LEADERSHIP VERSUS MANAGEMENT - Welcome - …chris-batten.com/wp-content/uploads/White-Paper... · 2014-06-13 · The difference between leadership and management! ! ! ! ! !2 ... Contingency

LEADERSHIP VERSUS MANAGEMENT

AUTHOR

Chris Batten (Rainmaker)

R A I N M A K E R I N N E R C I R C L EThe Rainmaker White Paper Series

C B R a i n m a k e r • t e l e p h o n e : 0 7 9 2 11 4 1 8 5 9 • f a x : 0 3 3 3 6 0 0 1 8 0 0 • w w w. c h r i s - b a t t e n . c o m

Table of Contents

Leadership versus Management! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2

The difference between leadership and management! ! ! ! ! ! 2

Kotter ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2

The five dimensions in more detail! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3

Theories of Leadership! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5

Traits approach! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5

The behavioural (or style) perspective! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5

Ohio State leadership studies! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6

The Michigan leadership studies! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7

Blake and Mouton management grid! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7

Contingency theory of leadership! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9

Fiedler’s contingency model ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10

Path-Goal theory !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11

Recent perspectives on leadership! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 14

Followership! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16

Effective followership! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 18

C B R a i n m a k e r! L e a d e r s h i p Ve r s u s M a n a g e m e n t

1

Leadership versus ManagementThe difference between leadership and management.

Leadership, like many other concepts in management, is not easy to define. Many think of it as a process used to influence others to work with willingness towards the leader’s goal. It is probably better to think of leadership more clearly as having a relationship with management. In other words, looking at how leadership can be clearly differentiated from management. The role of leadership is different from that of management albeit complimentary to each other.

For my first few years in business I gave this subject no thought at all and now, with the benefit of hindsight, I can see the negative impact this had on some of the projects I worked on. Later in my career as a CEO for a number of US and UK based businesses I used this information to make sure I had a means of developing the leadership and management skills of my team. I also used this to assist me in the recruitment and succession planning for the businesses.

Kotter

Much has been written about leadership and management, yet in business these two aspects of steering a business in the right direction are often confused or shrouded in mystery. This paper summarises the differences based on the work of John Paul Kotter (born 1947) a professor at the Harvard Business School and author, who is regarded as an authority on leadership and change management.

Kotter puts management and leadership into five different dimensions to illustrate the differences between these two essential disciplines. These five dimensions are:

1. Direction.2. Alignment.3. Relationships.4. Personal qualities.5. Outcomes.

Direction: In management, this is planning and budgeting and then keeping an eye on the bottom line. In leadership this is creating the vision and the strategy and keeping an eye on the horizon.

Alignment: For managers this is organising and staffing, directing and controlling and the creation of boundaries. For leadership, the creation of a shared culture and vision. It's about helping others grow and reducing the boundaries which restrict growth.

Relationships: Managers should be focussed on objects and products, selling of goods and services and acting as the boss. Leadership is about focusing on inspiring people, motivating followers based on personal power as well as acting as a coach and facilitator.

Personal Qualities: Managers must keep an emotional distance, be expert in their field, be good communicators, promote conformity and have insight into the organisation. Leaders on the other hand need to have emotional connections, be open minded, be good at listening and have courage not to conform.

Outcomes: The manager is there to maintain stability while the leader should be creating change which can often be radical.


2

The five dimensions in more detail

Direction

Direction is a fundamental element of both leadership and management. However, the difference between the two is quite clear in this instance. As a manager steering the company or organisation is set by supporting the direction with a set of detailed plans, strategies, policies and protocols. In leadership the direction is set by the creation of a vision. In this context the vision is an inspiring, challenging but achievable, image of the future. Once the leader has communicated and established the vision he or she stands back to allow their people achieve that vision.

The direction from a manager tends to be focussed on the bottom line and will usually be preoccupied with the here and now and viability of the plans in action. The leader will take a much broader perspective allowing others to manage the short term perspective while they concentrate on the establishment of the wider vision.

A vision is long term, creative and ambitious. It should have a strategic focus and requires the bigger picture of the environment, as it is looking toward the horizon for new opportunities for significant gain for the company or organisation.

Alignment

This is the process by which the strategic objectives and operational practices are made congruent. This alignment will ensure that all levels of the organisation and all the people within it are pulling in the same direction.

The approach from a management perspective involves the control of the people to follow the corporate direction. Formal structures are put in place to control and direct the activities and ensure that the people are focused on a united objective. These activities will be constrained by functional boundaries to ensure conformance. This is done by controlling the way in which the people carry out the activities.

On the other hand, the leadership approach will focus on the creation of a shared vision and all important culture. This is done by aligning the values and beliefs of the organisation with the people in the organisation. In leadership there is little need for rigid structures, people align their practices to the corporate strategy because they see the value in doing so. You could argue that the controls and boundaries become redundant as people develop individual skills and abilities necessary to contribute to the organisational vision.

