weLEAD Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright
2004 ă weLEAD, Inc.
Effective Leadership in the 21st
Century – Part 1
By Michelle Holverson
Because effective
leadership is at the core of successful businesses, the understanding of what
makes a successful leader is an issue that has been debated for decades.
Leadership has become even more important due to the noticeable decline of
enduring successful leaders in the business world today. As John P. Kotter (1999) states in his book John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do:
After conducting fourteen formal studies
and more than a thousand interviews, directly observing dozens of executives in
action, and compiling innumerable surveys, I am completely convinced that most
organizations today lack the leadership they need. And the shortfall is often
large. I'm not talking about a deficit of 10% but of 200% and 400%, or more in
positions up and down the hierarchy. (p. 1)
In order to help my classmates and myself
better understand how to become competent business leaders, an investigation
into what makes an effective leader today and in the future is critical.
Understanding leadership means recognizing the various definitions of
leadership, examining the relationship between leadership and management, and
applying the significance of past leadership theories to today’s business
world. Future leaders must recognize how leadership has changed, including
essential capabilities of leaders and the forces that continue to shape
leadership. Because leadership is an essential element of a successful
organization it is imperative to understand what makes a successful business
leader.
There are countless types of leaders:
spiritual, political, community, the list goes on; obviously the focus here is
on business leadership. However, because there are so many types of leadership,
characterizing the term in one simple definition becomes unrealistic. The
following definitions help give a general overview of the wide-range of
definitions that apply to the meaning of leadership. For example, in Stephen
Robbins' Organizational Behavior (2003) leadership is defined as,
“coping with change. Leaders establish direction by developing a vision of the
future; then they align people by communicating this vision and inspiring them
to overcome hurdles” (p. 313). While Mark Ernsberger
states in his speech, “Leadership: It is not for the Faint of Heart” that “Real
leadership ... involves accomplishing group objectives. It involves taking a
diverse group of people, bringing them together, and finding a common thread
that enables them to work together to achieve a common goal” (2000, n.p.). Tony Morden (1997) quotes
E.C. Murphy when he defines leaders as, “people to whom others turn when
missions need to be upheld, breakthroughs made, and performance goals reached”
(n.p.). More
recently, John P. Kotter defines leadership, “as the
development of vision and strategies, the alignment of relevant people behind
those strategies, and the empowerment of individuals to make the vision happen,
despite obstacles” (1999, p. 10). If there is only one thing that we can learn
from these definitions it is that there are many components of leadership; no
one definition is more correct than another. Instead, each definition presents
relevant elements of leadership and helps to paint a portrait of what effective
leadership involves.
As a class of future managers, a paper on
leadership would mean little without putting the two together. The operational
functions of managers are clearly different than that of leaders. As Henry Mint
berg (1998) states in “The Managers Job: Folklore and Fact”:
Managerial work
involves interpersonal roles, informational roles and decisional roles. These
roles require a number of skills: developing peer relationships, carrying out
negotiations, motivating subordinates, resolving conflicts, establishing
information networks and disseminating information, making decisions with
little or ambiguous information, and allocating resources. (p. 1-2)
In contrast “Leaders adopt a personal and
active attitude toward goals. The influence a leader exerts in altering moods,
evoking images and expectations, and in establishing specific desires and
objectives determines the direction a business takes” (Zalezink,
1998, p. 66). In addition to these functional differences it has also been
noted that “what it takes to develop managers may inhibit developing leaders” (Zalezink, 1998, p. 64). Managers are constantly sought to
follow guidelines, stay within budget, and conform to a hierarchal
organizational structure. The pressures managers are constantly under leave
little room for dynamic leadership. However, one cannot deny the fact that
despite the differences between management and leadership roles the two are
fundamentally linked. Leadership and management positions are both socially
driven occupations and both must work together productively for successful
business. John P. Kotter (1998) goes on to say that
“leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of
action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in today's business environment” (p.
38). As future managers we must prepare ourselves to take on leadership
roles, as leadership is a fundamental element of management.
To understand how to effectively lead in the
future we must also understand leadership theories of the past and apply their
significance in leadership today. Fielder's Contingency Theory is a chief
leadership theory that is still cited today. The theory works to determine
which type of leadership style generates the highest-producing and most
efficient work group dependent on how a leader describes his/her least
preferred coworker. As Dessler (2004) explains,
“[Fielder] measured leadership style with his Least Preferred Co-worker LPC
scale. Leaders who describe their least preferred coworker favorably are ‘high
LPC’ and are considered more people-oriented. ‘Low-LPCs’
describe least preferred coworkers unfavorably; they’re less people-oriented
and more task-oriented” (p. 267). Applied today, Fielder's theory creates
problems; the theory deems leaders inherently either task- or
relations-oriented despite the fact that specific situations call for different
types of leadership. As per Jeffery A. Mello (2003):
The model implied
that as one or more of the three contingency variables of leader/member
relations, task structure, or leader position power changed, the possible
corresponding mandate that task- or relations-oriented leadership be
substituted for the other meant that the leader would have to be replaced. (n.p.).
