Leadership There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Machiavelli
Management" versus Leadership 'Leadership' • a road, a way, the path of a ship at sea - a sense of direction. 'Management' (Latin manus) - a hand, handling a sword, a ship, a horse. • 19thC corporatism and industrialisation - managerial agents What do managers and leaders do? (Zaleznik 1977) Managers focus attention & energy on • how things get done • their role in events that occur or in a decision-making process. Leaders more concerned with • ideas • relating to others in more intuitive, empathetic ways • what events and decisions mean to people
Classical management Managers • plan, organise, direct, control resources to achieve objectives. • follow formal policies, rules &procedural regulations of their employing organisation (administration > management?) • handle and physically direct resources: • money, materials, machinery, equipment, space, facilities, • information and technology • use of time • people Telling people what to do and how to do it more than vision and giving a sense of direction?
Leadership 'messages' Managers have 'subordinates' and communicate • enable others to understand information, instructions or ideas • seek order and control Leaders have followers. They • envision, influence, inspire. • tolerate, promote creativity and imagination • Bring order from chaos • influence people towards objectives and desire to achieve • gain voluntary commitment over compliance • win hearts and minds
Bennis (1989) Managers • Administer and copy • Maintain • Focus on systems & structure • Rely on control • Short-range view - bottom line • Ask how and when • Accept the status quo • Classic good soldier • Do things right Leaders • Innovation and originality • Develop • Focus on people • Inspire trust • Long-range view - the horizon • Ask what and why • Challenge the status quo • Own person • Do the right things 'the liberation of talent rather than restraint by rule’ Leaders aim at 'winning hearts and minds'. Mere managers aim at optimising the use of 'resources'. (Peters & Austin, 1985).
Leadership & organisational effectiveness • Common-sense + research link between manager- leadership behaviour & subordinate performance. • belief that business success has much to do with 'leadership'. • management development programmes emphasise manager and leadership style. • Can leadership and problem-solving skills really be developed from • simulated experienced in a field (outward bound approach)? • assessment centre activity (workshop-like selection & development)? • coaching and mentoring • going on a leadership course? • Reading a book, watching the TV? • Playing rugby or football?
Practitioners, academia and recipes • a mix of traditional and behavioural science approaches • few analytical studies of leadership offer much to the practical manager (Adair) • academic doubts • textbooks tend to • Report 'theories' • Some query the validity of particular approaches • Imply prescriptions • An industry selling • prescriptive 'leadership development' and interpersonal skills packages: motivating, listening, participative problem solving, assertiveness and transforming skills
Leadership behaviour & effect on performance. • Change involving 'people' is associated with leadership • What competencies can be meaningfully described as 'leadership'? • Managers & politicians generalise - 'we know it when we see it'. • Correlate the skills and success of particular personalities. Mayo and Hawthorne experiments (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) • 'permissive' leadership behaviour leads to greater output Kurt Lewin (1939) • Autocratic, Laissez faire, Democratic leader styles & the behaviour/performance of youth groups • language & 'model' linking styles --> subordinate performance
Unitary (vs. pluralistic) frame of reference • Unitary • One set of values, beliefs, commitments • Shared understanding & commitment to objectives • One source of leadership • Team members - All pulling in the same direction • Potential for harmony is assumed if leader communicates well • Disagreements è the result of misunderstanding • Dissidents – "rabble" hypothesis Alan Fox – Research Paper to Donovan Commission 1968
Change the people in post • Selection and job change can profoundly effect organisational effectiveness. Peters and Waterman (1982) • ' Hewlett-Packard Way' & 'MbWA’ (Management by walk about) • Pascale & Athos (1982) compare 'styles' and effect • compared the styles and management practices of • founder of Matsushita (National Panasonic) • American CEOs • 'good' and 'bad' leadership styles • Konosuke Matsushita & E. Carlson - United Airlines ('good') • Harold Geneen at ITT (short-term effective, long-term bad). • Margaret Thatcher vs. Tony Blair?