Relationships

The manager will manage relationships by focussing on the outputs, the products and services. Relationships are formed in accordance with the structure of the organisation. It is often the case that the organisational hierarchy will dictate which relationships are allowed or indeed, encouraged. Managerial relationships tend to be directional and supervisory.

Leader-orientated relationships move away from an output focus to a person focus. Leaders form relationships throughout the organisation, often on a one to one basis. The leader forms relationships with a view to inspire and motivate people, using coaching and acting as a facilitator to help the people grow and realise their full potential.

Personal qualities


3

The personal qualities of a manager are usually associated with the notions of professionalism. The manager will see himself or herself as being the source of expert knowledge and in many cases this is endorsed by the people around the manager. In general people are dealt with on the basis of information exchange rather than emotions.

The manager will have a clear view of the organisation and how it should be operating and in most cases does operate. With this in mind, clear instructions are issued to ensure the degree of conformity needed for the stability of the organisation is present.

The qualities for the leader will be seen as more individual in nature. The leader will have a strong belief that whatever they do or are aiming to achieve will benefit the entire organisation. They will demonstrate concern for individuals, often founding one to one relationships. Leaders are emotionally connected to those around them and have a well developed sense of their own personal strengths and weaknesses. This will enable them to recognise the potential of others. Leaders, in general, will encourage creativity and innovation and will use nonconformity as a means of harnessing corporate success. They are miles apart from the management thinking of ‘one best way’ often visible in managers.

Outcomes

With managers, outcomes relate firmly to corporate objectives. The managers set the corporate direction and then control the organisation so all activities are steering the business towards the achievement of the corporate objectives. The goals are well defined and predictable with the employees being required to achieve the published standards.

The leaders are often of a completely different magnitude. The leaders will normally use nonconformist approaches, they encourage innovation and creativity across the business. The outcomes are therefore less predictable or at least less clearly defined. Good leadership will include prudent risk taking, which often means the outcomes exceed the expectations. In many cases the organisation is moved forward by radical change.

Summary

Perhaps the best way to summarise the difference between leadership and management, taking into account the work of Kotter is to look at the differences according to Zaleznik (1977):

Managers

• Managers tend to adopt impersonal or perhaps, passive attitudes toward goals.

• To get their people to accept solutions, the manager needs to balance conflicting values.

• In relationships with other people, managers maintain a low level of emotional involvement.

• Managers are regulators of the existing order of affairs with which they identify and from which they gain reward.

Leaders

• Leaders adopt a much more personal and active attitude towards goals.

• Leaders create excitement in work and develop choices which give substance to images that excite people.

• Leaders have empathy with other people and give attention to what events and actions mean.

• Leaders’ sense of identity does not depend upon membership or work roles and they search out opportunities for change.


4

Theories of LeadershipEffective leadership is essential to success.

If we start from a position that affirms that effective leadership is of vital importance to the success of any organisation, we should contemplate some of the factors that will influence the effectiveness of the leadership.

The traits approach

This approach is derived from the ‘great man’ theory of leadership which can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. Leadership was explained on the basis of inherited traits. Individuals with these traits would be able to rise to the top as they were born leaders. All leaders were seen to share common traits which would enable them to be effective leaders, irrespective of the circumstances.

The range of traits and characteristics identified was quite broad. Leaders were believed to have such characteristics as:

• Above average intelligence.

• Above average height (or significantly below it).

• Good health.

• High status.

• Initiative and enthusiasm.

This theory of leadership assumed a number of things, these assumptions were:

• The individual is more important than the situation in which leadership is to be exercised.

• Leadership, as a practice, can be defined by the characteristics of successful leaders.

• Leaders could be recruited by using traits and qualities as selection criteria.

You could say it is reasonable to assume effective leaders do have personality traits and abilities which are different from those of less effective leaders, but they cannot be distinguished just by these traits alone. Research on traits is still ongoing and therefore incomplete. In academic circles there is disagreement over which of the traits are most important. Finally, there have been no consistent findings of trait patterns in leaders in terms of their successes and failures. An example is the possession of particular traits have been found to relate positively to successful leader performance in certain situations yet relate negatively to leader performance in others.

It would be true to say that the traits approach was largely unsuccessful, it lacked support and therefore in the 1940s a move was made to look at what leaders do rather than at their personal characteristics.

The behavioural (or style) perspective

The inability of the trait theory to explain leadership effectiveness and to accurately predict successful leadership, caused researchers to shift the emphasis away from individual traits to the identification of patterns of behaviour which enabled leaders to influence others effectively. This approach began to suggest leaders could be made rather than being born into leadership. This, of course, had great impact on the value of leadership training.


