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.
Leadership and power are inextricably entwined, both affecting human behaviour in organisations. Being abstract, power is an issue difficult to conceptualise. Power is a largely controversial topic, which is both difficult to define and measure with precision. It can be said that power concerns the capacity of individuals to influence their will over others, to overcome resistance on the part of others and to produce results consistent with their interests and objectives. This definition arrives from an individual perspective, but power can be exerted not only by individuals, but by groups, sections, departments, organisations and even nations. The reality of the situation is that the amount of power an individual can exert upon subordinates is directly related to the volume and belief of the subjects themselves. Social influence is this ability manifest, as social influence can be viewed as the capacity of a group to influence an individual.
Bowditch, J.L. and Buono, A.F., provide enlightening definitions on this subject. “Power is the ability to influence various outcomes. If this is formally sanctioned by an organisation (contractual) or informally supported by individuals or groups (consensual), it is described as legitimate power. Authority refers to situations where a person (or group) has been formally granted a leadership position…leadership is often manifest in two possible forms, those of: Appointed Leadership and Emergent Leadership.”(Bowditch & Buono, 1994).
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.
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.
The environment is another element that has to be considered, as leader, subordinates and the task in question does 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.
______________________
Applied Examples
Richard Branson’s rise is a paradigm of the changing face of Britain over the last twenty years, the student magazine editor who sowed the seeds of his fortune in an era of cultural rebellion and reaped the fruits in an age of pragmatic commerce. He has flourished in the renaissance of the entrepreneur. Virgin has become one of the giants of the British entertainment business, embracing recording, retailing, studios, clubs, films, video, cable and satellite television, book publishing, an airline and latterly, a health care foundation. It has made Richard Branson one of the ten wealthiest men in Britain, with a personal fortune estimated at £180m. Entrepreneurs do not normally make public figures and it is a mark of Branson’s singularity that he has become as well known for his personal exploits as for his business acumen.
To understand Branson’s motivation and drive, which lead him to such financially dizzying heights, one needs to understand his history first. Student was the magazine that was to be his first major project, at age sixteen. He embarked on this along with another pal at the time, Jonathan Holland-Gems. More than just a magazine about parochial school issues, Student would be a magazine about all manner of issues of interest to students and sixth formers. Fired with enthusiasm, Branson proceeded to borrow Who’s Who from the school library and began writing to as many people as possible, asking for an interview, an article, money, whatever. Mr. Drayson, the headmaster, noted in an internal memorandum at the time that Branson was employing any and almost every boy in the houseroom, copying letters and licking stamps. His skill for inveigling others into his projects by sheer enthusiasm alone was already being recognised.
In search of a designer for the magazine, Branson, with characteristic directness, broached the offices of Town magazine, then the epitome of stylish publishing and asked the art editor, Ian Howes, if he wanted another job. Howes put him on to another colleague, Bob Morley, who became Student’s honorary art editor. Howes would also contribute photographs. For printing, Branson approached the old-established firm of Waterlows. Sixty thousand copies of the first Student were printed, distributed through a network of contacts in colleges and universities throughout the country. Branson even persuaded W.H. Smith to handle a small amount. The rest were sold on the streets by him, Holland-Gems and the small band of people who began to turn up at the door in Connaught Square establishing a ritual which greeted the publication of each new edition of Student. Nik Powell, Branson’s old friend from Shamley Green had arrived in a hiatus between school and university, to lend a hand looking after the magazine’s accounts. Other friends from Stowe and Ampleforth drifted in and some from nobody knew quite where, materialising with some journalistic or design skill to offer, or simply in search of the ready cash from selling the magazine. The offices of Student became half creative hothouse, half resting place for public-school drop-outs. The Connaught Square basement grew ever more cramped, fetid and dirty; Mrs. Holland-Gem who lived upstairs from this operation had cupboards increasingly empitied, and patience made even thinner.
In an entirely different culture, Kim Woo-Choong, the Chairman of Daewoo, Korea, offers up a different kind of example of successful leadership. Daewoo is Korea’s fourth largest business group, but while many companies are striving for decentralisation and are giving more responsibility to the lower level manager, Kim is gravitating towards the opposite, taking control back into his own hands. Whether this method is successful or not will largely depend on his ability or lack of it, in reversing the fortunes of Daewoo.
Daewoo was founded by Kim Woo-Choong in 1967 and by 1988 it would stand to include some twenty-eight companies involved in trade of one kind or another. In fact, these twenty-eight companies would include branches involved in trade, financial services, construction and manufacturing virtually everything conceivable, machine guns to ships and fax machines. As business eventually grew, Kim, like many other entrepreneurs-turned-corporate-leaders, gradually gave up the control of many of Daewoo’s companies and spent the majority of his time travelling world-wide, searching for new markets for the business.
However, trouble began to brew for this chaebol – a term used to relate to Korea’s four big business conglomerates. In the late 1980s under Korean President Roh Tae-Woo, Roh decided to end the governments support for the four big groups and give smaller companies a chance of competing on a more level playing-field. Previous administrations, namely the previous Korean President Chun Doo Hwan, had much-sensationalised close links with the four chaebol and was even the subject of televised hearings on the subject. Changes in the government’s support were not Kim’s only problem, the rapid increase in democracy in South Korea coupled with several wildcat strikes by some workers served to end years of cheap and docile labour. The debt that the four chaebol built up while amassing their market share has now become a burden and from a Western perspective, the chaebol were overdiversified and badly managed.
Kim led what was to be called a revolution, in 1990 at Daewoo. In early January of 1990, five-thousand of Daewoo’s top managers travelled to Seoul for their yearly meeting with the chairman. However, the usual spirit of self-congratulation was missing, many of them had already received letters from Kim stating that they possessed poor performance and a too easy-going manner. Under this mounting pressure from Kim, Daewoo’s bureaucracies began to change. At the Daewoo subsidiary, Seoul Hilton International, 200 middle managers lost their jobs and at the Daewoo trading company, a third of all middle managers had to go. When Daewoo shipbuilding hit crisis in 1988, Kim actually began the changes himself. He saved £8m a year by simply ending the company policy of free haircuts for all employees. Thousands of positions were slashed as his reputation grew and slowly the fortunes of Daewoo shipbuilding were turned around.
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.
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.
Four 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.