How do different 'styles' affect an organisation? • wide ranging question • open to question • difficult to research - what are the variables? • difficult to • separate fact from fiction • attribute cause and effect in different contexts and organisational settings over time • ambiguity of measures of organisational performance • gap between perception of practitioners and behavioural scientists
contingency theory situation & L-F relationship trait theory variable of leader The Person Focus group dynamics + VDL the followers style theory variable of leader Behaviour centred specific to situation universal Breadth of application Typology of leadership theory • Sometimes misleading to group as 'schools'. Nuances in original works • Yet three variables to leadership situations : • leader • followers • context/situation in which L/F find themselves
Leadership traits approach • everyday wisdom on common traits. • can anyone agree? • do some 'qualities' indicate potential & differentiate the 'effective from the ineffective' • Wide range of trait descriptors & variety of 'leaders' (heroes and villains) - difficult to agree on one list
Cartwright and Zander (1968) Effective leaders are often • more intelligent, dependable, responsible, active and participative socially • with higher socioecon. status • act more often in different ways, or the same way to different degrees in some activities? • give out & ask for more information • make more frequent interpretations of events Nature over nurture Leadership is learned, although I cannot explain entirely how ... The ability to lead and inspire others is .. more instinctual than premeditated and … acquired somehow through the experiences of one's everyday life …. the nature & quality of that leadership comes out of … innate character & personality… Harold Geneen ITT psychometric tests for assessment and selection.
Exercise • Think of three managers you have known. List the qualities of those you rate as being more effective managers • Do a separate list for three less effective ones. • What factors, or qualities, recur on each list? • Select four leaders from national or organisational life and list their qualities. Which ones keep recurring? • What factors match those for your effective managers?
Limitations of 'traits' approach • when leaders behave towards followers in different ways, how much is cause, how much is effect? • non-leaders often possess the same traits as leaders. • Impossible to compile a list of universal traits. • Bird 1940 identified 79 different traits from 'the literature'. Only 5% common to => 4 studies Conclusion? • Consider the situation that leadership occurs in.
The group dynamics (group process) approach • leadership as a function of organisation not the individual. • small task groups not whole organisation • three common functional behaviours: • accomplish the task • social & emotional needs of group • social & emotional needs of individual members. • failure in one affects the other two (performance & satisfaction). • Leader contributions? • Structuring - integrating • Calming, supporting • Controlling • But one 'leader' may not necessarily perform all • roles from 'trouble-shooters' to 'counsellors' - Belbin roles • 'Cometh the hour, cometh the man'.
Adair: Action-centred leadership functional emphasis based on task situation and socio-emotional needs • Aware of group processes, people in group, nuances of behaviour, interpersonal skills Task functions Group maintenance Individual needs
Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) Model (Danserau 1975) • Leader may use different style for member (idiosyncrasies) • Social exchange - leader-member relationships (dyads) • Group = a set of vertical linkages • Two sub-groups of relationships • In-group members • For the leader - reliable, effort, initiative, open, trust and confidence, autonomy • Out-group members • Calculative, do contract only, distant, tension dyad • Leadership - a negotiated VDL role
Anthony Jay (1975) - Propositions • Cohesive groups or teams working as a social unit (a 'ten group') achieve more than individuals in isolation. Based on • Anecdotal, experiential evidence • analogy with primitive tribes & animal behaviour Morris (1967, 1969), Ardrey (1961, 1967, 1970). • Share common patterns with baboons, chickens, lions? • Leadership is not a personal quality. • Some have innate tendency and drive for high-status dominance but this is one factor only • become leader only in relation to specific group & task • group leader emerges because the group thinks that he/she can best help the group
Critique of Group Dynamics approach • If leadership behaviour is situationally and group related what happens when the situation or group changes? • Does the organisation function sub-optimally? But • we comprehend how leaders may relate to followers & situations • ignores wider organisational demands on leader and group.