5

This approach was influenced quite strongly by the Human Relations approach to management. The early research was conducted by Lewin et al (1939). Lewin placed the styles of leadership into one of three categories:

• Autocratic leaders - Made all the major decisions and exerted a high degree of control over the followers. As a result the followers are very clear about what they need to do but are less sure why they need to do it. They, as a result would be less likely or unwilling to accept responsibility when things don’t work out. They would also tend to have lower levels of morale and even some degree of hostility toward the leader and perhaps, each other.

• Democratic Leader - This leader type will involve the people in the decision making process and participants will be delegated much more responsibility. It was believed this would lead to much higher quality decisions, much stronger team spirit and commitment to implementing decisions. It was also said to generate much more satisfaction among the followers.

• Laissez-faire leaders - These had a strong tendency to abdicate from the leader role. Although they did not make decisions for followers or exercise much control, this was not because they wanted to delegate or stimulate participation, but simply because they had little desire to provide leadership. As a result, unless the followers were competent and self motivated, they opted out of trying to complete tasks and looked for their satisfaction in the social side of the group.

Lewin’s belief was that the democratic style was the most effective style in getting tasks completed. More very influential research was undertaken later by two US universities which became known by the names of the institutions, the Ohio State Leadership Studies and the Michigan Leadership Studies.

Both of these studies examined the effects of different styles on subordinates’ and came up with slightly different outcomes. It is worth looking at both of these in turn.

Ohio State Leadership Studies.

These took place in the late 1940s and resulted in, what is now known as, the two factor theory of leadership (Fleishman 1953). The Ohio group of researchers were looking for the central behaviour of leaders by asking subordinates and leaders to describe the leaders’ behaviour.

From an initial list of some 2,000 items, ten dimensions of leader behaviour were identified. It was then discovered two more general dimensions underlay these ten. These were called ‘consideration’ and ‘initiating structure’:

• Consideration - Is the extent to which leaders are likely to have relationships within the job which are characterised by mutual trust, two-way communication and respect for employees. Here, the leader’s behaviour is associated with creating mutual respect or trust and focusses on a concern for group members’ needs and desires.

• Initiating structure - Is the extent to which leaders are likely to define and structure their roles and those of employees towards accomplishing the goals of the organisation. Leaders with this style emphasise the direction of group activities through planning , communication, information, scheduling, assigning tasks and giving directions.

These dimensions produced four different leadership styles:

• High consideration behaviour and high initiating structure.

• High consideration behaviour and low initiating structure.

• Low consideration behaviour and high initiating structure.

• Low consideration behaviour and low initiating structure.


6

The Michigan Leadership Studies

Leadership studies undertaken at about the same time, at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Centre had similar objectives to those of the Ohio studies. Again these studies attempted to identify the behavioural characteristics of leaders which appeared to be related to measures of performance effectiveness.

The Michigan researchers (Likert 1961) felt that effective supervisors tended to display four common characteristics:

• Delegation of authority and avoidance of close supervision

• An interest and concern in their subordinates as individuals

• Participative problem solving

• High standards of performance.

These characteristics were translated into two leadership styles of behaviour: employee-centered and production-centered.

There are similarities between the Ohio and Michigan studies. In both cases they identify two dimensions of the behaviour of the leader and draw very similar conclusions. Both appear to support the idea that there is no single ‘best way’ of behaving as a leader.

The research undertaken by these two Universities became the influence to many follow-up studies and was applied to training for supervisors and managers. I think the best example of this application is the Blake and Mouton (1964) Managerial Grid.

Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid.

The grid was devised to emphasise the choice facing managers between people and the tasks. The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid represents two dimensions of leader behaviour, the task orientation and people orientation. The grid plots concern for production on the horizontal axis and concern for people on the vertical axis. As a result this produces five possible categories of leadership style.


7

Low

Concern for people

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Team Style 9.9Country club style 9.1

Middle of the road style 5.5

Impoverished style 1.1 Produce or perish style 1.9

Impoverished management (1.1)

In this category, the leader demonstrates a low concern for the people and a low concern for task. Similar to the avoidance technique for managing conflict, leaders here make the absolute minimum of effort. It is often described as the ultimate laissez-faire approach.

Country club (9.1)

In this category the leader demonstrates a high concern for people with a low concern for task. Very often this style will create a relaxed and amicable working environment. However, failure to concentrate sufficient time and effort to a concern for productivity can have dire consequences for the long-term viability of the organisation.

Team management (9.9)

With this category, the leader shows a high concern for people and a high concern for task. This approach is thought to be based on shared values and beliefs, which create cohesiveness and unity of goals across the organisation. The leader empowers others to achieve. This participative approach ensures relationships are enhanced and the tasks completed.

Produce or perish (authority-obedience 1.9)

Here there is low concern for people and high concern for task. The emphasis is on coercion and the control of people in order to ensure the successful completion of the task. People are perceived as being a means to accomplishing the productive end.

