The nature of leadership

Nature of Leadership

What are the arguments for and against making a distinction between leaders and managers? What is your definition of leadership?

Defining leadership is a challenging enterprise and there remains a lack of a universally agreed upon definition in the organizational behavior literature (Yukl, 2005). Organizational leaders and managers frequently share some common types of general responsibilities that make an absolute distinction between the two difficult in some settings, but there are some fundamental differences involved as well that can be used to differentiate their overall roles. Certainly, in some cases, leaders will perform these types of managerial tasks and in others, managers will perform some of the tasks of the leader and in yet other settings, the leader and manager may be the same individual, particularly in small enterprises. This point is made by Yukl who notes that, "There is a continuing controversy about the difference between leadership and management. It is obvious that a person can be a leader without being a manager and a person can be a manager without leading. . . . Nobody has proposed that managing and leading are equivalent, but the degree of overlap is a point of sharp disagreement" (2005, p. 5). The degree of overlap between leaders and managers is also made evident by Yukl's (2005) observations that:

A. "Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people to guide, structure and facilitate activities and relationships in a group or organization" (p. 3).

B. "Management and leadership both involve deciding what needs to be done, creating networks of relationships to do it, and trying to ensure that it happens" (p. 6).

It is reasonable to suggest that many leaders and managers perform these types of activities on a regular basis, but beyond these common definitions, Yukl (2005) emphasizes that there is little other common ground in the scholarly literature concerning the definition of leaders vs. The definition of managers. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that managers perform these types of activities as well from time to time, or even all of the time making the distinction between the two even more problematic. As Yukl points out, "Like all constructs in social science, the definition of leadership is arbitrary and subjective. Some definitions are more useful than others, but there is no single 'correct' definition that captures the essence of leadership" (2005, p. 8).

Despite these constraints in the operationalization of the terms, Yukl (2005) notes that some authorities have suggested that leadership can be distinguished from management by virtue of its indispensability. In this regard, Yukl reports that, "One view is that all groups have role specialization that includes a leadership role with some responsibilities and functions that cannot be shared to widely without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the group" (2005, pp. 3-4). By contrast, other authorities maintain that a superior approach to defining leadership focuses on the type of influence that is exerted over the organization. For example, Yukl notes that, "Writers with this perspective believe it is more useful to study 'leadership' as a social process rather than as a specialized role. According to this view, any member of the social system may exhibit leadership at any time, and there is no clear distinction between leaders and followers" (2005, p. 4). This observation, though, only serves to further muddy the definitional waters concerning the specific differences between leaders and managers.

Fortunately, Yukl (2005) notes that some authorities have offered frameworks that establish some core processes and intended outcomes that help to differentiate between leaders and managers, with managers seeking to produce order and predictability by:

A. Setting operational goals, establishing action plans with timetables and allocating resources;

B. Organizing and staffing (establishing structure, assigning people to jobs); and,

C. Monitoring results and solving problems (p. 6).

By contrast, leaders seek to effect organizational change by:

A. Developing a vision of the future and strategies for making necessary changes;

B. Communicating and explaining the vision; and,

C. Motivating and inspiring people to attain the vision (Yukl, 2005, p. 6).

These distinctions help identify some of the different functions performed by leaders and managers, but Yukl also notes that, "Leadership has been defined in many different ways, but most definitions share the assumption that it involves an influence process concerned with facilitating the performance of a collective task. . . . No single 'correct' definition of leadership covers all situations. What matters is how useful the definition is for increasing our understanding of effective leadership" (2005, p. 20). Therefore, a useful, general working distinction between leaders and managers is that leaders establish the overarching vision, goals and direction for their organizations while managers perform the day-to-day oversight that helps to achieve these outcomes.

2.

How are managerial activities and behavior affected by level of management? Size of the manager's unit?

Managerial activities and the type of behaviors that are needed to achieve organizational goals will naturally relate to the level of management that is involved. For instance, higher echelons of management will typically require managers to employ behaviors that are more appropriate for groups rather than individual direction, but this does not mean that top-level managers do not interact or manage their subordinate on an individual basis, only that the preponderance of their time will likely be spent on activities that are directed at larger numbers of subordinates.

Therefore, the number of subordinates that comprise an individual manager's unit responsibilities will affect the type of behaviors and activities that are used. In some cases, managers may not have any subordinates at all (Yukl, 2005) while still retaining the "manager" title. In other case, managers may have responsibility for overseeing dozens or even hundreds of subordinates. Clearly, the type of behavior and managerial activities that are used in these two extremes will be dramatically different and will depend on the specific requirements of the organization. Because all organizations and the individuals that comprise them are unique in some fashion, the type of managerial activities and behaviors that are effective in one setting may be less effective or even backfire in others, making the need to fine-tune the type of managerial approach that is used all the more important.

3.

Compare and contrast leadership effectiveness studies from Michigan & Ohio State University.

A.

