weLEAD Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright
2005 ã weLEAD, Inc.
Leadership: Why is it Necessary?
– Part 2
By Cicily Goreham
Leadership, as
defined before, encompasses the concept of mutual respect. The junior employee must respect the senior
manager, or managers. This respect is
due to the senior because of his, or her, position, rank, and usually
experience. In return, the senior should
respect the subordinate. This respect
cycle will produce better results in efficiency and effectiveness of attaining
goals and furthering the position of the organization and the employees
involved. If both parties maintain
mutual respect, there will be less stressful situations in the workplace and
the motivation and enthusiasm of the team will be increased.
When this mutual
respect is not observed and practiced by both parties, the cohesion of the
“well oiled machine” falters. No matter
how high on the food chain someone is, it is imperative that they remember that
they need to respect the desires, rights, and statuses of their subordinates.
All too often, there are stories of managers stealing the “cushy trips” or
“wining and dining” the customers gained by the subordinates. There are times that rank has its privileges;
however, those in the leadership roles need to reward, or compensate, those who
perform the work and get their hands dirty getting the goals attained.
Mutual respect is
also present in the diversity issues that leaders must contend with. According to Montesino (2003), “studying workplace behavior linked to
cultural background makes sense to understand and manage effectively workforce
diversity” (n.p.).
Leaders must take
into consideration the values and cultures that their subordinates were raised
with…what traditions they observe. For
instance, Montesino (2003) points out that “people in
North America show more propensity to share power at work than people in
countries located in the Latin American region…people of Iberian ancestry are intrinsically
more authoritarian than people of Northern European ancestry” (n.p.). With the
influx of immigrants to the
If a lack of mutual
respect occurs, it is possible that a phenomenon, known as workplace mobbing,
may occur. Vandekerckhove & Commers
(2003) describe workplace mobbing as “repeated workplace aggression by
individuals to harm others with whom they work” (n.p.). They extended the definition to single out
downward mobbing, which is defined as “mobbing by a superior against a
subordinate…in the U.S., approximately 1 in 6 workers are victim of workplace
mobbing” (n.p.).
There are several consequences of mobbing for the victim and the
organization. Vandekerckhove
& Commers (2003) identify the consequences for
the victim to include loss of income, due to termination of employment (either
voluntary or involuntary), health hazards (anxiety, inability to concentrate,
sleeplessness, depression) and the consequences to the organization to include
lower productivity due to illness and lower motivation (n.p.). The biggest cited factor of workplace mobbing
is poor leadership (n.p.),
according to Vandekerckhove & Commers
(2003).
To
understand the concept of leadership and how it interrelates to other aspects
in the business world, it is important to know what types of personalities are
more suited for the different leadership styles. Archetypes, as defined by Tallman (2003), are
“power centers that are “hard-wired” into the psyche of every human being,
whether male or female, that largely control, or at least provide channels for,
our thought, speech and behavior” (n.p.). He identified Warrior, King, Magician, and
Lover as the four foundational masculine archetypes (n.p.).
Tallman
(2003) discusses the King archetype:
“the King
archetype, although seemingly archaic in a modern democracy, manifests itself
in any position of authority over others, whether as president, chief executive
officer, general, prime minister, or pope…He conducts his kingdom, realm, or
organization by the highest ethical standards…he exhibits greatness of mind and
heart, with elevation and dignity of soul. He treats friend and foe with the
same loft generosity. He is above lowness and meanness. He is concerned for the welfare of all those
below him. Talented subordinates do not
threaten him. He is at peace with all those he deals with. His main concern and his main question are
with service: how can he best serve his coworkers and all the lives of others
impacted by the organization for which he provides leadership?...He
always considers himself one hundred percent responsible for the success or
failure of the organization” (n.p.).
Furthermore,
Tallman (2003) states that the King “rules by respect and love rather than
force” (n.p.).
The
King archetype is most closely related to the Transforming leadership style described
by Weiss (2003). The Transforming leader
bases his own effectiveness on his relationships with his subordinates. The transforming leader style is focused on
the charisma, energy, and excitement the leader brings to the relationships (p.