Middle of the road (5.5)

With this leadership position there is a balance between the concern for the people and the task. However, neither is done to an excellent level. The rating of 5.5 indicates satisfactory levels of achievement in both relationship and production.

Based upon their research, Blake and Mouton concluded the 9.9 style is the most effective. When the style was tested, the approach proved to be useful for supervisors and lower level managers but for the more senior people it did not produce


8

the improvements in performance the researchers had anticipated. The assumption that 9.9 was the best style or at least superior to the others has not been proven. The framework provides a useful basis for conceptualising leadership styles but there is little support for its substansive conclusions.

Conclusion

Style theories still tend towards a view of leadership which assumes one best style for all occasions. They tend to ignore the effects of the circumstances surrounding the leadership relationship and the effects of these on the leadership style.

As a result an alternative approach was produced which assumed different situations required different types of management behaviours. This was called the ‘contingency’ approach to leadership in practice.

Contingency theory of leadership

This theory came about from the criticisms of the one best way approach. It states there is no best way and in fact you need to adopt different styles at different times, dependent on the situation at that time. The theory then tries to establish the different styles needed for different situations. It is not just looking at the style of leadership for a given situation but also which matters of the aspect in question are actually important and how the leader and the situation interact. The style to be used will be influenced by a number of factors, these are the leader, the group and the task to be carried out.

The Leader

The leader is the key factor. The style used by the leader in any given situation will depend upon two variables, the personal characteristics of the leader and the leader’s competence to lead. The personal characteristics looked for to lead are:

• Personality

• Knowledge

• Skills and ability

• Experience

• Learning

• Prejudice and bias

Leader competence relates to individual effectiveness. It looks at previous learning and experience and how these aspects influence the speed and accuracy with which the leader assesses the situations they find themselves in and how they determine the most appropriate course of action. Leader competence also considers the leaders ability to select the most appropriate interpersonal and influencing style, their ability to delegate effectively and their ability to learn from their mistakes.

The subordinates

A leader cannot lead if nobody is prepared to follow them. It is, for that reason, the nature of the subordinate group will have a direct influence on the style of the leader. There are two important factors to consider, the first is the skill level of the follower group and secondly, the characteristics of the follower group.

The skill level of the followers in performing tasks has a direct influence on the leadership style chosen in the following ways:


9

• Where the subordinate group are of low skill (unskilled), the leader may chose to adopt a task orientated, moving towards an instructive and directional style of leadership.

• Where the subordinate group have a high skill level, the leader can assume a greater people orientation, focussing on relationship building.

The characteristics of the subordinate group will have a number of influences on the leadership style chosen. These are as follows:

• Where the group do not perceive the leader as being credible, it may be necessary for him or her to adopt an autocratic approach to ensure the completion of the task.

• Where the group perceive the leader as charismatic and where they have committed to collective vision, then a more democratic style may be used.

• Where the subordinate group is factionalised it may be necessary for the leader to adopt a different style according to the needs of the specific sub-groups. It is important however to maintain some consistency of vision.

The task context

The effectiveness of the leader will be dependent on the nature of the task he or she faces, their personality and the context in which the task emerges. The degree of structure, the degree of ambiguity, and the operational and strategic consequences of actions will have a direct influence on leadership behaviours.

Moreover, there may be environmental factors which affect time frames, the degree of urgency and the level of risk faced in executing the task. A leader’s behaviour will be shaped by the magnitude of these influences. The culture of the organisation will also have an influence on the style the leader adopts for the task.

In summary, the contingency approach tries to isolate the characteristics of the situation and the characteristic of the followers so the leader may select the most appropriate leadership style to use.

Fiedler’s contingency model

Fiedler’s (1967) model is perhaps the first contingency theory of leadership. It is sometimes called the LPC (least preferred co-worker) model. This is based on looking at the preferred leadership style using a scale that measures the leader’s orientation towards the person that is least preferred co-worker (LPC). He asked leaders to chose that individual with whom task accomplishment has proven the most difficult in their experience and then measured the degree to which leaders are still able to favourably perceive that person. The resultant LPC score indicates the presence of one of two leadership styles in the leader.

• If the score is high, the leader is relationship-orientated. This style of leader sees work in terms of people as well as task performance, so even with someone where the completion of the task is seen as difficult, they are still able to say positive things about them.

• If the score is low, then the leader has described their least preferred coworker purely in negative terms. This means the leader is task-orientated and this style of leader, because of his or her personality traits, sees, work largely in terms of task performance. They are unable to say anything positive about someone whom task accomplishment has proved the most difficult.

Fiedler’s model then turns to the leadership situation. This is divided into three variables. These may be either advantageous or disadvantageous to the leader, dependent upon the style of leadership chosen.


10

Variable 1 - leader-member relationship

This relates to the attitude of those that follow the leader. Where there is mutual trust and respect and open communication, the relationship is considered to be advantageous. Where there is little or no trust, respect or communication, the relationship is deemed disadvantageous.

