management

The management essay below has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

The History Of Leadership Management Essay

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to form a background and framework for the current research comparing the Afghan and American leadership and to examine the existing knowledge and theories pertaining to leadership styles and practices. The chapter also looks into the current work on conflict management modes practices by leaders in a change process. Therefore the researcher wants to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the leadership theories, concepts and practices in place. The history and evolution of leadership are looked at in the beginning. Then the underlying theories of leadership and conflict management modes are explored in a detailed manner putting the researcher in a position to develop the methodology for the current study. The worldwide best practices and cases are discussed in the third section. At the end the literature is wrapped up as a conclusion of this chapter. Some areas of contribution to future research are also included in the conclusion.

2.2 HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP

The roots of leadership go back to civilization. In 400 BC, Sun Tzu authored The Art of War which helped him to gain the favor of King Ho-lu of Wu and become the military strategist? Though The Art of War is the oldest and most respected dissertation on military strategy but still business leaders are fan of reading and applying its concepts in today’s business strategies (Rarick, 1996).

The fundamental characteristics of a leader were of high significance to Master Sun. Without a right leadership the troops would lack discipline, direction and moral. Master Sun says: “The traits of the true commander are wisdom, humanity, respect, integrity, courage, and dignity”. According to Master Sun these traits are the necessary characteristics of a leader that helps him or her to conquer the enemy. Sun tries to differentiate the leadership behavior of a “king” from a “commander” The effectiveness of a very charismatic leader cannot be compared by the first level supervisor. Different occasions need different styles of leadership. After being warned by Sun Tzu about military matters, King Ho-lu of Wu stated: “The way of the True King is to love the people generously”. Organizations having members united around a common goal and with a strong sense of mission are in a better position to defend themselves against attacks and to successfully attack the competition. According to Sun Tzu this unity can be created in organizations by effective leaders.

It was in 400 BC when Plato authored ‘The Republic’ an exploration of leadership and justice in the State. Plato places emphasis on the leadership being as qualities of legitimate leadership together with a radical rethinking of what the notion of political constitutions is involved in. Plato considered leadership as a function of a sequence of qualities. Among these qualities, wisdom was regarded as a mixture of ethical character and intellectual/cognitive qualities [especially knowledge of the good]. The philosophy of Plato can be revealed in answer to the question “Who should lead us?” He answered that wisest of us should lead us, the most knowledgeable, skilled and powerful person who is nearest to ultimate wisdom and insight (Jones, 2008).

The 16 century witnessed Machiavelli presenting his formula for manipulation and deceit in ‘The Prince’. “Of course, Machiavelli was a marvelous person on organizational material” (Blackwell, 1998). Machiavelli was the “first person to highlight and explore the dark side of leadership, and notions of expediency and ruthless power” (Thomas, 2006). Machiavelli was absorbed by power, how to obtain it and how to keep it. He also understood that leaders should know how to turn into evil when needed. One of the best quotes of Machiavelli was, “it is best for leaders to be loved but if they cannot be loved they must be feared”. According to Machiavelli a leader should always be possess mercy, honesty, kindness, integrity and piousness and how to be dishonest when it satisfies his purpose and not come into view that way. Machiavelli revealed the dark side of leadership, the side which is in contrast with many of the works of today’s leadership studies (Thomas, 2006). Machiavelli contribution to leadership is well related to today’s business. Scandals and Machiavelli’s tactics going on in businesses around the world are good testimonies.

Research on thousands of executives has disclosed that there are 11 distinct dark side characteristics. Almost 90% of leaders have at the lowest one dark side characteristic, a strength that could sometimes prove as a weakness. Around 50% of managers have two or three such type of characteristics and some managers might have even more (Yeung, 2008).