The leadership style approach • Hawthorne experiments origin • Leader 'style' affects morale and output. • Relay Assembly room - increased output caused by 'permissive' management of researchers • Bank Wiring room - links management style and employee attitudes and behaviour • Kurt Lewin et al 1939 - adult leaders in boys' hobby club • Autocratic, laissez faire, democratic leaders and follower behaviour • Democratic style reflects dominant social values • Impetus for further study - Michigan and Ohio State
Ohio State studies (two factor-theory) Flieshman 1953 Stogdill (1948, 1956) • two (independent) L-dimensions • initiating structure (task centred) • consideration (interpersonal relationships) • "measure" perceptions & style preferences in various settings ---> inventories & development prescriptions • effectiveness reflects • task completion • member satisfaction • High task supervisors - productive but high turnover, lower morale • High consideration supervisors - high morale, low productivity • Over-generalised conclusions • ideal leader = high on initiation + consideration. • participative styles preferred
Ohio State findings - balancing initiation & consideration • crews & superiors rate aircraft commanders by: • technical competence • effectiveness in working with other crew members • performance under stress • conformity to standard operating procedures • overall effectiveness as crew members • Crews & senior officers differed in perception of commander styles & effectiveness • Superiors judge leader competence in terms of • formal & traditional standards • high initiating & low or indifferent consideration. • Subordinates give less significance to initiating. High satisfaction under 'considerate' commanders (seen as more competent).
Linking Pin (Likert) o • Effective leaders fulfil group needs & functions in a situation • Frustration, low productivity, absentees & turnover if formal-L can’t perform all these. Formal tasks. • instrumental competencies & motives • technical know-how, innovation, sense of achievement, concern for quality & customer care Affiliation • interaction, support & expressive needs • Weak formal-L. Informal alternative emerges If L-behaviour best fits group situation, what if this changes? • Can formal leader adapt? • will group, dept, nation (led by alternative) perform optimally? o o o o o o o o
Critique of Ohio State Studies • Did not use peer group evaluation by commanders or non-evaluative measures of performance. • output measures can often be favourably affected in the short term by authoritarian leadership. • Usual problems of social research • Hawthorne effect • Abstracted empiricism • likelihood that a change in performance is related to more than one variable
Michigan Leadership Studies Managerial Grid • programmes for changing style & org. culture • 'proprietary' approaches to assessment & training • Diagnosis and treatment • Blake - Mouton Managerial Grid (1968) • Extended with contingency focus • Tannenbaum 1958 • Reddin (1970) • Hersey &Blanchard (1977) 1.9 9.9. the ideal one-best style High Concern for people 5.5. 1.1 9.1. Low Low High Concern for production
Joins Delegates Abdicates Tells Sells Suggests Consults Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum Boss-centred Follower-centred use of authority by leader decision making & action freedom for followers Continuum based on situational factors: value system, wants, confidence, willingness.
Exercise • Review your experiences of working under different leadership styles. Advantages & disadvantages of a shift to a more 'participative' style? • What departments in your organisation appear to operate with different 'leadership cultures'? Account for the differences.
Critique of style theories • Universality of the style approach? • Ambiguous evidence for usefulness of ' style' theories • Style changes often assoc. with changes in org. structure + other mgt competencies . • Fiedler (1967) questions whether participative, considerate styles are better than trad. authoritarian or directive. • Ineffective L-training - weak transfer of behaviour change from directive to participative. • Organisational & work pressures - own & other people's expectations.
Contingency approach - Fiedler (1967) Defines L-effectiveness as behaviour that ---> high task performance by group. Depends on • preferred style of leader • group situation as much as leader • contextual variables • Quality of L-member relations • Work structure (high to low) • Leader position power • Respected leaders have personal power. No need to use position power (authority) • High structure? non- compliance? Easy intervention. Unstructured, hard measure? Cannot easily enforce. Less power • extent of formal authority over rewards and sanctions Power is not just dependent leader-follower relationships.