123).
Tallman’s
(2003) second archetype is the Warrior. The Warrior is described as:
“can
be seen in the soldier, policeman, martial arts master, or football hero…is a
model of courage, discipline and self-control.
He is not afraid to take risks…his self-discipline and self-control keep him going through every difficulty. He has endurance and does not tire easy…he
notices every detail...is assertive and yet adaptable…he tries to win by
creating win-win situations or, at least, to save the face of his opponent” (n.p.).
In this respect,
the Warrior is similar to the Bureaucratic leadership style described by Weiss
(2003) “the bureaucratic administrator acts on the rational principles embodied
in an ideal organizational bureaucracy” (p. 122). Furthermore, the bureaucratic leading style
is rule-based and tries to base decisions only on objective, rational criteria
(p. 122).
The
Magician is the third archetype. Tallman
(2003) describes it as:
“The Magician
archetype is found in the shaman, medicine man, priest, therapist, or ‘techie’
wizard…someone who entertains people with various tricks…next to the chief or
ruler of the tribe in terms of power. In
fact, he was often more powerful than the King, since he had the King’s ear,
the King trusted his wisdom and went to him for advice…he considers his life
work not as a ‘job’ but as a vocation or ‘calling’. He practices the Tao of leadership. He seems to have some kind of secret
knowledge or wisdom about the way things actually work, which is much deeper
and more powerful than the average person’s surface impression of things” (n.p.).
Tallman (2003) goes
further to say that the Magician is instinctive and has generally “worked his
way up through the organization and knows every aspect of it intimately” (n.p.). His dark
shadow is the manipulator leader, who Tallman (2003) states is “consumed by
lust for psychological or spiritual power over others” (n.p.). The Manipulator style described by Weiss
(2003) parallels the definition of the Magician’s dark shadow. The Manipulator tends not to care how the job
gets done, as long as it gets done. This
leadership style is egotistically motivated (p. 121).
The
Lover is the fourth and final archetype.
Tallman (2003) describes the Lover as:
“passionate
about everything, and ecstatic about what the organization can do for
others. He is enthusiastic and generous
with praise, gratitude and money. There
is a sense of aliveness and vividness about him. He is connected to life, people, himself and
to the natural and spiritual realms. He
cares not just for people but also for nature, other creatures and the whole
planet and how his organization might impact it…seeks emotional oneness with
each person in the organization…never violates anyone’s physical, emotional,
psychological or spiritual space” (n.p.).
The Lover is a part
of the Transforming Leadership style, according to Weiss’s (2003)
description. The transformer is involved
in the growth and self-actualization of others and views them according to
their potential. He also identifies and
elevates others’ values and motives (p. 123).
Weymes (2003) cited “a
leader’s mood and accompanying behaviour is a potent
driver of business success” (n.p.). This statement justifies the different
studies that have been conducted to determine the different aspects of
leadership styles and behaviors; what works and what does not. With that said, let’s look at some of the
more popular studies of leadership behaviors.
Robbins (2003) specifically noted four
studies of leadership behaviors:
“These researchers
sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behavior. Beginning with over a thousand dimensions,
they eventually narrowed the list to two categories that substantially accounted
for most of the leadership behavior described by employees…
“Initiating
structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define and
structure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal
attainment…attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals.
“Consideration is
described as the extent to which a person is likely to have job relationships
that are characterized by mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and
regard for their feelings…A leader high in consideration could be described as
one who helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable,
and treats all employees as equals” (p. 316).
The
“Leaders who were
employee-oriented were described as emphasizing interpersonal relations; they
took a personal interest in the needs of their employees and accepted
individual differences among members.
The production-oriented leaders, in contrast, tended to emphasize the
technical or task aspects of the job-their main concern was in accomplishing
their group’s tasks, and the group members were a means to that end” (p. 317).