Ibn Zafar al Siqilli, a recognized Arab philosopher and political activist contributed to the study of leadership by writing his theory of power and leadership called Sulwan al-Muta. Gaetano Mosca was the first person who discovered Ibn Zafar as the worth precursor to Machiavelli in the nineteenth century. His magnum opus has two titles: Kitab al-Sulwanat fi Musamarat al-Khulafa (Book of Consolations in Conversation with Caliphs and Noblemen) or Sulwan al-Muta fi Udwan al-Atba (Consolation for the Ruler during Hostility of Subjects). A distinguishing feature of Ibn Zafar’s book is the use of empirical methodology in the derivations of his leadership maxims. The maxims discussed in Sulwan al-Muta are the general guidelines that can be summarized in the formula: Tadbir (Planning) + Hila (Artifice) + Quwwa (Force) =Victory. Thus according to Ibn Zafar an amir (ruler) should use a combination of planning, artifice and force in a flexible manner instead of using absolute force. To choose an alternative action, the leaders should be engaged in the process of decision making as follows: Tadbir or planning is the first step in strategizing and collection of first hand information. Ibn Zafar writes: “If a man regulates any undertaking according to hearsay, he will build upon possibilities; but if he regulates it according to what he sees with his own eyes, he will build upon certainties” (Dekmejian, 2000). The second step is the employment of ruse or artifice based on trickery as a possible replacement for the use of force. When everything else fails to work then the use of force is should be adopted. However Ibn Zafar places a condition under which the force can be used. The leader should resort to the force when he thinks his enemy is weaker than him. Ibn Zafar does not think that the nature of human being can change. That is why he does not recommend any coalition with enemies as it cannot change an enemy into a friend.

So the evolution of leadership seems to have started from the value of leadership in war to raise the moral of the leader’s followers; from the leaders as big politicians, planners and thinkers; to the leaders as manipulators in business trying to gain power through the use of leadership and the leaders merely relying on force. In today’s business and political environment all these elements of leadership are relevant.

2.3 REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP THEORIES

The review of leadership literature shows an evolving series of ‘school of thought’ ranging from “Great Man” and “Trait” theories to “Transformational” leadership (see table). Early theories tend to emphasize on the characteristics and behaviors of successful leaders while the later theories put the emphasis on the role of followers and the contextual nature of leadership.

Great Man Theories

These theories are based on the belief that leaders are extraordinary people, born with natural qualities, bound to lead. The use of term ‘man’ is deliberate since until late twentieth century people thought that leadership concept is primarily male, military and Western. This led to the emergency of Trait Theories.

Trait Theories

According to these theories the traits or qualities connected to leadership are many and continue to be produced. They draw on almost all the adjectives in the dictionary which depicts some positive or righteous human characteristics, from ambition to desire for life.

Behaviorist Theories

Behaviorist school of thought is based on what leaders practically do rather than on their qualities or attributes. The styles of leadership are drawn from different patterns of behaviors observed. This area is very attractive for the practicing managers.

Situational Leadership

This approach of leadership sees the leaders in specific situations in which they exercise it. For instance, while some situations may need an autocratic approach, others may require a more participative style. This theory also suggests that there may be differences in leadership styles at different levels in the same organization.

Contingency Theory

This theory is a filtered version of situational point of view and emphasized on recognizing the situational variables that can help to predict the most suitable leadership style to fit the specific circumstances.

Transactional Theory

The importance of leadership between the leader and his followers is the focus of this theory. It emphasizes on the mutual benefits originating from a form of contract between the two through which the leader gives things such as rewards or recognition in return for the commitment or loyalty of the followers.

Transformational Theory

The focus in this theory is on the change and the role of leadership in visualizing and implementing the transformation of organizational performance.

The above theories take a rather individualistic perspective of the leader, despite the fact that a school of thought getting increasingly recognized is that of “dispersed” leadership. This theory having its foundation in sociology, psychology and politics instead of management science, considers leadership as a process that is spread out throughout an organization rather than lying merely with the formally appointed ‘leader’. Therefore the focus shifts from developing leaders to developing ‘leaderful’ organizations where leadership is a collective responsibility.

2.3.1 The Trait Theories of Leadership

The trait theory of leadership arose from the “Great Man” theory as a way of recognizing the key characteristics of successful leaders. It claims that leaders are born rather than made. The problem associated with the trait theory is the fact that a variety of leadership traits and characteristics has been identified by different researchers. It is believed that there are five major leadership traits: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability (Northouse, 2004). Leader was the main focus of this theory and not the followers or situation. After several years of research and study, it became clear that no general trait could be identified. Although a number of traits were found in a remarkable number of studies, the results did end up to a final conclusion. Some leaders might have demonstrated certain traits but the absence of these traits does not necessarily mean that the person could not be a leader.

Although little consistency has been found in the result of different trait studies, however, certain traits did not come into view more often than others such as technical skills, task motivation, social skill, emotional control, administrative skills, general charisma and intelligence. Out of all “charisma” has been the widely explored trait.

The trait approach did not gain wide popularity as it assumes that personality traits are stable over time. It fails to give a general outline for leadership development. The following table lists the main traits of leadership and skills identified by Stogdill in 1974.