Fielder development prescription Measure preferred style • least preferred co-worker LPC instrument • 8 scales e.g. cooperative-uncooperative, friendly-unfriendly, supportive-hostile • High LPC - relationships oriented • Low LPC - task oriented - External circumstances affect L ability to influence - Change leader (personality?) to fit situation or restructure to reflect strengths? • Re-structure the work - How? • position power - depending on L. assessment, give subordinates near-equal 'rank' (experts) or assign several ranks below • Loosen or tighten communication and decision-making • leader-member relations - leader can be similar or dissimilar to members (social, educational or ethnic background, values or attitudes) • A history of harmony or conflict? Assign a leader whose style fits group Fiedler and Garcia 1987 pp 49-55 See Chapter 13 Rollinson
Implications and critique of Fielder If Fielder is right • don’t try to change people arrange task & power to fit situation • select leaders & identify preferred styles. Diagnose situation and change it for - best fit leader-match concept But • can a manager really choose a style, change 'personality' and a virtuoso with different styles? • Leadership training targets this. Are they training pigs to fly? • LPC scores may indicate attitudes or personality but not actual behaviour • Task performance is sole criterion for evaluating effectiveness (neglects follower satisfaction) • L-processes are more sophisticated than this theory. Mixed evidence on validity - other variables ignored However • a deeper study which breaks the 'one-best-style' view and addresses contextual variables
Exam Questions • Evaluate the significance of Fiedler's 'social engineering' approach to the development of thinking on leadership and manager development practice. • Evaluate how the Fiedler 'contingency and social engineering approach' to leadership could work in any organisation known to you.
Missionary Compromiser Related Integrated Deserter Autocrat Manager executive Developer Separated Dedicated Benevolent autocrat Bureaucrat Reddin's 3-D model (a style-contingency approach) High • Is Blake - Mouton (1968) 9.9 style ideal? • style is more/less effective in situation Effectiveness High Low Relationships Low Low High Task
Situational leadership model (Hersey & Blanchard 1977, 1982) • A contingency approach with follower maturity as critical situational variable for L-effectiveness. • two major dimensions • task style • relationship style • Four styles • telling, selling, participating, delegating. • follower maturity • degree of achievement motivation • willingness to take on responsibility • education or experience • Theoretically weak • no proper rationale for the hypothesised relationships • Maturity - an over-simplified factor - lacks empirical support (Yukl, 1981; Graeff, 1983; Blank et al, 1990).
Path-goal theory (contingency approach) Main idea • Effective-L smooths subordinates' path goals using appropriate style, contingent on situational variables • differs from Fiedler • various styles - directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented - can be used by the same leader in different situations to • influence subordinates' perceptions of the situational factors • motivate by focusing on payoffs • coaching and direction • clarifying goals and expectancies • reducing frustrations/barriers. • the research is not conclusive • House & Mitchell 1974 • Based on expectancy theory of motivation
Problems with contingency theories • what causes what in real life? • As with style theories, it is difficult to understand why there should be a favourable climate towards the leader in some groups. • It could be argued that 'permissive' leadership is the result, rather than the cause, of group effectiveness.
Social learning theory and leadership • a model for continuous interaction between the environment (macro variables + subordinates and the leader's behaviour, perceptions and cognitions. • leader & subordinates/followers have negotiable, interactive relationship • They learn how they can modify or influence each other's behaviour by giving or holding back desired rewards • Davis and Luthans, 1980 • Sims and Lorenzi, The New Leadership Paradigm, Sage, 1992
Why the persistent search ? • exercising effective-L is becoming more and more difficult • economic shifts Pacific Rim and China etc. • political change South Africa, Soviet Union, Italy, Japan and Europe • less natural goodwill and traditional deference towards leaders • Many skills and techniques of today's senior executives are being superseded. • Competition & changing markets, products, technologies and expectations dictate adaptability and innovation in strategic decision making, marketing, organisation - and leadership
Are successful leaders redefining their role? • projecting a particular ethos and culture • powerful vision of where their companies or their societies are heading. • E.g. Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed's vision of Malaysia in the year 2020 • former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's vision of Singapore as The Switzerland of the East by 1999. • What does this imply for leadership behaviour? • Managers and senior executives who are successful leaders will not only respond to change positively but also actively create change. • Leaders with a particular drive, a desire to bring order out of chaos, or, if something is too cosy, to create chaos in order to bring change.
