Paradoxically to this positive outlook, leadership can be viewed as an elitist, hierarchical and dictatorial – even crushing – as with tyrannical leaders as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin. The term leadership often implies the imperialist concept of rising above. However, leadership is necessary to bind groups and to be a voice. It can be said that corporate management is generally more passive and unemotionally attached than dispassionate leaders. Managers often see themselves as conservors of resources and regulators of operating procedures. Differences between management and leadership are highlighted by Watson and the 7 - S framework WHAT IS THIS???, GIVE A CLUE) .
It can be said that managers have harsher interpersonal goals than individually-focused leaders and are more likely to adopt softer priorities. This would not apply however, to the stereotypical view of hard leaders as harsh imperialists.
Leadership operates on many levels, not necessarily within the hierarchical structure of an organisation. Leadership can be thought of as a quality not necessarily formally outlined by a particular organisation; it can often come around spontaneously. Attempted leadership is when an individual in a group attempts to exert influence over other members in the group. Successful leadership is when the influence brings about the behaviour intended. Effective leadership is when successful leadership results in functional behaviour and achievement of goals. Leadership authority can be exercised through an attribute of stated position in a hierarchy. People can be appointed managers without being leaders in the hearts of subordinates.
There are a number of approaches on leadership with a vast amount of writing on each, but on this subject it still proves very difficult to give one agreed definition, or best practices on leadership. Dahl saw to even attempt to do this as a bottomless swamp (Handy,1993).
There are positive and negative implications in this. The elitism of Adolf Hitler and the officer class in The WW2 German army exemplifies the negative aspect, while leaders such as Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela can highlight where positive benefits can be gained. Leadership has a strong link with politics. Politics involves the resolving of situations where differing interests cause problems.
Approaches to the issue of leadership normally fall under one of three headings: trait theories, style theories and contingency theories. Each aspect carries some important issues, but consideration to one ‘best practice’ or an amalgam of all three will be given later.
Trait theories centre on the belief that the individual is more important than the situation, identifying the personality characteristics of successful leaders is of paramount importance. Traits such as above average intelligence and high levels of self assurance were identified as being synonymous with successful leaders. Most studies eluding to this point were committed in the 1950’s or earlier, so suggest notions of imperialism or elitism. Possession of all of these traits is an unreasonable ideal. The fading of the prominence of trait theories can be attributed to an increase in democratic culture stating that anyone has the potential to be a successful leader if they display the appropriate attributes.
There are three main leadership styles that could be implemented. The main differences between them reside with the focus of power. An autocratic system involves the manager setting the objectives and insisting on obedience. Poor cohesion and poor worker motivation often result. Democratic type leaders encourage participation in decision making, and can result in increased motivation and worker efficiency. A Laissez-faire style allows subordinates to carry out activities freely, but can bring about unstructured and confounding worker efforts.
Fiedler (1976), in attempting to put forward a theory to explain the most effective leadership style argued that it is easier to change someone’s role or power, or to modify the job he has to do, than to change his leadership style” (Hall, et al.1994).
Fiedler is, therefore, suggesting that an individual’s leadership style is more a function of a specific personality trait, therefore an autocrat will always remain so; unable to adapt for the situation in question. More than 800 individual studies were committed during this research, so despite no methodology could be found for possible criticism of his findings, Fiedler’s perspective has to be strongly considered by the prospective manager or scholar. Participate styles such as democratic or laissez-faire can be argued to benefit both employer and employee through satisfying subordinate urges for responsibility, self-actualisation and esteem. Employing appropriate management style alone is not enough to ensure overall effectiveness, thus the advent of contingency theories.
Contingency theories focus on a broader spectrum of variables involved in a leadership situation than the oversimplified situational approach. No one style of leadership is appropriate to all situations. Fiedler, as previously mentioned was a particularly prominent theorist, stating that the favourability of the leadership situation, relationship between the leader and the group and the structure of the task are the determinants to be used when choosing appropriate leadership characteristics. He largely concentrated on the relationship between leadership and organisational performance, and devised the ‘least preferred co-worker scale’ (LPC). This scale demonstrates a rating of which subordinate a leader would work least well with. However, interpretations of the LPC scale have proved inconsistent, so although it provides a useful tool to the potential leader or manager, reactions must be guarded.