Traits

Adaptable to situations

Alert to social environment

Ambitious and achievement-oriented

Assertive

Cooperative

Decisive

Dependable

Dominant (desire to influence others)

Energetic (high activity level)

Persistent

Self-confident

Tolerant of stress

Willing to assume responsibility

Skills

Clever (intelligent)

Conceptually skilled

Creative

Diplomatic and tactful

Fluent in speaking

Knowledgeable about group task

Organized (administrative ability)

Persuasive

Socially skilled

2.3.2 Behaviorist Theories

The focus of leadership study has shifted from leader traits to understanding the relationship between what a leader does and the satisfaction and productivity of the followers. Theorist started to think over the behavioral concepts in analyzing organizational leadership for instance Chester Barnard’s contribution in including the behavioral components (Bass, 1990). Barnard focused on the ways in which executives can develop their organizations into a cooperative social system by integrating the work efforts through effective communication of goals and workers motivation (Hatch, 1997). Barnard (1938) believes that leadership is concerned with accomplishing goals with and through people.

At this point in time, many theorists claimed that only finding the best technological techniques for improvement of output is not sufficient, it would be worthwhile for the management to consider the human affairs as an important element in achieving organizational goals. It was argued that “the real power center within an organization were the interpersonal relationships that developed among working groups” (Hersey, 1996, p. 100)

2.3.2.1 McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y Managers

According to McGregor (1960), there are certain assumptions about the human nature and human motivation in a traditional organization with hierarchical pyramid, external control of work and where decision making is centralized. He called these assumptions Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X assumes that majority of people like to be directed, are not willing to take responsibility, and want safety more than anything else.

Alongside Theory X, it is believed that people are motivated by money, fringe benefits and the fear of being punished. Managers who support Theory X assumptions try to exert control and close supervision over employees. Despite the fact that McGregor himself was in doubt whether Theory X was accurately depicting the human nature, the assumptions continued for a long time in leadership theory circles because it could explain a part but not all of human behavior within organizations (Pugh, 1993). McGregor finally reached a conclusion that Theory X assumptions about human nature are not often accurate when applied universally. Therefore management theories drawn from these assumptions may not motivate individuals to achieve organizational goals (Hersey, 1996).

McGregor (1960) believed that management required a more accurate approach towards human nature and motivation. As a result he proposed Theory Y concept. He claimed that individuals are not lazy and undependable naturally. Employees can be autonomous and creative if motivated correctly (Pugh, 1993). Therefore this is the responsibility of management to find out these potentials.

Therefore, the purpose of effective leadership was to evolve and shift away from the earlier concepts of the classical and scientific management where employees were regarded as machines. Leaders were willing to involve followers in attaining organizational goals. McGregor contribution to leadership theory is closely linked to behavioral theories that provide the platform for future emergence of transformational theories of leadership.

McGregor Theory X and Theory Y assumptions are summarized in the table below:

Theory X managers believe that:

Theory Y managers believe that:

The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if possible.

Because of this human characteristic, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, or threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort to achieve organizational objectives.

The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all else.

The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest, and the average human being, under proper conditions, learns not only to accept but also to seek responsibility.

People will exercise self-direction and self-control to achieve objectives to which they are committed.

The capacity to exercise a relatively high level of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population, and the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized under the conditions of modern industrial life.

Theory X and Y managers (McGregor, 1960)

It can be seen that a leader supporting Theory X assumptions prefers to have an autocratic style while one supporting Theory Y adopts a more participative style of leadership.

2.3.2.2 Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid

The Managerial Grid developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 emphasized on task (production) and employee (people) aspects of managers. The grid has concern for production on the horizontal axis and concern for people on the vertical axis and the five leadership styles plotted on the grid. The numbers on the horizontal line shows a leader’s concerns for task or production whereas the vertical line exhibits a leader’s concern for employees or people. The center of the grid is the ‘Middle of the Road’ showing a balance between concern for people and concern for production. There are 81 one possible combinations of the two concerns, out of which five main styles of management/leadership are popular (Jones, 2008).

Team Management (9, 9): there is integration between the concerns for production and needs of people to direct the team. It is very difficult to achieve the required skills for this position. Practically speaking, integrating effective production with healthy human relationship is very complex in nature an application. This style is not versatile and may not be applied in all situations.

Task Management (9, 1): this is style is focusing more on the attainment of production goals rather than the on people to accomplish the task. This style is more common in crisis situation.

Impoverished Management (1, 1): in this case attention is given to neither the people nor the production. This type of management/leadership style results into chaos and no positive result are attained. Lack of confidence and trust are the signs of this style.