Variable 2 - task structure

This relates to the level of predictability and precedents involved in the task. Where the task is routine, repetitive and also has clearly defined goals, the task structure is deemed to be high and therefore advantageous. Where the task is novel or maybe ambiguous, lacks structure and familiarity, the task structure is low and therefore disadvantageous.

Variable 3 - position power

This relates to the level of formal authority the leader has over their followers. Position power is deemed high and therefore advantageous when the leader has sufficient authority and status to control and direct activities as well as reward and/or punish the behaviours of their followers.

Where a leader has little power to control, direct, reward and/or punish, the position power is low and thus disadvantageous.

Fielder analysed the results of the relationships between the three variables and determined that task orientated leaders are more effective when:

• situations are advantageous, i.e. tasks are clear and structured, the leader holds power and followers are content with this situation or

• situations are disadvantageous, i.e. when control over the situation is needed and focus on a task will not detract from the leader/follower relationship because this is improverished to start with.

Relationship-orientated leaders perform better when the situation is intermediate, i.e neither wholly advantageous nor wholly disadvantageous. In these situations they can create the mutuality of relationship, develop skills and build the positive group atmosphere which will allow them to empower others to act.

Path-Goal theory

This theory is associated with the work of Robert House (1971). His approach differed from others as his aim was not to offer prescriptive recommendations but to stimulate discussion and research.

This path-goal theory asserts that the key role of the leader is to motivate people to achieve personal and organisational goals. To do this the leader must undertake two tasks, these are:-

• Clarify the route resulting in reward.

• Increase those rewards which are most valued and desired.

Robert House believed that a leader must undertake what he called ‘path clarification’. This is where the leader works with his or her people to help them identify and then develop the skills and abilities needed to successfully achieve their goals and in return gain their rewards. This strategic use of rewards needs the leader to determine the relative importance of a range of motivational factors for each individual involved. The leader needs to establish how attractive rewards of different types are to people and how best to deliver those rewards.

This approach identifies four styles of behaviour available to the leader, these are:-


11

• Supportive leader - this is a person-centered approach based around open, approachable and predictable leadership behaviour. The leader demonstrates concern for the individual, rather than adopting a purely organisational perspective.

• Directive leadership - here the leader takes control, fulfilling the fundamental roles of management, planning and directing and controlling behaviours. He or she would also set targets for performance. Structures, policies and protocols are put in place to ensure follower conformation.

• Participative leadership - this is based on establishing open and effective communication systems. The leader consults with his or her staff, seeking views, ideas and opinions.

• Achievement-orientated leadership - this style of leadership involves the setting of challenging but achievable goals. The leader in this case places the emphasis on continuous improvement and has a firm belief that his or her staff are capable of achieving the standards set.

Path-goal theory assumes leaders are flexible and they can change their style, as situations require. The theory proposes two contingency variables (environment and follower characteristics) which affect the suitability of leadership behaviour relationships.

Followers characteristics

Follower characteristics were delineated by House (1971) as follows:

• Locus of control - People with a strong internal locus tend to attribute results to their own efforts and are likely to find a participative leadership style more acceptable. In contrast, those with an external locus feel their actions are under the control of other people and would probably be happy with a directive style.

• Task ability and subordinate experience - Perceived task ability reflects followers’ own views of their own abilities. Those who evaluate themselves highly and feel confident about performing the tasks are unlikely to feel the need for directive leadership. Those who are less confident might prefer a directive leader. Past subordinate experience can effect followers’ confidence in their task ability.

• Need for achievement - Because participative or achievement-orientated leader styles require people to solve problems independently, subordinates with a high need for achievement are likely to find these styles acceptable.

• Need for clarity - This concerns subordinates’ lack of tolerance to ambiguity. Those who have strong needs of this type are likely to feel at ease with a directive leadership style, while those with greater tolerance to ambiguity will be more at home with the participative or achievement-orientated style.

Environmental Factors

This is the second contingency factor which affects the appropriateness of a particular style. It embraces features of the work context in which subordinates and supervisors interact:

• Employee task - This refers to the characteristics of the work subordinates undertake. In a routine, predictable task subordinates need little direction and would probably welcome the concern for their welfare that goes with a supportive leadership style.

• The authority system - This indicates the normal patterns of authority and power in the work environment, for instance whether directive styles of supervisor behaviour are the norm.

• Behavioural norms - These are the expectations about the usual way for a supervisor to behave. If this suddenly changes it can create insecurity in subordinates.


12

• Work group characteristics - This includes cohesiveness and the presence of mutual support by group members without the need for leader involvement.

To help illustrate the use of the model we can consider two different situations:

Situation 1

In this first example the subordinates are working on a task which is highly routine and heavily structured. Because it provides little challenge, unless they have very low aspirations, this could easily be a very frustrating situation. In these circumstances a directive style of supervisor behaviour would almost certainly be seen as unnecessary and so a more supportive style, in which the supervisor involves subordinates in decisions and shows an interest in them as people, could make the situation more tolerable.

