Leadership styles
Managers have a choice between being either authoritarian or democratic (Cole, 1996, p50). Every style has, depending on the circumstances, its advantages and disadvantages. A selection of three leadership styles is discussed below.
Authoritarian or tell leadership style
The distinguishing feature of the Authoritarian leadership style is the strict control of the work by the manager. He directs, sets goals and monitors. In the first time this leadership style gets to good results, but this normally decreases fast after a certain time.
Cooperative leadership
This, also “democratic” called leadership style focuses on the participation of the group members on the way how to catch the target. The manager still has the lead but all group members have the chance of active participation in solving internal problems. A team that is lead in a cooperative style develops a strong team spirit and tries to develop opportunities to reduce conflicts.
Leadership through the group itself
Leadership through the group itself is seen, according to Fischer (Fischer, 2001) as the highest developed form of leadership. All members of a group are depended on their abilities involved in the leading. The leading passes over to a self adjustment of the group. The group is able to solve problems integrative.
Motivation
Definition of motivation:
“Motivation is the ´drive´ which causes an individual to engage in specific behaviours in order to satisfy a need or expectation” (Wheeler, 2002)
For managing it is very important to know what motivation there is for people, what gives them satisfaction? “The manager’s job is not to manipulate people, rather to recognize what motivates people.”(Koontz and Weihrich, 1990, p317)
A representation of “Maslow´s need hierarchy” and “The Pygmalion Effect” can be found in the appendix.
Teamwork
If a new group is put together, like in our case the group of seven people, there is according to Witte (Witte, 1986, p443) always a typical order of phases the new group goes trough.
Figure 3 Phases of Group development (modified) (Denisow, 2001, p345)
The Phases are:
Forming:
In this phase, the members of the group communicate about the task and the goals to be reached. The resources they have to achieve the goal are explored. Most of the group members act very careful.
Storming:
The group members show their own interests and expectations. Internal conflicts develop because normally very different people come together in a group. Every member struggles for his personal space in the group.
Norming:
The conflicts of the storming phase are cleared. The cooperation between the group members is developed. The rules how to get along with each other are made clear. Functions of the different members are found. And the way how to handle conflicts and how to make decisions are agreed.
Performing:
The group feels as a team. The roles of the group members are flexible. Teamwork is achieved. New ideas can be brought in without being seen as an interruption, because relations are established. The manager tasks are now planning and consulting.
University Residential Period
Now that the necessary theories are explained and the behaviour and processes observed in the residential period will be explained.
Minefield
The first task during the residential period was the “Minefield”. The task for the group is to reach the other end of a field without touching the ground. On the field stones are laid down at the same distance. Equipment to reach the goal: a set of lath.
Teamwork:
It was the first task for the group in this constellation. Most of the group members did not know each other well. The roles of the group members where not set and till now no leader was set for the group nor selected. What could be observed was according to Witte (Witte, 1986) a forming but although a storming phase. The members of the group communicated about the task and the common goal to reach the other side of the minefield and the resources given to achieve the goal.
Communication
Most of the group members acted careful and were looking for first feedback from each other. This feedback is according to Denisow (Denisow, 2001) necessary for each individual to reduce the blind Spot of the JoHari Window (Luft, 1969) and an essential part of the teambuilding process.
Management/Leadership
After a few minutes the leadership was taken by on person using an “autocratic/telling” leadership style (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973). This was the transition from the “forming” to the “storming” phase (Witte, 1986). While there was still a “consultative/communicative” leadership style (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973) between some of the group members, there was although a struggle for their personal space in the group, their own interests and expectations. The first internal conflict develops, because the majority of the group was not willing to accept the “telling” leadership style (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973). This conflict was not solved during the exercise.
But in the end the group had reached their first common goal together.
The discussion about leadership and the leadership style seen in the previous exercise went on during the reflection period without a final solution.
Positive/Negative
The group finding processes in this exercise were positive. As it was a “forming” phase the main goal for this process is to get to know each other better and to see the interests of the others. A disturbing, negative part in the exercise was the “telling” leadership style one person showed. It gave the other group members not the freedom to communicate so much with each other than it would have been necessary according to Witte (Witte, 1986) at this stage. So the group was pushed into the “storming” phase too fast.
Eggcone
The task “Eggcone” is to take an egg from a con without stepping into a circle approximately three metres around the cone. Given equipment are ropes, paper, clips, etc.