Country Club Management (1, 9): unlike task management, this style gives more attention to people rather than to task. This condition is very uncommon and only applicable to social clubs. Communication becomes challenging for the people having a task-oriented background in organizations.

Middle of the Road (5, 5): this style is generally used in most of the organizations. There are instances in which attention is given more to one aspect compared to the other. This is not determined by any hard and fast rule but it all depends on the leader’s understanding of a particular situation.

1,1 Impoverished Management

1,9 Country Club Management

9,1 Task Management

5,5 Middle of the Road

9,9 Team Management

Figure 1: The Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964)

According to Blake and Mouton the best leadership style is the ‘Team Management.

2.3.3 Situational/Contingency Theories

Although behavioral theories may assist managers in developing certain leadership behaviors but they fail to give a clear guidance as to what forms effect leadership in different situations. In effect the researches have shown that no one leadership style is appropriate for managers under all circumstances. Therefore contingency-situational theories were developed to demonstrate that the style of leadership to be adopted is contingent on factors such as the situation, the people, the task, the organization and other environmental factors. The major theories and models of situational/contingency approach are discussed in the following section.

2.3.3.1 Fiedler’s Contingency Model

The contingency theory developed by Fiedler assumes that there is no single best way for managers to lead their teams. This is the situation that will tell the manager to adopt a particular leadership style. The solution for a managerial problem is contingent on the factors that influence the situation. For instance, in case of a highly routine environment where a lot of task repetition is involved, a relatively directive leadership style may bring about best performance, whereas in a dynamic environment, a more flexible and participative leadership style may be needed by the managers (Jones, 2008)

Fiedler considered three situations that could explain the condition of a managerial task:

1-Leader-member relations: How well managers and employees move forward?

2- Task structure: Is the job structured, fairly structured or somewhere in between?

3-Position power: How much authority does the manager have?

Managers were assessed based on being relationship oriented or task oriented. Task oriented managers seem to perform better in situations where relations between leader and members are good, the task is structured and the manager has either strong or weak position power. These managers perform well even if the task is unstructured but they need a strong position power in that case. In addition, they performed well in situation with moderate to poor leader-member relationship and unstructured task. Managers with a relationship oriented approach perform well in all other situations. Therefore, managers need to adopt a different style for a different situation based on the requirements of that situation.

Researchers have criticized the contingency theory proposed by Fiedler on both the conceptual and methodological grounds. However, empirical research agrees with many of the propositions of the theory. Fiedler’s contribution to the understanding of leadership effectiveness remains pressing (Hellriegel, 2004) .

2.3.3.2 The Hersey and Blanchard Model of Leadership

The Hersey and Blanchard Leadership Model is based on situational viewpoint of leadership. This model suggests that the developmental stages of a leader’s followers determine the appropriate leadership style to be adopted. They have based their theory on the amount of task (task behavior) and socio-emotional support (relationship behavior) a leader is required to exhibit given the situation and the ‘level of maturity’ of the subordinates (Jones, 2008)

Task behavior is the degree to which a leader is willing to clarify the duties and responsibilities to an individual or group. This type of behavior is comprised of instructing people what to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and who is going to do it. Leaders with task behavior are involved in one way communication.

Relationship behavior is the degree to which a leader is involved in two or multi-way communications. This behavior includes active listening, facilitating and support to the subordinates. In relationship behavior a leaders is more involved in two way communications and provides socio-emotional support.

Maturity is the readiness and capability of an individual to take charge of directing his/her own behavior. People demonstrate different levels of maturity depending on the task, function or objective that a leader tries to achieve through their efforts. To summarize the Hersey-Blanchard Model, leaders fall along two continua:

Direct Behavior

Support Behavior

One-way communication

Followers’ roles clearly communicated

Close supervision of performance

Two-way communication

Listening, providing support and encouragement

Facilitate interaction

Involve followers in decision making

2.3.3.3 Adair’s Action-Centered Leadership Model

John Adair is a famous contributor in the world of leadership. His model of (1973) suggests that the action-centered leader gets things done through the work team and relationships with fellow managers and staff. John posits that an action-centered leader must:

Direct the job to be done (task restructuring).

Support and examine the individual people doing the task.

Co-ordinate and encourage the work team in general.

