Suitability of leadership styles to implementing changes

Leadership styles are the main subject of this chapter. First will be looked at what leadership is, thereafter the differences between managers and leaders are mentioned in short. Then, different leadership styles are described and the characteristics of an effective leader are given. Finally, the relation between leadership and changes in the organization as a result of organic growth are discussed and the most suitable type of leadership to implement these changes are given.

What is leadership

Leadership is a widely studied phenomena in the scientific literature but it is hard to give a consistent and comprehensive definition of it. This is, according to Grint (2004), due to lack of agreement on four problems which are related to leadership;

(1) the process problem – is leadership derived from the personal qualities, or is it social process?

(2) the position problem – has the leader formally allocated authority, or leads he with informal influence?

(3) the philosophy problem – are actions determined by context and situation, or by intentional influence?

(4) the purity problem – is leadership an individuals, or a group phenomenon?

In the same year of Grint’s research publication, Northouse also reviewed his theory about leadership. He stated that leadership is a process and involves influence, occurs in a group and involves goal attainment.

However, an universal definition of what is meant by organizational leadership is commonly stated as ‘the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members’.

In short, leadership is a combination of the leader’s traits, the behaviour of the leader, and the situation in which the leader exist. This means that leadership could be different in every situation.

Differences manager and leader

In many management books and scientific articles the terms ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ are used interchangeably which imply that these words have the same meaning. Because this is not correct and can lead to misconception, the main differences and comparisons between a manager and a leader, based on an article of Abraham Zaleznik (1977), are given in short in table 3.1Managers and leaders.

Table 3.1 Managers and leaders

Managers

Leaders

Attitudes toward goals

Take an impersonal, passive outlook

Goals arise out of necessities, not desires.

Take a personal, active outlook. Shape rather than respond to ideas. Alter moods; evoke images, expectations.

Change how people think about what’s desirable and possible. Set company direction.

Conceptions of work

Negotiate and coerce. Balance opposing views.

Design compromises. Limit choices.

Avoid risk.

Develop fresh approaches to problems.

Increase options. Turn ideas into exciting images.

Seek risk when opportunities appear promising.

Relation with others

Prefer working with people, but maintain minimal emotional involvement. Lack empathy.

Focus on process, e.g., how decisions are made rather than what decisions to make.

Communicate by sending ambiguous signals. Subordinates perceive them as inscrutable, detached, manipulative. Organization accumulates bureaucracy and political intrigue.

Attracted to ideas. Relate to others directly, intuitively, empathetically.

Focus on substance of events and decisions, including their meaning for participants.

Subordinates describe them with emotionally rich adjectives; e.g., “love,” “hate.” Relations appear turbulent, intense, disorganized. Yet motivation intensifies, and unanticipated outcomes proliferate.

Sense of self

Comes from perpetuating and strengthening existing institutions.

Feel part of the organization.

Comes from struggles to profoundly alter human and economic relationships.

Feel separate from the organization.

Different leadership styles and effectiveness

To achieve success, a leader needs an appropriate leadership style which fits within the whole organization. Therefore it is crucial to know which different leadership styles there are and which of them are most effective in certain circumstances. Although there are several studies about these topics, just some theories and styles will be explained in this section.

The two most fundamentally different and common used leadership styles are transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Transactional leaders adjust their style to the existing organizational culture and operates within that framework. The structure is given in which their goals and needs have to be reached. This leaders implement only incremental changes. In contrast of that, transformational leaders have a clear vision of what have to be done, and the organization has to alter to reach this vision. So, the group’s wants and needs and the organization’s culture need to change. They lead trough implementing radical changes (Bass, 1990).

Rooke and Torbert (2005) looked at another way to the topic of leadership. They argues that there are seven transformations of leadership, although seven ways of leading, which they called action logics. Each of the seven transformations is a leader’s dominant way of thinking and leaders have the possibility to move through these categories.

Out of their research of thousand leaders, they observed the next action logics showed in table 3.2 Seven ways of leading, with their characteristics, their strengths and the percentage of the sample that belongs to it.

Table 3.2 Seven ways of leadingthis action logic

Action logic

Characteristics

Strenghts

% of research sample profiling at this action logic

Opportunist

Wins any way possible. Self-oriented;

manipulative; “might makes right.”

Good in emergencies and

in sales opportunities.

5%

Diplomat

Avoids overt conflict. Wants to belong;

obeys group norms; rarely rocks the

boat.

Good as supportive glue

within an office; helps bring

people together.

12%

Expert

Rules by logic and expertise. Seeks

rational efficiency.

Good as an individual

contributor.

38%

Achiever

Meets strategic goals. Effectively

achieves goals through teams; juggles

managerial duties and market

demands.

Well suited to managerial

roles; action and goal

oriented.

30%

Individualist

Interweaves competing personal and

company action logics. Creates unique

structures to resolve gaps between

strategy and performance.

Effective in venture and

consulting roles.

10%

Strategist

Generates organizational and personal

transformations. Exercises the power

of mutual inquiry, vigilance, and

vulnerability for both the short and

long term.

Effective as a transformational

leader.

4%

Alchemist

Generates social transformations. Integrates

material, spiritual, and societal

transformation.

Good at leading society-wide

transformations.

1%

The managerial implications of these findings is that the Opportunist, Diplomats, and Experts are associated with below average corporate performance. The Achievers are associated with effective implementing of organizational strategies, but only the Individualist, Strategists, and Alchemist (which accounted for 15% of the sample) have the capacity to innovate and to transform organizations in a successfully way.

Because there is no single style that is effective in all situations, Flamholtz created his Leadership Effectiveness framework whereby the situation determines which style of leadership will be most effective. According to Flamholtz, leadership effectiveness is dependent on leadership tasks, situational factors, leadership styles and the combination of the style-situation fit. An overview of Flamholtz Leadership Effectiveness framework can be seen in figure 3.1 The Flamholtz leadership effectiveness framework.

Figure 3.1 The Flamholtz leadership effectiveness framework

Leadership Effectiveness

Leadership tasks

Work Orientation

People Orientation

Situational factors

Organization

Work to be done

People doing the work

Leadership styles

Directive

Interactive

Nondirective

Style-Situation Fit

The leadership tasks consist of work orientation and people orientation. Work orientation, which means that the work has to be done, is related to goal emphasis and task facilitation. People orientation gives care to the needs of the people doing the work, and is related to personnel development, interaction facilitation and supportive behaviour.

The situational factors can be divided into the degree of task programmability, which is the extent to a work task can be specified prior its execution, and the potential for job autonomy, which is the extent to someone can work without supervision.

Each leadership category in Flamholtz framework pertains two leadership styles.

Autocratic and benevolent autocratic belong to the directive category. This styles declares what is to be done respectively without, and with an explanation.

Consultative and participative belong to the interactive style. A leader with such a style respectively gets opinions before deciding on the plan presented, or first formulates alternatives with a group and then decides.

The last two styles, consensus and laissez-fair, belongs to the nondirective category. By the consensus style has every member of the group an equal voice in making decisions, the laissez-faire style leaves it up to the group to decide what to do.

Overall, to achieve a high level of effectiveness a leader has to find a balance in emphasizing the work and people orientations of leadership tasks