Teamwork
In the following “Eggcone” exercise elements of the “storming” and “norming” phase could be seen(Witte, 1986). The cooperation between the group members developed, the rules how to get along with each other were made clear and functions of the different members were found.
Communication
The communication between the group members was easier, because they had the chance in the previous exercise and in the reflection phase to get to know each other better. A first conflict had occurred and had not been solved till now, but communication about the conflict had been taken place. The blind Spot of the JoHari Window (Luft, 1969) was reduced.
Management/Leadership
The cooperation between the group members developed, compared to the first task and first delegating tasks where made between the group members. The length of the rope was measured by group members while others constructed the mechanism to catch the egg.
After it was clear that the ropes were long enough, all team members tried to build the egg catcher (a paper bag). Nearly every group member tried to add something to the construction, even if it was not really necessary, for example additional clips. This was another step on the way to clear the rules how to get along with each other and to find the different functions of the different members of the group. What could be observed was a “consultative/communicative” leadership style (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973).
The first part of the task was fulfilled; the egg catching mechanism was build.
In the second step on catching the egg the functions of the different team members were found quickly and fast. Two people held the rope to catch the egg; two people pushed the egg with the other rope and two people watched and guided the movement of the others.
While doing so the person who had tried to lead the group by a “telling” leadership style in the “minefield” exercise felt back to his old role (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973).
The group was able to repeat the performance in a short time after the first successful capture of the egg. This shows that the cooperation between the group members was developed, the rules how to get along with each other are made clear and functions of the different members were found (Witte, 1986).
In the following reflection and discussion session the discussion about leadership and the leadership style of the person using the “telling” style went into an open conflict. This conflict was not solved by the group itself but by a member of the teaching team.
Positive/Negative
The group finding processes in this exercise were positive. As it was a “storming” phase the group members showed their own interests and expectations and the first internal conflict developed.
The group was not able in the short time of the exercise to solve the conflict internally. Maybe the conflict could have been solved on the long run. That the conflict was solved by an external person helped the group to develop in the next exercises.
Waterbalance
The task “Waterbalance” is to move a can that is connected and in balance with a other can via a rope and trough coils without touching it. Equipment: sticks, tube etc.
Teamwork
Functions of the different members were found fast. While one part of the group was delegated to look for water and how to get it to the “Waterbalance“ a second part of the team developed the mechanism to poor the water into the can. Even putting together the different sub tasks to a main task was no problem for the group. As there was not enough water to successfully complete the task the team members solved this problem on their one. This shows that the functions of the different members were found.
The group started to feel as a team. Compared with the related phases of group development (Witte, 1986, p443) the group was in the “norming” phase and started to be in the “performing” phase.
Management/Leadership
The Management role was taken after a few minutes of discussion about possible solutions for the task by one person. The delegation of getting water was made. A solution for a part of the problem was tried out by the person himself. The solution was adapted by the group. The management style seen was “management by delegating” and “management by example” (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973).
Positive/negative
The group felt as a team. Teamwork had been achieved and the group members could flexible change their position in the team. The leading person delegated tasks, but did not communicate the plan for the solution to the rest of the group. He tried out a part of the solution instead of delegating this task. It would have been easier for the group members to work if they had more responsibility (Wheeler, 2002)
Blinde folde maze
Task: The group had to pass a path without touching the path marks. All group members had to be blind while on the path.
Teamwork
The according to Witte (Witte, 1986) the group was in the “performing” stage. A long decision making process happened where new ideas could be brought in without being seen as an interruption. The roles of the group members were flexible. Different tasks could be done by different persons. Teamwork was achieved.
Leadership/Management
All group members discussed about the task. One person took the leadership but was consulted by others. Every group member added his part to the discussion and possible solutions for the task. The main discussion was not about the important points for reaching the goal, but about minor important points. Decisions were made very slowly. The leadership style seen was “democratic” and “through the group itself” (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973). As a result the process of making a decision as a group took a long time and the decision was deferred. Several attempts were made to solve the task in different constellations. The results were not as expected.
Positive/Negative
All members where involved in the development of a possible solution to solve the task. But the leading person collected them without making a decision that the group could follow. After a phase of discussion he should have made a decision and should have had the authority to realise this decision (Katz and Kahn, 1987)
Sheet 1: The first four task in comparison to leadership and teamwork phase
Ballista
Task: A ballista has to be build with parts that have to be bought at an auction.