TEAM

TASK

INDIVIDUAL

Figure 2: Action-centered Leadership Model (Adair, 1973)

The famous three circle diagram of Adair not only simplifies the variability of human interaction but also can be used as a useful tool to determine the components of effective leader/manager in connection with the job he/she has to do. The three circles diagram portrays the behaviors exhibited by effective leaders/managers in carrying out their functions. Situational and contingent components require different responses from a leader. Therefore the size of the circles may change in size when the leader gives more or less attention to the functionally oriented behaviors based on the situation involve. The circles may be smaller or bigger depending on the amount of attention paid by the leader. Managing all the circles of the diagram is challenging the leaders (Jones, 2008).

The challenges a leader needs to manage are summarized as follows:

Task

Define the task

Make the plan

Allocate work and resources

Control quality and rate of work

Check performance against plan

Adjust the plan

Team

Maintain discipline

Build team spirit

Encourage, motivate, give a sense of purpose

Appoint sub-leaders

Ensure communication within group

Develop the group

Individual

Attend the personal problems

Praise individuals

Give status

Recognize and use individual abilities

Develop the individual

In general, situational leadership theories have been criticized on theoretical and methodological bases. However, they are regarded as well-known contingency theories of leadership and provide more insights into the interaction between a leader and his followers.

2.3.4 Transactional and Transformational Leadership

James MacGregor Burns, recognized two types of leadership in his 1978 book on leadership: transactional and transformational. Burns believed that transactional leadership occurs when one individual establishes intentional contact with others in order to exchange something valued; in other words “leaders approach followers with an eye toward exchanging” (Burns, 1978, p. 4).

Transformational leadership is far beyond the obedience of the followers; it is a mutual understanding, help and support helping the followers how to become leaders and the leaders to become the moral models. Burns writes: “the result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents” (p. 4). Burns regards the power of transformational leadership as more aristocratic and differentiates it from charismatic leadership, which he calls it ‘heroic’ leadership, and executive or business leadership.

Bernard Bass in his book of ‘Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation’ (1985) built up on Burns’ theory of transformational leadership and he posited that the leader transforms followers. Therefore according to Bass the direction of influence is one way, unlike Burns who sees it a two-way process. Bass mainly deals with the transformational styles of executive leaders that include social change, an aspect absent in Burns’ work.

Figure 3: Transformational leadership (L=Leader; F=Follower)

F: Current state of

expected efforts

F: Expected

performance

F: Performance

beyond

Expectations

F: Heightened motivation

to attain designated

outcome (extra effort)

L: Change in

organization

culture

L: Elevation of F’s

subjective probabilities

of success

L: Confidence

building on F

L: Expansion of F’s

portfolio of needs

L: Transcending of

F’s self-interest

L: Elevation of F’s

needs to a higher

level

L: Elevation of valence

of designed

outcomes for F

(Bass B. , 1985)

Tichy and Devanna (1986) added to the work of Burns and Bass in organizational and work contexts. For them the hybrid nature of leadership was not due to the existence of charisma but a learnable style of leadership.

Bass writing with a co-writer Avolio posited that transformational leadership is concerned with an ideal leader who is able to demonstrate himself/herself as a role model and with whom the followers are closely attached.

Transactional leadership can be regarded as a traditional model of leadership with its origin from an organizational or business perspective in the bottom line. Stephen Covey in his book of ‘Principle-Centered Leadership’ proposes that transformational leadership “focuses on top line” and he differentiates between the transactional and transformational models (Jones, 2008). A selection of the differences is below:

Transactional Leadership

Transformational Leadership

Builds on man’s need to get a job done and make a living

Is preoccupied with power and position, politics and perks

Is mired in daily affairs

Is short-term and hard data orientated

Focuses on tactical issues

Relies on human relations to lubricate human interactions

Follows and fulfils role expectations by striving to work effectively within current systems

Supports structures and systems that reinforce the bottom line, maximize efficiency, and guarantee short-term profits

Builds on a man’s need for meaning

Is preoccupied with purposes and values, morals, and ethics

Transcends daily affairs

Is orientated toward long-term goals without compromising human values and principles

Focuses more on missions and strategies

Releases human potential- identifying and developing new talent

Designs and redesigns jobs to make them meaningful and challenging

Aligns internal structures and systems to reinforce overarching values and goals

Comparison of Transactional and Transformational Leadership (Covey, 1992)

Both types of leadership styles are needed. Transactional leadership has been long the model for many people and organizations.