Situation 2

Here a group of highly competent, ambitious professionals are undertaking a very complex task. Because these people are likely to have a strong need for achievement, as well as a high degree of self-confidence, they would probably resent a directive style. An achievement-orientated or a participative style would be the more appropriate.

However, research (Indvik 1984) on path-goal leadership has provided only limited support for its predictions. For example, there is consistent evidence that subordinates will be more satisfied to perform in a structured situation when the leader effects a supportive style of leadership. However, findings are mixed for directive style of leadership in a highly structured task situation. In some situations subordinate satisfaction suffers, sometimes subordinate satisfaction is enhanced.

Conclusions

Like style theories, contingency models focus on leader behaviour. They examine the situations to consider what makes one style more appropriate than others. Accordingly there is no style appropriate for all situations; different contingencies vary as to the situational factors which are taken to be the most important. It could be argued that since the theories all deal with slightly different combinations of circumstances, they are complementary rather than contradictory.

The theories are only helpful where someone with formal authority has a strong desire to ‘lead’ rather than just ‘direct’ and in this situation they could be useful in pinpointing the most appropriate style of behaviour. However, not all managers and supervisors want to be leaders and even where a person does, it is no guarantee others will see him or her as the most appropriate person to fill the leader’s role. Moreover, the assumption that leaders are able to vary their style to meet the needs of the situation my be, in practice, unrealisable.

Most of the theories examined so far assume a leader exerts influence on the behaviour of followers but they say little about how this process of influence works. Understanding this process has been the focus of contemporary research on leadership. The work in this area has tended to focus strongly on the personal behaviour and characteristics of leaders. It gives a strong impression of being a re-emergence of trait and style theory ideas but in a more sophisticated form.


13

Recent Perspectives on LeadershipRecent perspectives on leadership tend to concentrate on the question of how a leader influences the behaviour of others. Previous theories tend to say little about how the process of influence works. Next I am going to examine those perspectives which have tried to understand the process of influence by concentrating on the personal behaviour and characteristics of leaders.

Transactional versus transformational leaders

The distinction between transactional and transformational leadership was first made by Burns (1978) by comparing leadership in stable situations with leadership in changing circumstances. These ideas were developed by Bass (1985). Bass pointed out that under transactional leadership an ‘exchange’ between leaders and subordinates depends upon the presence of a stable influence. A stable situation enables the leader to manage the situation so that subordinates needs, wants and expectations are met. In return for needs being satisfied subordinates enter into a ‘transaction’ with the leaders in which they exert effort to meet the demands of the task. The leader therefore must understand the needs of his subordinates and adopt behaviour which can guarantee these needs are met.

In summary, transactional leaders get people to perform by means of a transaction or an exchange. They establish the goals or standards to be met, determine the required behaviours and then put in place a series of economic and or social transactions to ensure the performance of those behaviours . The results produced are therefore in line with their expectations. Stability and predictability are required to allow the production of clear objectives and mechanisms that match the achievements of these with appropriate rewards.

Bass (1985) also identified another form of leadership which is required where volatile organisational change is the context. This kind of leadership is known as transformational leadership. Transformation leaders have a vision of what needs to be done in a given changeable situation, are able to communicate this vision to followers and inspire them to achieve it. Bass identified, using case study and survey evidence, four key characteristics of the transformational leader; these were charisma, vision, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation of followers.

• Charisma - is the degree to which the leader is seen by followers to have charismatic characteristics.

• Vision - relates to how a leader inspires an organisation as a whole. The idea relates to charisma but whereas charisma tends to be applied to the motivation of individuals, a ‘leadership vision’ tends to be applied to the entire organisation. A leader with vision inspires his or her subordinates to identify with the organisational culture as a whole.

• Individual consideration - is the characteristic which enables a leader to give personal attention to subordinates. Subordinates are considered individually and treated differently according to their needs and capabilities.

• Intellectual stimulation - reflects the ability to motivate followers to do something by showing them how problems can be viewed in alternative ways and the leader’s method for solving the problem is a reasonable path to follow to achieve this.

Transformational leadership is seen to raise levels of followers awareness, consciousness and commitment. It enables followers to transcend their self-interests for the sake of the organisation. Such leaders establish a common vision of the future which energises workers and attracts commitment. The transformational leader also establishes high performance expectations and displays confidence in the collective ability of the followers to realise the organisational vision. In achieving this the leader presents him/herself as a role model who represents desired values, traits, beliefs and behaviours needed to realise the organisational vision.

It seems reasonable to argue that transactional and transformational leadership are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. For instance, the transformational type of leadership may be appropriate to bring about change to an organisation but when this period is over and the organisation has moved into a period of stability then transactional


14

leadership would be more appropriate. We can also see that particular types of leaders are suited to particular types of situations. For instance, a transformational leader is likely to become bored in situations of stability.