Teamwork
During the ballista exercise the group behaved like a team. After examining the different equipment objects that where for sale, the group developed several different designs for a possible construction of a ballista. The according to Witte (Witte, 1986) the group stayed in the “performing” stage
Communication
The different designs where discussed, different ideas from group members were implemented and a solution was chosen by the group in a democratic way. After the solution was made the chosen construction was refined.
Management/Leadership
One person bit at the auction following the plan made before by the group.
In the following construction phase the complex task was easily broken into some smaller pieces. One part of the group constructed the main chassis, another the catapult, and a third part the release mechanism. Leadership was split into a shaping and a managing task done by different people (Belbin, 1981).
Even a coat of arms was painted by the group. This shows that the group felt really as a team.
The leadership style observed where “democratic” and “through the group itself” (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973).
Treasure hunt
Task: Two groups together had to answer questionnaire. The answers to the questionnaire could be found in the surrounding of the residential.
Management/Leadership
The two groups came together to discuss the task. Very soon the leading group persons, shaper and manager which knew each other from the ballista task before took the leadership of the united group. The possible solutions for achieving the goal where discussed with all group members. Most of the accepted proposals came from the first group. And at the end of the discussion the first group behaved in an “autocratic” leadership (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973) stile to the second group. The new group was divided into four smaller groups that each had to solve a part of the common task. The leaders of these smaller groups were all members of the former first group.
Teamwork
The organisational structure that was build up in the former exercises was transferred from the first group to the new group. The teamwork that was achieved in the former exercise although existed in the new group. The other group were seen as new group members and were integrated into the new group guided by the old management.
Even if in the small groups, the whole group was divided into, a new “storming” phase began, the whole group performed because of the leading persons already being in the “performing” stage.
Communication
Most of the communication related to the task was done by the members of the former group that now provided the leader in the new group.
Positive/Negative
For the results of the whole group it was a positive step that the first group took leadership over the second. For the motivation of the second group it was a negative step. The smaller groups have to go through the whole teambuilding process again. The roles of the group members have to be clarified again before the small groups feel as teams.
Example of integrated nature of management work
The “ballista” exercise is a good example for the integrated nature of management work.
It was the job of the management to coordinate the planning process and to communicate the plans made to all group members. Therefore leadership had to be established in the group.
At a first step planning was done by the group as whole. The possible equipment was sorted out and constructions were made by all team members. These constructions were made on paper so a better communication about the construction could be made to the group.
Management was necessary to coordinate this planning in the group.
Finally a decision had to be made and it was the job of the management to establish this decision in the group. Resulting from the decision made, i.e. the chosen design, objectives had to be made which equipment to buy in the following auction.
In our example the leading person bet at the auction and so he made sure that the objectives set were reached in this case.
In the following building phase of the ballista it was the job of the management to coordinate the work done and although to give the group members the tasks that fit to their abilities.
To motivate the group it was management work to inspire the group to paint a coat of arms for the ballista and so create a bigger team feeling.
References
<URL:http://www.accel-team.com/pygmalion/prophecy_01.html>
<URL:>
Adair, John (1986) Effective Teambuilding, Pan Books ltd
Bass, Bernhard M., (1981) Stogdill´s handbook of leadership: A survey of Theory and research, Free Press
Belbin, R. Meredith, (1981) Management Teams, William Heinemann Ltd. London
Cole, G.A., (1996) Management, Theory and Practice, Ashford colour press Ltd, Gospot
Davis and Newstrom, (1985) Human Behaviour at work
Denisow, Karin, (2001) Wissenspeicher, GPM
Fischer, Frank (2001) Wissenspeicher, GPM
Frei, F. Hugentobler, M., Duell, W., Alioth, a, Schurman, S. & Morf, M., (1995) Developing Employee Skills and Competence, Quorum Books
Humbel, John W. (1970) Management by objectives in action, McGraw-Hill
Huneryager and Heckamn - Handouts Dr. Geoff Wheeler 2002 (No reference found)
Katz, Daniel, Kahn, Robert L, (1987) The social Psychology of Organisations, 2nd ed, New York, Chichester Wiley
Koontz, Harold and Weihrich, Heinz, (1990) Essentials of Managemnt, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill Inc.