2.3.5 Conflict Management Modes

Conflict cannot be ignored, not only in organizations but everywhere else because people compete for jobs, resources, power, recognition and safety. It has become an inseparable part of everyday life and it is very important to know how to deal with conflict. The more we are in touch people the more different and diverse set of opinions we experience, often leading to tension and poor ability to work. Therefore managers need to put more emphasis on conflict management as it results into better solutions in attaining organizational goals. Communication and collaboration are the two important elements in resolving conflicts in organizations (Altmäe, 2008).

Management theories have always given a central role to conflict management. For instance, Putnam and Poole (1987:552) define conflict as “the interaction of interdependent people who receive the opposition of goal, aims, and or values, and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the realization of these goals (aims, or values)”. There is an option to solve a conflict but sometimes it may be very difficult to find a suitable solution and can result into ambivalent attitudes and stress (Bagshaw, 1998).

Avoiding unnecessary emotions and keeping a constructive level of emotions is very essential in managing conflict. It is advisable to leave all personal emotions aside and focus on finding a solution to the problem in order to resolve a conflict constructively. Then it is possible to remove the tension from the working environment and take advantage of the employees’ energy and creativity in achieving the organizational goals. Cooperation plays the most significant role and it should be encouraged to the highest possible extent. Hence managers should know the importance of the cooperation and develop it constantly throughout the organization (Altmäe, 2008).

The most effective strategy that people use to handle conflict is known as the Conflict Management Mode (CMM). Majority of conflict management theories strive to recognized the CMM in individuals and categorize them in a two dimensional system, based on their task and relationship-orientation (de Vliert, 1990).

One of the most popular and widely used models for examining behavior in a conflict situation is Thomas-Kilmann’s Conflict Management Model (CMM) (Thomas et al., 2008; Ding, 1996; Thomas and Kilmann, 1974). This model is drawn from Blake and Mouton’ conceptual scheme used for problem solving, smoothing, forcing, withdrawal and sharing in the CMM (Blake and Mouton, 1964). The Conflict Mode Instrument (CMI) is employed to identify the dominant CMM and to differentiate among the five modes.

According to the CMI ( (Lippitt, 1982; Blake and Mouton, 1964; Thomas and Kilmann, 1974) the five following CMMs can be recognized.

Competing- To achieve a goal at the expens of other person in an assertive and uncooperative manner. Competing is good only in case of crisis requiring a quick decision to be made.

Collaborating- All possible solutions are sought in dealing with a conflict. Efforts are made to satisfy both parties of the coflict. The parties are converging in similar interest rather than concentrating on different opinions. Collaboration is regarded as one of the most effective wasy of handling conflict, but it is not suitable for situations where a quick decision is needed.

Compromising- Mutual acceptable solutions and partial satisfaction of the conflicting parties are the pillars of compromising. Both parties tend to give up something for the purpose of getting something that partially satisfies them ( (Rahim and Magner, 1995). People of compromising style normally admit the problem but do ont concentrate on it. A win-win solution is the possible outcome of using this mode. Compromising can be used best when goals are so important and one can easily forego something which is not vital. The use of this mode is also advised in situations where time is limited or collaboration is impossible.

Accomodating- In this mode, parties involved believe that difference in views and values can be resolved. One party is willing to neglect his own needs and concentrate on the values and interests of the other party. It is like slefless generosity and charity. Using this mode enhances harmony and trust and avoids chaos and deterioration of relations.

Avoiding- The parties try to avoid the conflic by putting the conflict aside and not actively looking for any solution. The conflict could fade or a solution can be found. Both parties of conflice stay indifferent to their own and others’s problems. Avoiding mode suitable when the conflicts are too emotional and trivial.

The choice of adopting any particular CMM is dependent upon the situation. Each one of these modes can be useful under certain conditions ( McKenna and Richardson, 1995; Munduate et al., 1999).

2.4 THE CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP

In this section of the literature, the author will look at three of the contemporary approaches to leadership. The nature of these approaches is quite different to what has been reviewed so far in terms of creativity. The traditional approaches are challenged in terms of acceptance. There are so many new approaches to leadership in the recent years; therefore the following are only a small and selective list of approaches chosen by the author very subjectively.

2.4.1 The Hard Work of Being a Soft Manager

William Peace in his famous article of “the hard work of being a soft manager” criticizes the leaders of business legend who are tough-minded self-confident, tenacious, rigid and immune to criticism. Peace further claims that effective leaders should be vulnerable to criticisms from subordinates and should admit their weaknesses as normal human beings. But to him “Soft Management does not mean weak management” ( (Peace, 2001, p. 99). Soft management means making hard choices and the readiness to take responsibility, therefore requiring the managers to have courage and control over their emotions.