However, although the distinction between transformational and transactional leadership is useful in characterising the demands of particular environmental conditions, the ideas do seem to imply a return to early theories of traits and therefore have similar problems. Most of the attributes of the transformational leader are extremely difficult to define and identify. In some cases they tend to get ‘read’ into a situation when in fact they are not present. There is a tendency to glorify the transformational leadership when in fact most organisational situations require more mundane methods.

Khurana (2002) is extremely critical of transformational leaders. The stereotypical figure of the ‘manager as hero’ is criticised in four ways:

• Such managers reject limits to their authority and dismiss the norms and rules that apply to others. Therefore, they can act beyond the influence and control of other senior colleagues.

• They can become over-convinced of their charismatic powers. These beliefs allow them to exploit the desires of their followers using ‘quasi-religious methods’.

• They encourage the error of understanding success in terms of the actions of prominent leaders. There is often the inclination to attribute success to the actions of particular individuals but overlook the social, economic and other impersonal forces that shape and constrain the efforts of individual leaders.

• The desire to be seen as ‘transformative’ can lead to new leaders deliberately destabilising their organisations in order to make any revitalisation be seen as more impressive and attributable to their intervention.

Khurana thus regards the importance of the transformational leader as overstated. Instead much effective leadership is based on straightforward management skills and technical competence. We might compare this position with emphasis on visionary leadership at the start of this paper.


15

Followership The concept of followership has long been neglected. However, the extent to which a leader can lead effectively is directly related to the extent to which followers are prepared to follow. It should also be recognised that followership is not a role permanently assumed by a person or a group of people, it is often a transitory state through which even leaders pass.

Many of the characteristics of the leadership role and the role of the followers are similar. For any organisational vision to be realised, the roles of both the leader and follower must be proactive, they must positively seek mechanisms and methods which propel them and others closer to the goals.

In the same way that the leader demonstrates challenging behaviour by confronting the status quo, so a follower demonstrates challenging behaviour by confronting the leader in order to clarify the vision, the mission and the organisation’s sense of direction. Both leaders and followers need to be committed to the achievement of the goals and perceive a guaranteed mutuality of the benefits from achieving the goals. This creates a uniformity and consistency of commitment between both parties.

Perseverance on the part of the leaders and followers is a key element in ensuring the success of the vision. Perseverance needs to be a mutual asset the leader cannot achieve without the concomitant perseverance of the followers and vice versa. The reciprocal nature of the leader-follower relationship is based on the notion that the thoughts and actions of the followers are influenced by the leader and that the thoughts and actions of the leader are in turn influenced by the followers. The reciprocal nature of this relationship would indicate that although reference and status may be accorded to the person presently assuming, the relationship itself is built on the principles of mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual understanding.

Followership styles

In the same way that the style of leadership can vary from democratic to autocratic, so the style of followership can vary in the degree to which the follower conforms or challenges the leader’s rights, assertions, roles or decisions.

Kelly (1992) devised a 2x2 matrix which considers followership along two axes: the extent to which a follower behaves actively or passively, and the extent to which the follower is able to think critically or not.


16

Effective

Conformist

Alienated

Passive

Pragmatic Survivor ActivePassive

Dependent Uncritical Thinker

Independent Critical Thinker

A follower behaving actively integrates themselves fully in the organisation. They have an internal locus of control (i.e. they are in control of their own successes and failures - this is not left to fate). These people act on their own initiative, involve themselves in broader activities and work roles and demonstrate a sense of ownership for work tasks, problems and decision making.

A follower behaving passively tends to have an external locus of control. They are guided through life by fate, chance and coincidence. These people tend to drift through the organisation performing only those tasks required of them. The perception is often that these people are lazy rather than lacking direction, and that they need a great deal of supervision.

Critical versus uncritical thinking

Critical thinkers are also known as independent thinkers. These people are alert to the impact that their behaviour, the behaviour of their peers and indeed the behaviour of the leader, will have on the organisation as a whole. They are able to critically evaluate the cost and benefits of the vision articulated by the leader and the potential repercussions from working towards achievement of that vision. They are assertive and are able to offer constructive criticism and advice to the leader.

The uncritical thinker is characterised by a blind acceptance of what the leader tells them. They do not even consider challenging the leader’s viewpoint or opinions. These people accept instruction without question and focus purely on their own personal roles and tasks to the detriment of a broader organisational orientation.

The relationship between these two dimensions determines the style of followership behaviour that is demonstrated. These different styles are outlined below:

• Passive/critical thinker: ‘Alienated follower’ - The alienated follower is an individual who is able to critically evaluate the vision, the plans and the intentions of the leader and to reach a logical conclusion from doing this. However , they feel unable to do anything with this information. Their passive behaviours mean they have difficulty sharing the information with others and so they become increasingly frustrated and internalise their own views and opinions. Alienated followers are potentially effective followers who have been previously frustrated and thwarted by setbacks and promises broken by superiors. They retain their ability to critique but lose their ability to use this constructively.