University of Michigan: Seminal studies concerning leadership behavior were conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan during the mid-20th century with a specific focus on identifying the relationships among leader behavior, group processes and measures of group performance. The initial research conducted at Michigan University consisted of a series of field studies involving a wide range of leaders (who are alternatively referred to as "managers" by Yukl), including: (a) section managers in an insurance company, (b) supervisors in a large manufacturing company, and (c) supervisors of railroad section gangs. According to Yukl, "Information about managerial behavior was collected with interviews and questionnaires. Objective measures of group productivity were used to classify managers as relatively effective or ineffective. A comparison of effective and ineffective managers showed some significant differences in managerial behavior" (p. 54). The results of this research resulted in the classification of three different types of leadership behaviors set forth in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Main Findings of the University of Michigan Studies

Category

Description

Task-oriented behavior

Effective managers do not spend their time and effort doing the same kind of work as their subordinates. Rather, the more effective managers concentrated on task-oriented functions such as planning and scheduling the work, coordinating subordinate activities, and providing necessary supplies, equipment and technical assistance. Moreover, effective managers guided subordinates in setting performance goals that were high but realistic. The task-oriented behaviors identified in the Michigan studies appear similar to the behaviors labeled "initiating structure" in the Ohio State leadership studies (discussed further below).

Relations oriented behavior

The effective managers were also more supportive and helpful with subordinates. Supportive behaviors that were correlated with effective leadership included showing trust and confidence, acting friend and considerate, trying to understand subordinate problems, helping to develop subordinates and further their careers, keeping subordinates informed, showing appreciation for subordinates' ideas, allowed considerable autonomy in how subordinates do the work, and providing recognition for subordinates' contributions and accomplishments. These behaviors are similar to the behaviors labeled "consideration" in the Ohio State leadership studies (discussed further below).

Participative leadership

Effective managers use more group supervision instead of supervising each subordinate separately. Group meetings facilitate subordinate participation in decision making, improve communication, promote cooperation, and facilitate conflict resolution. The role of the manager in group meetings should be primarily to guide the discussion and keep it supportive, constructive and oriented toward problem solving; however, the use of participation does not imply abdication of responsibilities and the manager remains responsible for all decisions and their results

Source: Yukl, 2005, p. 54

B.

Ohio State: A concomitant series of leadership behavior studies were conducted during the mid-20th century by researchers at Ohio State University. In contrast to the field study approach used by the University of Michigan researchers, the Ohio State studies used a series of questionnaires administered to both military and civilian personnel. Based on their findings, the researchers at Ohio State found that "subordinates perceived their supervisor's behavior primarily in terms of two broadly defined categories labeled 'consideration' and 'initiating' structure. These two types of behavior were relatively independent which means that a leader's use of one behavior was not necessarily the same as his or her use of the other behavior" (Yukl, 2005, p. 51). These two categories, consideration and initiating structure, are described in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Main Findings of the Ohio State Studies

Category

Description

Consideration

This category of behavior involves leader concern for people and interpersonal relationships. The leader acts in a friendly and supportive manner and shows concerns for the needs and feelings of subordinates. Examples include doing personal favors for subordinates, finding time to listen to a subordinate with a problem, backing up or defending a subordinate, consulting with subordinates on important matters, being willing to accept suggestions from subordinates and treating a subordinate as an equal

Initiating structure

This category of behavior involves leader concern for accomplishing the task. The leader defines and structures his or her own role and the roles of subordinates towards attainment of task goals. Example include criticizing poor work, emphasizing the importance of meeting deadlines, assigning subordinates to tasks, maintaining definite standards of performance, asking subordinates to follow standard procedures, offering new approaches to problems, and coordinating the activity of different subordinates

Source: Yukl, 2005, p. 51

. 4.

What are some guidelines for defining job responsibilities and setting performance goals?

Defining job responsibilities can be a straightforward and informal process that is based on empirical observations concerning what a job routinely entails such as provided by a human resources desk audit or it can be more complex and formalized, involving extensive day-to-day observations and recordation of employee tasks and activities that can then be used to formulate a codified list of responsibilities. The definition of job responsibilities for many positions will likely not be a static affair, especially in organizations that are experiencing substantial change, but is rather a dynamic requirement that must be conducted from time to time as individual responsibilities change. Which ever approach is used, though, setting performance goals will ultimately be based on how effectively people perform these job responsibilities, making an accurate assessment critically important (Buttner & Gryskiewicz, 1999). These are especially important issues when performance goals are tied to employee evaluations that can have an enormous effect on an individual's earnings and career development. For example, Seijts and Latham (2006) emphasize that, "Nearly all executives understand the importance of goal setting. And yet, most organizations have no idea how to manage specific, challenging goals, or what are sometimes labeled 'stretch goals.' For example, some organizations may ask employees to double sales or reduce product-development time but fail to provide those employees with the knowledge they need to meet these goals" (p. 1). In these cases, management has established laudable goals but has done the affected employees a disservice by failing to provide them with the resources -- including training -- that they may require to achieve them. To the extent that subordinates are held accountable for their failure to achieve performance goals in these types of situations is likely the extent to which employee morale and future performance will be adversely affected (Seijts & Latham, 2006). Therefore, establishing realistic performance goals and providing subordinates with the resources they need to achieve them is an integral part of defining accurate and timely job responsibilities.

5.