Luft, Joseph (1969). Human Interaction, Palo Alto, CA:National Press
Martin, Peter and Nicholls, John, (1987) Creating a committed workforce, Thetford Press Limited
Maslow, Abraham, (1954) Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Row
Milszus, Wolfgang, Rohweder, Annegret (2001) Wissenspeicher, GPM
Porter, L.W., Lawler,E.E. and Haackman, J.R, (1975) Behaviour in Organisations, McGraw-Hill
Steers, Richard M. and Porter, Lyman W. (1979) Motivation and Behavior, 2nd edition, McGraw Hill International Book Company
Tannenbaum and Schmidt, (1973) – Handouts Dr. Geoff Wheeler 2002 (No reference found)
Tayol, Henri (1988), General industrial management, rev. edition Irwin Gray, London:Pitman
Witte, E.H., (1989) Sozialpsychologie, Psychologie Verlag-Union
Appendix
Communication
Defining communication:
Communication is an essential part of day to day work within an organisation. Although communication applies to all phases of managing, it is particularly important in the function of leading.
According to Koontz and Weihrich (Koontz and Weihrich, 19 p365) “communication is the transfer of information from a sender to a receiver with the information being understood by the receiver.” This definition is the basis for the communication process model.
Figure 1 (modified combination of Figures from Koontz and Weihrich, 1990, p365 and Milszus and Rohwedder, 2001, p297)
The above figure is a modified combination of figures from Koontz and Weihrich, (1990) and Milszus and Rohwedder, (2001), to explain the process of encoding, decoding and the use of a medium.
The Sender
In the model the communication begins with the thoughts of the sender. These thoughts are encoded mostly through language, but although by written word or many other ways you can think of. Important is that the way of encoding is understood by the sender and the receiver.
Use of a channel to transmit the message
The sender and the receiver are linked over a channel. This channel can be the telephone, a memorandum, a computer or something else you can think of to transfer a message. The information, which is encoded by the sender, is transmitted via this channel to the receiver.
The Receiver
The message is now decoded by the receiver into thoughts again. Therefore the receiver has to be ready for the message. On the other hand both, the sender and the receiver, have to attach the same or at last similar meaning to the symbols they use for communication. So communication is not completed unless the message is understood. The meaning of the transmitted thought has to be the same in both minds, the sender and the receiver.
Unfortunately, communication is although affected by “noise”, that is anything that hinders communication. Communication is hindered by barriers and breakdowns in communication. Understanding these barriers and looking for solutions like the ones described further down helps to build up a clear communication culture.
Maslow´s need hierarchy
Abraham Maslow (Maslow, 1954) invented one of the most widely mentioned theories of motivation: The hierarchy of needs.
Maslow saw human needs in the form of a hierarchy, ascending from the lowest to the highest. He concluded that when one set of needs is satisfied, this kind of need ceases to be a motivator.
The basic human needs placed by Maslow in an ascending order of importance:
Figure 2 The hierarchy of need pyramid by Maslow
Physiological needs: These are the substantial needs to keep humans alive, such as food, water, sleep et cetera. Until these needs are satisfied there will be no be no other needs be able to motivate people
Security or safety needs: These are the needs to be free of physical danger. Today it might be the fear of losing property, food or shelter.
Affiliation or acceptance needs: Because of the fact that people are social beings, they need to be accepted by others.
Esteem needs: According to Maslow, once people begin to satisfy their need to belong, they tend to want to be held in esteem both by themselves and by others.
Need for self-actualisation: The highest need in Maslows hierarchy, and he regards it as such, is the need for self-actualisation. It is the desire to become what one is capable of becoming.
Only if the more basic needs are satisfied to a certain percentage we can go on to satisfy the next level of need.
In addition we are motivated by the desire to achieve or maintain the various conditions on which these basic satisfactions rest and by certain more intellectual desires. (Steer and Porter, 1979, p45)
This theory explains very good that the ´drive´ for doing certain things is to satisfy our needs. But motivation can although occur by the people or the group itself.
The Pygmalion Effect
The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy can be summarized in these key principles:
The group members form a certain expectation of people or events
The group members communicate those expectations with various cues and the other group members
The group members and other people respond to these cues by adjusting their behaviour to match them
The result is that the original expectation becomes true
This creates a circle of self-fulfilling prophecies.
(accel-team, 2002)