The ever-changing environment that is the
business world today clearly calls for leaders that are able to lead in various
situations and with diverse individuals. Leaders cannot be limited to one type
of leadership style; they must be able to adapt their styles to the setting of
their work environment. The next leadership theory, the Hersey-Blanchard
Situational Leadership Model, clearly addresses this concept.
Developed by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard, “[This] situational leadership
model aims to provide a practical way for leaders to decide how to adapt his or
her style to the task” (Dessler, 2004, p. 274). The model proposes
that there are four leadership methods: delegating, participating, selling and
telling; each method is appropriate in specific situations. The model goes on
to provide a diagram dependent on subordinates' willingness and capability to
complete a task to help leaders identify which leadership method is most
appropriate. This theory is significant in that it:
is a contingency
theory that focuses on the followers. Successful leadership is achieved by
selecting the right leadership style, which Hersey
and Blanchard argue is contingent on the level of the followers' readiness. The
emphasis on the followers in leadership effectiveness reflects the reality that
it is the followers who accept or reject the leader. Regardless of what the
leader does, effectiveness depends on the actions of his or her followers.
(Robbins, 2003, p. 323)
This model’s emphasis on ‘the followers’
makes it very applicable to effective leadership today where business leaders
are learning the importance of meeting their subordinate's needs. Robbins goes
on to say that this model, “has been incorporated into leadership training
programs at over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies; and over one million
managers a year from a wide variety of organizations are being taught its basic
elements” (2003, p. 323).
The next theory, The Leader-Participation
Model created by Victor Vroom, Arthur Jago, and Philip
Yetton, differentiates the levels of leadership
participation needed in different circumstances. As per Dessler
(2004):
[Vroom, Jago, and Yetton] argue that
being participative is not an either/or decision, since there are different
degrees to participation. They developed a model that enables leaders to
analyze a situation and decide how much participation is called for. Their
technique consists of three components: A set of management decision styles; a
set of diagnostic questions; and a decision tree for identifying how much
participation the situation calls for. (p. 272)
While this model
has been criticized as being too complex to be used consistently, it presents
an important concept; leaders must monitor their level of participation in
subordinate tasks. Leaders today are encouraging self-direction among their
employees; micro-managing has become a concept of the past. Leading is about
communicating with followers not barking commands. This model assists leaders
in deciding when to take charge and when to sit back and hand over more power
to subordinates. Overall, the theory helps to create a better relationship
between leader and follower which is an essential concept for effective
leadership. As Richard Beckhard goes on to say,
A first principle
of leadership is that it is a relationship between a leader and followers.
Without followers there is no one to lead. A second principle is that effective
leaders both are aware of and consciously manage the dynamics of this
relationship. (1996, p. 125)
The Leader Member Exchange Theory also
discusses the concept of using various leadership styles; however through a
significantly different approach. Dessler states:
The Leader Member
Exchange theory says that leaders may use different styles with different
members of the same work group. In this theory, leaders also adapt their styles
to the situation, but it is the quality of the relationship between the leader
and the subordinate that determines what the situation is. (2004, p. 271).
This theory also highlights the
relationship between leader and follower and asserts that all leaders separate
subordinates into an ‘in group’ and an ‘out group’ usually based on immaterial
information. The significance of this division is that, “members of the
in-group tend to perform better than do those in the out-group” (Dessler, 2004, p. 272). When applying this theory to
leadership today the focus turns towards diversity. This theory holds that
subordinates who form a leaders ‘in-group’ usually do so because of “perceived
leader-member similarities - gender, age or attitudes” (Dessler,
2004, p. 271). In a global business world leaders cannot afford, subconsciously
or not, to make such divisions within their organization. Leaders must not only
embrace diversity and learn to work with individuals who are physically
different from themselves, but also be able to understand and appreciate the
different ideas and views these individuals hold. Tolerating diversity will not
be enough; leaders must welcome it.
The last theory to be evaluated is the
Path-Goal Leadership Theory. The theory is based on, according to Robbins
(2003), “the belief that effective leaders clarify the path to help their
followers get from where they are to the achievement of their work goals and to
make the journey along the path easier by reducing roadblocks” (p. 325).
Developed by Robert J. House, the Path-goal Leadership Theory proposes that it
is a leader’s responsibility to create and maintain a work environment where
subordinates are able and motivated to achieve work-related goals. Dessler goes on to say that:
stripped to its essentials,
path-goal theory says this: If the job is ambiguous, structure it. If it is
demoralizing or the employees lack confidence, be supportive and considerate. And
always make it clear how an effort on the job will lead to rewards. (2004, p.