2.4.2 The Five Minds of a Manager

2.4.3 The Eight Questions of Leadership

2.5 WORLD-WIDE CASES: BEST PRACTICE

One can see the slogan of GE: We Bring Good Things to Life in its practices and products. GE was titled as the “America’s Most Admired Company” by Fortune magazine successively in 1998 and 1999 (Brown, 1999; Sewart, 1998), on top of being called as the “ World’s Most Admired Company” (Kahn, 1998). There is not one single factor contributing to GE success. However, one reason that is widely known and acknowledged as very remarkable to GE’s matchless success in 1990’s is its sound leadership.

Promoting a positive culture for leadeship in GE is acknowleged by many and it goes beyond its own class. This is evident when looking at the CEO Jack Welch, who has led the company since 1980. Welch was honored the title of “most respected CEO” four times by Industry Week managaizne’s survey from 1993-1996. Bill Gates overtook him by one vote in 1995.

Jack Welch was given the label of “ Neutron Jack” by the business press for the serious employee reduction he ordered. At one point in time, he had reduced the number of employees of GE by more than 100,000. He was believed to be a neutron bomb- demolishing people and allowing the structure intact. One of the things he hated most was bureaucracy. Welch, in spite of being labeled the “neutron bomb” did not leave the structure unchanged. Indeed he changed the structure of GE dramatically based on his vision of boundarylessness.

According to GE, boundaryless vision means “business behavior that tramples or demolishes all barriers of rank, function, geography, and bureaucracy in an endless pursuit of the best idea in the cause of engaging and involving every mind in the company.” This exemplifies leadership development closely tied to a core organizational value.

Welch has also brought positive changes in the lives of the shareholders. At the time he retired in 2000, it is said that he has helped to create $200 billion in new wealth for GEs 32 shareholders, regarded as the biggest financial heritage in the history of capitalism. In 1981 GE distributed stock options to 400 senior executives. Today that number exceeds 22,000. 10% of all GEs stocks is owned by employees including production workers. Although Welch’s ability in creating wealth is admirable, but that is not what he considers being his most important responsibility. Instead he argues that giving self-confidence to people to act independently is “by far the most important thing that I can do”. Welch’s devotion to developing future leaders is legendary. He always regarded development of leadership as the critical part of his work. Welch himself says: “That’s my job. We spend all our time on people. The day we screw up the people thing, this company is over”(Stewart, 1999: p. 27).

Welch is not the only person receiving recognition and accolades. GE has been a finishing school for managers who want to learn how to lead and manage major companies around the world. One can be impressed by seeing a partial list of former GE executives who have gone on to the top positions in other companies like Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., McDonnel Douglas Corp., AlliedSignal, Owens Corning, USF&G corp., and General Signal Corp. The focus on leadership development is pervasive at GE and not merely at the top. Managers at all levels are required to take part in leadership training at each career development session. The emphasis is places on different competencies required for different levels and thus the course content is arranged accordingly.

Another important corporate value transmitted to employees through leadership development program is “think small and act small.” This ensures the growth of the company. This is converted into the maxim that the best way to lead is through managing change. Based on this maxim, GE is getting rid of most of the centralized planning. The present business environment undergoes very rapid and discontinuous changes that make it difficult to plan for. Welch asked a class of executive at Crotonville campus how many of them could predict the Asian economic crises. None of the participants raised their hands including Welch. He wanted to point out that all of the “crap you planned for is meaningless” (Staying Smart: The Jack and Herb Show, 1999: p. 166). In place of planning for the anonymous and uncertain future, it is more important for a GE leader to be nimble in though and action. Quick response is regarded as the key for success and competitative advantage. Welch also acknowlege is this by saying “ Although GE is an elephant, it is the fastest elephant at the dance” ( p. 166).

Employing speed as the competitative advantage has becom part of the culture at GE. In making this cultrual transformation happen, Welch asked a group of popular academics to construct a change model for GE. After reviewing the literature and looking into the guiding principles and theories, the best thing the group came up was a self-expalanatory “tired, pedestrian model of change” (Frost, 1997: p. 342). On the other hand Welch was impressed. He made it clear to the professor that they valued creativity more than proficiency. Welch posed two questions: (a) is the model true (answer: yes), and (b) was GE doing it (answer: not consistently). Based on the information provided, he decided that the professor should stop applogizing and start teaching. Welch declared it compulsory to all the presidents of businesses, officers of the company and senior executives-around 1,000 people that they would receive seven days of change-related trainings within ten weeks. That was the point the he started the Change Acceleration Program (CAP) at GE.