What are some guidelines for effective conflict management and team building?

Since all organizations are comprised of people, conflict is inevitable and occurs regularly in all types and sizes of organizations. Therefore, effective conflict resolution and team building techniques are an essential part of organizational leadership. Because all organizations are different, the types of conflict management approaches that are most effective will also differ, and some managers seem to possess an intuitive ability to understand what approach is best suited to various circumstances. For the majority of the less fortunate managers, though, conflict resolution may appear untenable because of the powerful nature of the personalities and other factors that may be involved, but left unresolved, conflicts can assume larger and larger dimensions until they actually harm the organization. Effectively confronted and resolved, though, all types of conflicts represent opportunities for improvement and innovation. Successful conflict resolution can be achieved through various compromises, wherein everyone involved gives up something in order to receive at least part of what they are after but such compromises tend to leave everyone involved feeling less than completely satisfied with the outcome. In the alternative, one side or the other may win out completely, but this alternative of course results in some parties to the conflict feeling they have been marginalized and underappreciated. Such outcomes can lead to further conflicts down the road, or even inordinately high levels of employee turnover and diminished morale among those who chose to stay.

By building effective teams, though, managers can help the conflict resolution process along in ways that would not be possible in other settings. Team-building can contribute to mutually shared beliefs concerning what course of action is best suited to the circumstances, as well as providing the framework in which all team members have the opportunities to express their views and have their heard. In this regard, Biech (2001) reports that team-building and conflict resolution frequently go hand-in-hand: "If conflict is the issue, it needs to be addressed head on. Members must see that conflict can be an important and positive part of teamwork. The team will have to develop a plan to manage conflict. If it is too serious, a team-building intervention may be necessary" (2001, p. 5).

6.

What are different varieties of participation? Specific examples?

Varieties of participation in organizational settings also exist along a continuum from little or no participation to full participation, with varying degrees existing in between these two extremes. According to Yukl, most varieties of participative leadership, though, involve some type of process whereby subordinates exert some level of influence over the decisions made by leaders. Alternatively referred to as consultation, joint decision making, power-sharing, decentralization, empowerment, and democratic management, Yukl adds that, "Participative leadership can be regarded as a distinct type of behavior, although it may be used in conjunction with specific tasks and relation behaviors" (p. 82). According to Yukl, just as there are a number of definitions of leadership, there are also various participative leadership types. In this regard, Yukl identifies the four following types of participative leadership that exist along a continuum of collaboration with others as set forth in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Participative Leadership Styles

Leadership Type

Description

Autocratic decision

The manager makes a decision alone without asking for the opinions or suggestions of other people and these people have no direct influence on the decision. There is no participation.

Consultation

The manager asks other people for their opinions and ideas and then makes the decision alone after seriously considering their suggestions and concerns.

Joint decision

The manager meets with others to discuss the decision problem and make a decision together. The manager has no more influence over the final decision than any other participant.

Delegation

The manager gives an individual or group the authority and responsibility for making a decision; the manager usually specifies limits within which the final choice must fall, and prior approval may or may not be required before the decision can be implemented.

Source: Yakl, 2005, pp. 82-83

Each of the foregoing participative leadership types, of course, has its corresponding strengths and weaknesses and it is clear there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach that is best suited for all circumstances. What is known, though, is that studies have shown time and again that people want and need to have their voice heard in the workplace. Indeed, many organizations readily proclaim that "our people are our most valuable resource"; however, it is also reasonable to assume that not all organizations live up to this proclamation by actively soliciting and acting upon feedback from their workers, and they fail to do so at their own peril. While Yukl makes the case that even in the most extreme circumstances along the participative leadership continuum that managers ultimately are held responsible for the outcomes related to their decisions, participative leadership provides "a variety of potential benefits, but whether the benefits occur depends on who the participants are, how much influence they have, and other aspects of the decision situation" (2005, p. 84). Among the primary benefits that can accrue to managers that the use of appropriate styles of participative management include the following: (a) higher decision quality, (b) higher decision acceptance by participants, (c) more satisfaction with the decision process, and (d) more development of decision-making skills (Yukl, 2005, p. 84).

7.

Explain the Strategic Contingencies of Power.

The strategic contingencies of power relate both to the source of the power as well as how it is applied in context-specific ways throughout an organization. The power to compel others to exert their effort towards a collective goal is an essential component of effective leadership, but the source of such power differs from setting to setting. According to Yukl, "The psychological explanation for the influence of one person on another involves the motives and perceptions of the target in relation to the actions of the agent and the context in which the interaction occurs" (p. 147). In this regard, Yukl cites three different types of influence processes termed "instrumental compliance," "internalization," and "personal identification" (2005, p. 147). Beyond these three different types of influence process, Yukl (2005) also notes that power sources can differ depending on whether the managers rely on their position to exert authority or whether they rely on their individual personal power. In this regard, Yukl writes, "Another conceptualization of power sources that is widely accepted is the dichotomy between position power and personal power. According to this two-factor conceptualization, power is derived in part from the opportunities inherent in a person's position in the organization and in part from attributes of the agent and agent target relationship" (2005, p. 149).