269)
Again, this leadership theory assists
leaders in choosing the correct method of leadership for specific situations by
including four leadership methods from which to choose: directive, supportive,
participative, and achievement-oriented leadership. The Path-goal Leadership
Theory is very relevant to business leadership today. The theory not only
recognizes the need for various leadership techniques, but also acknowledges
the new role of the leader. No longer are leaders inaccessible, authoritarian
directors of the past; Leaders today must realize that being an effective
leader is about connecting, supporting and inspiring the people they lead.
While researchers have spent years
discussing traits and behavior theories, it has become clear that effective
leadership is created through a combination of the two. As Dessler
states, “In thinking about what it is about the leader that determines his or
her effectiveness, experts usually don't focus just on leadership traits; they
talk of both traits and skills” (2004, p. 256). While it was once assumed that
successful leaders possessed certain character traits, it has become evident
that leadership capabilities can be found in a broad spectrum of people. Noel
M. Tichy with E. Cohen (1997) clearly address this notion:
I have a very
simple thesis: All people have untapped leadership potential, just as all people have untapped athletic potential.
There are clear differences due to nature and nurture, that is, genes and
development, as to how much untapped potential there may be. But no matter what
level of athletic or leadership performance a person currently exhibits, he or
she can make quantum improvements. Not everyone can be the CEO of a
multibillion-dollar corporation, just as not everyone can be an Olympian or win
at Wimbledon, but with coaching and
practice we can all be a lot better than we are. The important teaching point
is: Leadership is there in you. (p. 6)
In the next section I will discuss the
fundamental concepts and capabilities that are essential for any future
business leader.
Part 2 of this article will be published in
the November 2004 issue of weLEAD Online Magazine.
References:
Abbasi S. M. and Holloman, K. W. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: the
challenge of the 90’s. ARMA Records Management Quarterly,
25, 3, 24. Retrieved
Baradacco
J. L. (1998). The discipline of building character. In Harvard business review on
leadership (pp. 89-114).
Beckhard,
R. (1996). Future leaders. In F. Hesselbein,
M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leaders of the future (pp. 125-129).
Brown, A.
(2001). Beyond economics: business as a social institution. Strategy &
Leadership, 29, 3, 37-38. Retrieved
Dessler,
G. (2004). Management.
Ernsberger, M. (2000). Leadership: It is not for the faint
of heart. Vital Speeches of the day, 66, 16, 509-512. Retrieved
Heifetz, R. A. and Laurie, D. L. (1998). The work of
leadership. In Harvard business review on
leadership (pp. 171-198).
Honold,
L. (1997). A review of literature on employee empowerment.
Empowerment in Organizations, 5, 4, 202.
Retrieved
Howard, R.
(1992). Values make the company: an interview with Robert Haas. Harvard
business review leaders on leadership (pp.33-53).
Jones Jr.,
H.B. (1995). The ethical leader: An ascetic construct. Journal of business
ethics, 14, 10, 867. Retrieved
Kotter,
J.P. (1999) John P. Kotter on what leaders really
do.
Kotter. J.P. (1998).
What leaders really do. In Harvard
business review on leadership (pp.37-60).
Leider,
R. J. (1996). The ultimate leadership task. In F, Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith and R. Beckhard
(Ed.), The leader of the future (pp.
189-198).
Mello, J.
A. (2003). Profiles in leadership: Enhancing learning through model and theory
building. Journal of Management Education, 27, 3, 344.
Retrieved
Mintzberg,
H. (1998). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. In Harvard
business review on leadership (pp. 1-36).
Morden, T. (1997). Leadership as
competence. Management Decision, 35, 7, 519.
Retrieved January 17, 2004 from ProQuest database.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough,
C. (2001). Emotional Intelligence and Effective Leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 22, 1,
5. Retrieved
Pulley, M. L. and Sessa, V.
Robbins, S.
P. (2003). Organizational behavior.
Sankar,
Y. (2003). Character not charisma is the critical measures of leadership
excellence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 9, 4, 45. Retrieved
Sutari,
V. (2002) Global leader development: An emerging research agenda. Career Development International, 7, 4, 218.
Retrieved
Tichy, N. M. & Cohen, E. (1997). The leadership
engine.
Ulrich, D.
(1996) Credibility X Capability. In F. Hesselbein, M.
Goldsmith & R. Beckhard (Eds.), The leaders of the future (pp. 209-219).
Zalezink,
A. (1998) Managers and leaders; are they different? In Harvard
Business review on leadership (pp. 61-88).
Comments
to: editor@leadingtoday.org
BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE
About
the author:
Michelle Holverson (m_holverson@yahoo.com) is currently a
student of