What is CAP leadership program? CAP is all about making people open to change, hungry to learn, an eager to move fast on a good idea. These objectives of CAP can be interpreted as the core leadership competencies for the future of GE. They are also the values that are needed by leaders to transform others especially in cases where the futrue cannot be foreseen with any degree of certainty. Finally, CAP is about forming a cadre of change masters.

A quick understandable principle from the GE approach to leadership development can be defined briefly as implementation. A broad range of best practices are available to choose from including the ones populare at GE such as 360-degree feedback, action learning and coaching. Most of best practices done at GE with regard to leadership development is not new, but aligning the initiative with the corporate values and strategies urge people to implement change with full passion.

2.6 LOCAL ISSUES

2.6.1 Local Culture

2.6.2 Leadership in Islam

Leadership is regarded as trust in Islam. In many cases it takes the shape of a clear formal agreement or promise between a leader and his/her followers that he/she will do his best to guide them, to provide protection to them and to deal with them in a fair and just way. Therefore, leadership in Islam emphasizes on integrity and justice. Based on the recent emphasis on ethical behavior in leadership literature, an investigation of the moral bases of leadership solely from an Islamic point of view may give some fascinating insights for the study of leadership in general (Kouzes and Posner, 1995).

Islam followers base their behavior as leader and/or as follower upon the Word of God as revealed in their holy book, the Qur’an. They are in a belief that the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (saw) (saw = abbreviated words of honor and salutations meaning “may God send blessings and salutation on him”), has been a good model for Muslim leaders and followers in all times. This belief is strengthened when God says the following about Muhammad (saw):

“And you stand and exalted standard of character” (Ali, 1989).

Muhammad is an example of of leadership for both Muslim leaders and follower to copy. Accoring to Prophet Muhammad (saw), leadership is not restricted to a small elite rather everyone is the “shepherd” of a flock depending on the situation and holds a staus of leadership (Sahih Bukhari, hadith 3.733). Muhammad (saw) is reported to have said thes words:

“Each of you is a guardian, and each of you will be asked about his subjects” (Sahih Bukhari, hadith 3.733

In most aspects of life, Muslims are encouraged to appoint a leader and follow him/her. According to the Prophet Mohammad (saw), Muslims have to designate a leader during a trip, select a leader to take lead in the congregational prayer and pick up a leader in group activities. Thus leadership can be described as process by which a leader goes in search for the voluntary participation of the followers in an attempt to achieve certain goals. This definition of leadership proposes that leadership is basically a process whereby the leader directs the “willing” followers. A leader should always remember that he/she cannot force others to do things they do not want.

“Let there be no compulsion in religion…..” (Ali, 1989: 2: 256)

Islam emphasized on two types of leaders that is servant leader and gurdian leader. In the first place the leader is the servant for his followers (Sayyid al qawn khadimuhum). He is to pursue theire welfare and lead them towards good. Islam has pointed out the idea of servant leadership more than 1400 years ago and has only lately been developed by Robert Greenleaf. Greenleaf writes: “The servant leader is servant first…It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first… The best test, and the most difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons?” (Greenleaf, 1970: 7).

The Prophet Muhammad(saw) has encouraged the second importan role of a Muslim leader: to protect his people and community against tryanny and oppression, to promote God-awareness and taqwa (being conscious of Allah) and to encourage justice.

“A commander ( of the Muslims) is a shield for them”. (Abu Hurairah, hadith no. 4542)

The leader has a message: the most important of his duties is to develop leaders from among his follower. He must be moderate, consultative, forgiving, honorable, sticking to his promises, honest, humble, respectable in appearance, patient and hold non-materialistic and ascentic values (Hawi, 1982; Khadra, 1985; Mostafa, 1986; Al-Obiedi, 1987).

The Islamic administrative theory has its roots from the social philosophy of the Islamic system. It suggests that individuals psychological needs need to be satisfied in order to attain the organizational goals and in the same time a balance should be kept between these psychological needs and spiritual needs.The said administrative theory is built upon the principles of hierarchical organizational structure, chain and unity of command, obedience and compliance to formal authority, work planning, members consultation with the organization, defining of roles, and training and development of employees (Abu-Sin, 1981; Mostafa, 1986; Nusair, 1983; Sharfuddin, 1987).

2.7 CONCLUSIONS


Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:

Request the removal of this essay


More from UK Essays