive, and open to establish-ing new relationships.

Conscientiousness refers to the number of goals on which a person focuses. People who focus on relatively few goals at one time are likely to be organized, systematic, careful, thorough, responsible, and self-disciplined as they work to pursue those goals.

People with less negative emotionality will be relatively poised, calm, resilient, secure, and might be expected to handle job stress, pressure, and tension relatively well.

Agreeableness refers to a person’s ability to get along with others. Agreeableness causes some people to be gentle, cooperative, forgiving, understanding, and good-natured in their dealings with others.

Openness refers to a person’s rigidity of beliefs and range of interests. People with high level of openness are willing to listen to new ideas and to change their own ideas, beliefs, and attitudes as a result of new information.



Theories of leadership



James MacGregor Burns’ leadership theory

transactional leadership transformational leadership



Transactional leadership Transactional leadership seeks to motivate followers by appealing to their own self-interest. Its principles are to motivate by the exchange process. For example, business owners exchange status and wages for the work effort of the employee. In the political environment, politicians may exchange favors or government jobs for votes. Tran-sactional behavior focuses on the accomplishment of tasks and good worker relationships in exchange for desirable rewards. Transactional leadership may encour-age the leader to adapt their style and behavior to meet the perceived expectations of the followers.



Transformational leadershipTransforming leadership (...) occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. Various names are used for such leadership, some of them derisory: elevating, mobilizing, inspiring, exalting, uplifting, preaching, exhorting, evangelizing. The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both.



James MacGregor Burns, born 1918

With professor Susan Dunn

Divorced from ethics, leadership is reduced to manage-ment and politics to mere technique.

In real life, the most practical advice for leaders is not to treat pawns like pawns, nor princes like princes, but all persons like persons. Woodrow Wilson called for leaders who, by boldly inter-preting the nation's conscience, could lift a people out of their everyday selves. That people can be lifted into their better selves is the secret of transforming leadership.

James McGregor Burns


Martin Luther King (1929-1968) – the transformational

leader

Martin Luther King delivers his famous speech I have a dream on the 28th of August 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

Robert K. Greenleaf’s (1904-1990) servant leadership theoryServant leadership is mostly a matter of attitude. The servant leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. This conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage one’s unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve – after leadership is established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is; do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, will they not be further deprived?



Servant leadership vs. Bicycle leadership*

* The visual picture implied in bicycle leadership is that managers bend their back to those above while they trample those below.



Holy Bible. New International Version. Ezekiel; 34, 2.Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?

Good News Bible. The Gospel According to Mark; 9, 35.

Jesus Christ:„Whoever wants to be first must place himself last of all and be the servant of all”.

Robert K. Greenleaf. Left in 1908 on his father’s knee. Epitaph above his grave reads: Potentially a good plumber. Ruined by a sophisticated education.

Concluding Remark

Leadership is action, not position.

Donald H. McGannon


Documents

dr. hab. Jerzy Supernat Institute of Administrative Studies University of Wrocław