• Active behaviour/uncritical thinker: ‘Conformist follower’ - This individual behaves actively, taking part in a wide range of activities above and beyond their personal task focus; however, they do this unquestioningly. These people


17

are willing, able and capable people but they fail to challenge the leader’s vision, the corporate direction or even the tasks they have been set since they feel that these are of little concern to them. They may even perform unethical duties simply because they have been told to do so. Such conformist behaviours are often found in rigid hierarchical or bureaucratic organisations.

• Middle orientation: ‘Pragmatic survivor’ - The pragmatic survivor is situated in the middle of the matrix. This person is a situational follower; they rate highly on all the measures allowing them to move through the range of profiles as circumstances and prudence dictates. Pragmatic survivors adopt the style which is most likely to benefit them. In the short term this may mean unthinking compliance to the task, although in the long term a more critical role may be adopted according to need.

• Passive behaviour/uncritical thinker: ‘Passive follower’ - The passive follower is not capable of critical or evaluative thought nor active behaviour. Their focus is totally on the task in hand and they see no broader perspectives. They accept the task unquestioningly and invariably require supervision to ensure the successful completion of the task. Passive followers allow other people to do the thinking. This may be the rest of the follower group or the leader. It is thought that where passive followers behaviour occurs in any significant numbers, it may be due to:-

• the leader’s inability to delegate

• failure to provide structures to support active behaviour

• failure to share sufficient information with people that would allow them to make an informed judgement.

• Active behaviour/critical thinker: ‘Effective follower’ - The effective follower is able to analyse and evaluate the options facing him or her, the group, the organisation and or the leader. Their conclusions are then articulated via active behaviour, allowing others to share that information. They are assertive people who do not try to avoid risk, rather to deal with it in the most effective way possible. They strive to serve the general good rather than being associated with any specific leader or cause.

Effective followership

Effective followership is, in a large part, dependent on the mutuality of the relationship between the follower and the leader. Respect for each other’s strengths and recognition of each other’s weaknesses allows the relationship to develop a degree of flexibility contingent on the expertise and skills needed at any one time. Effective followers are a resource for the leader; in addition to providing skills, abilities, expertise or even hard work when the leader needs it, they are often able to suggest new perspectives and challenge the status quo.

However, followers need to view the leader realistically. Idealised perceptions often lead to passive or conformist followers who comply with the leader and fail to challenge their methods. In the short term, this has the effect of bolstering the power of the leader. In the long term, difficulties are raised when the leader moves on. The organisation can then be left without a sense of direction and purpose.

Conclusions

Whilst the term leadership is used in different ways by different theorists, it is important to recognise an important distinction. Firstly, leadership is an interactive process in which one person influences the actions of another. Secondly, it describes the behaviour or characteristics of someone who is able to exert this influence. Not all theories capture both these distinctions.

Trait theories concentrate on the second of these distinctions; however they have generally failed to isolate the characteristics of all effective leaders. The result is simply a list of traits found to be effective in some situation or other. Style theories argued that leadership was a behaviour that could be learned. They therefore sought to identify the way in


18

which effective leaders behave. There are many different approaches under this label; however, the approach tends to isolate two important dimensions of leading behaviour: a concern for task and a concern for people.

Contingency theory, rather than attempting to identify a universal style of effective leadership, tries to identify which style is most appropriate in the circumstances in which the leadership is taking place. It then becomes necessary to identify more precisely the factors which influence appropriate style. We find that different contingency theorists identify different contingent factors to produce different relationships of leadership style to leadership situations.

Recent theorists have turned to the notion of transformational leadership and in doing so have returned to a preoccupation with the characteristics of leadership. Underlying this approach appears to be the assumption that, in a changing world, the transformational approach is best suited. Finally, there has been a reminder of the importance of the follower in the leadership relationship. This approach points out the importance of recognising the relationship between the situation and the characteristics of followers.

It should be noted that leadership is not a discreet task within an organisation. Leadership requires many different activities. For instance, motivation is concerned with influencing people’s behaviour and the extent to which a person sees them as a motivator is usually linked to their belief in them as a leader. Furthermore, whatever type of style the leader adopts, he or she must communicate ideas to others. Communication therefore must be considered as part of the leadership role. Finally, the effective leader is only effective because he or she is able to persuade others to follow. This usually comes from the leader’s position of authority and implies some use of power and organisational control.


19

Documents

LEADERSHIP VERSUS MANAGEMENT - Welcome - …chris-batten.com/wp-content/uploads/White-Paper... · 2014-06-13 · The difference between leadership and management! ! ! ! ! !2 ... Contingency