Vroom and Yetton provide an alternative contingency model. Their analysis is based on three aspects, decision quality, decision acceptance and the time constraints placed on the decision making process. ‘Decision rules’ were then outlined to help the manager adopt the most appropriate leadership style. Another alternative contingency model is that of the path-goal theory, championed by theorists such as House, House and Dessler. The model is based on the understanding that an individual’s motivation is governed by the expectations of increased reward, in return for increased effort and in the confidence of success if effort is boosted. This model relies heavily on sociological perspectives of motivational expectancy theory. All contingency approaches suffer if the manager appears to have an inconsistent leadership style.
The environment is another element that has to be considered, as leader, subordinates and the task in question do not operate in a vacuum, but as a part of a wider external field. Nearly all organisational tasks are not isolated, they impact upon other areas, internally and externally of the organisation. Pressures can come from areas such as national or international, social, economic or political. An effective leader has to try to shape the environment and be comfortable with being shaped by it.
______________________
Conclusion
Leadership is specifically an aspect of behavioural science, therefore it represents a less tangible and more tacit scientific area than that of a physical science. This results in it being far harder to reach rigid conclusions. Some recommendations can be drawn from all the above text, to increase the quality of leadership and use of power, thus reducing conflict in the negative sense. Acceptance of criticism is important, in order to stop members from soft pedalling their disagreements.
Communication patterns within a group can determine effectiveness. However, when a status discrepancy exists, the higher status members speak more and have more influence, while those of lower status speak less and are likely to defer to superiors’(adapted from: Hurwitz, Zander and Hymovitch, 1953). This shows how adopting a flatter, hierarchical structure can promote freer contributions, and group effectiveness.
Overall, I feel lean towards the political science view, as opposed to more Weberian principles of settling power struggles through the utilisation of rational - legal power. I agree with the human relations movement, spearheaded in the 1950's, with the mode of resolution holding president over prevention of conflict. The Herbert Simon & James Marsh view that became prevalent in the late 1950s; cognitive limits on rationality - that man is so limited intellectually that he will merely seize on the first viable alternative and stuck to it are abhorrent to a human - relationist such as myself. It makes all kinds of presumptions and generalisations about every individual. This is not the way to promote a healthy working environment, and conflict would surely arise.
The influence of leadership surely has to be succumbed to in some degree to ensure a functional society exists on all levels. Leadership decisions have a pervasive influence over all individuals, including those from other organisations and the public domain. But just how much an individual submits to this force is an area of debate that has been evident since time began and will no doubt continue to rage indefinitely. Therefore, I feel it best to make presumptions based on an individual situation's merits.
Two thousand words proves very limiting if an attempt is to be made to provide a comprehensive guide to successful leadership. It is suffice to say that leadership cannot be considered alone, when attempting to bring about organisational success. Issues such as the environment in which is operated in, power, conflict and politics are all examples of the many factors that are intertwined with leadership. A variety of approaches and styles have to be understood, to aid the effective communication of ideas across the varied business landscape.
Simply leaning to popular modes of human relations thinking, or those areas thought of as softer styles, could prove disastrous. In instances such as the public sector, or generally routine work, employment of a classical viewpoint with a formal hierarchy can be beneficial through the inherent accountability and structure. Fiedler reinforces this view, stating that it sometimes helps to be distant and task-oriented. Fordism in 1913 was a success when based on these principles. The classical perspective can be restrictive in that it offers very limited input from subordinates and in creative areas such as computer aided design or advertising this can prove detrimental to the organisation’s aims.
The advent of flatter organisational structures and improved democracy have placed a greater importance on leadership and human relations, showing a move away from the previous classical schools of thought. Over reliance on systems thinking will result in an inability to communicate the practicalities of work to subordinates. The need to coalesce multi-dimensional leadership theories and practise is of great importance. Having a vision of inter-relationships instead of isolated processes supports the modern view.
The linear thinking that prevails in organisations results in symptomatic fixes instead of addressing the underlying causes. The new style of learning organisations will not evolve fully from the old style hierarchies if leadership capabilities they demand are further developed. A supportive style relates strongly to improved subordinate satisfaction, lower staff turnover, conflict, etc. When all the present theory is considered, Handy’s best fit approach appears the most effective approach, as this takes into account the preferred style of both leader and subordinate, the task elements and the environment.
The original question of whether adopting a participative, contingency based approach is the only way to provide successful leadership in a modern ever changing working environment provided the impetus for this essay. It is clear that in the majority of cases this would apply, but not all.
Steven Gledhill 20 November 2001.