Transformational leadership theory • fresh thinking? • transformational leader creates conditions for followers to want to achieve results and to fulfil themselves. • bridges small group studies & leadership by ’movers and shakers’ who transform organisations • Context? late-20thC national & global pol-econ. change • Contributors: Downton (1973), Burns (1978), Bass (1985), Bennis & Nanus (1985), Tichy & Devanna (1986) • Bass surveyed 70 execs"In your careers, who transformed you in Burns' terms (raised awareness, move up Maslow hierarchy …. to transcend self-interest). • Answer: usually an organisational superior.
From Laissez faire to Transactional • Laissez-faire not really leaders at all, avoid intervention, weak follow up, passivity, potential for confusion • Transactional leaders • Management by exception Passive: set standards/objectives, wait for, react to, reluctant intervention. Status quo Active: standards/objectives, monitor, correct, look for error, enforce rules/procedures. Low initiative and risk-taking constructive transactions, contingent rewards • agree standards/objectives, feedback, rewards for achievement. • outcome: performance that meets expectations. • simplified in One-Minute Manager (Blanchard & Johnson 1982) • Airport business library
Transactional leadership in perspective • Mixed evidence - it may be desirable, even necessary. Contingent rewards underpin PRP • laissez-faire and transactional in directive, consultative, participative & delegative styles • directive + Mgt by Exception 'These are the rules and this is how you've broken them'. • participative + Mgt by exception 'Let's work out together the rules to identify mistakes' • Weaknesses • Carrot/stick rewards, emphasis on plans, targets, systems, controls • management > leadership • fails to develop, motivate, bring to full potential (Bass)
The transformational leader (Bass’s four 'I's) promotes • follower desire for achievement & self-development. • teams, esprit de corps, autonomy, synergy, belief, value Four 'I's. • lndividualised consideration (IC) • Intellectual stimulation (IS) • Inspirational motivation (IM) • ldealised influence (charisma) (II)
Individualised consideration and Intellectual stimulation IC • identifying individuals' needs & abilities, opportunities to learn, delegating, coaching and giving developmental feedback. Spend time with individuals e.g. mentoring. IS • question status quo, encourage imagination, creativity, logical thinking and intuition. • unorthodoxy in character, symbolise innovation. • Compare UK motorcycles & Swiss watch market to Sony
Inspirational motivation & ldealised influence Inspirational motivation • clear vision, problems as opportunities, language & symbols • I had a dream …... • Ask not what America can do for you. Ask what you can do.. • go the extra mile. Iacocca at Chrysler. ldealised influence • Confident in communicating a virtuous vision • the buck stops here'. Purpose, persistence, trust, accomplishment over failure. Respected for personal ability • Leadership .. the priceless gift you earn from those who work for you. I have to earn the right to that gift, and continuously re-earn (it). John Harvey-Jones (ICI) • Gandhi, Luther King, Thatcher, Blair • Hitler, Jim Jones
effective LF LF LF 4 x I CR MbEx-A passive active MbEx-P LF ineffective Bass's model • Learn TL!! • Avolio-Bass training package Encouraging TL will • project confidence, commitment & competence • attract quality staff to the mission & challenge • develop people more fully to respond better to competition & change
Motorola's six-sigma programme. 6Σ Transformational leadership application • defect-free parts within six standard deviations • concepts, symbols and vision for world-class quality • IS, IM, IC in promoting awareness, responsibility and self-monitoring.