Another study was
the Managerial Grid. According to
Robbins (2003), Blake and Mouton based the two-dimensional leadership style on
the “styles of ‘concern for people’ and ‘concern for production,’ which
essentially represent the Ohio State dimension of consideration and initiating
structure or the Michigan dimensions of employee-oriented and
production-oriented” (p. 317).
When relating the
The final
leadership study discussed by Robbins (2003), the Scandinavian Study, has the
basic premise “that in a changing world, effective leaders would exhibit
development-oriented behavior. These are leaders who value
experimentation, seek new ideas, and generate and implement change” (p. 318). The possibility of a third dimension to the
leadership behavior discussion is intriguing, but the studies are not final and
the world will have to wait to see what they conclude.
Northrop Grumman
Corporation (2003) distributed a brochure to all employees that provides a
summation of the principle of leadership and what the different aspects of it
are. It read,
“We provide
LEADERSHIP as a company and as individuals…Northrop Grumman’s leadership is
founded on talented employees effectively applying advanced technology,
innovative manufacturing and sound business management. We add more value at lower cost with faster
response. We each lead through our
competence, creativity and teamwork.
“We act with
INTEGRITY in all we do…We are each personally accountable for the highest
standards of behavior, including honesty and fairness in all aspects of our
work. We fulfill our commitments as
responsible citizens and employees. We
will consistently treat customers and company resources with the respect they
deserve.
“We value Northrop
Grumman PEOPLE…We treat one another with respect and take pride in the
significant contributions that come from the diversity of individuals and
ideas. Our continued success requires us
to provide the education and development needed to help our people grow. We are committed to
openness and trust in all relationships” (n.p.).
Leadership is a
huge subject with a plethora of definitions and applications. There are so many ways that a person can
exhibit leadership qualities in the workplace.
Whether a person is a mentor, trainer, superior or peers, he has the
ability to affect the organizational success and vision. Every person has a role in the leadership
cycle. The different personality traits
and behaviors exhibited by others allows a more clear definition as to what
type of leader they are, or will become.
Leadership is a necessity in the workplace. Without it, there would be very little
forward movement. Leaders take the point
and steer the organization towards the vision inspired by the organization and
those associated with it.
References:
Bisoux,
T. (2002, September/October). The mind of a leader.
BizEd. Retrieved
Clark, D. (1997). Leadership-character
and traits. Retrieved
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadchr.html.
Dessler, G. (2004).
Management:
principles and practices for tomorrow’s leaders (3rd
ed.).
Montesino, M. (2003, Summer). Leadership/followership similarities between people
in a
developed and a developing
country: The case of Dominicans in NYC and Dominicans on the island. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10. Retrieved
Moore, K. (2003, December). Changing corporate culture—one person at a time. Online
Newsletter. Retrieved
Northrop Grumman
Corporation. (2003). Vision values behaviors.
Brochure distributed
to employees.
PewPartnership. (2002).
Collaborative leadership.
Retrieved
http://www.pew-partnership.org/collableadership/collableadership.html.
Robbins, S.P. (2003). Organizational behavior (10th ed.).
Hall.
Shapiro, S. (1999). Listening for
success.
Tallman, B. (2003, Fall).
The organization leader as king, warrior, magician and lover:
How Jungian
archetypes affect the way men lead organizations. Organizational
Development Journal, 21. Retrieved
13, 2004 from http://www.sba.gov/managing/leadership/traits.html.
Vandekerckhove, W. & Commers, M.S.R. (2003, June). Downward workplace mobbing:
A sign of the
times? Journal of Business Ethics. Retrieved
Weiss, J.W. (2003). Business ethics (3rd ed.).
Weymes, E. (2003, May).
Relationships not leadership sustain successful organizations.
Journal of Change Management, 3. Retrieved
Whetton,
D.A. & Cameron, K.S. (2002). Developing management skills (5th ed.). Upper
Comments
to: editor@leadingtoday.org
BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE
About
the author:
Cicily Goreham was a member of the Untied
States Air Force until 2000. Since them she has worked for