Suitability of leadership styles to implementing changes

Suitability of attr effects styles to implementing changesLeadership styles be the main subject of this chapter. First will be looked at what lead is, thereafter the differences surrounded by autobuss and leading ar mentioned in short. Then, different leadership styles are described and the characteristics of an effective leader are trustn. Fin all in ally, the relation between leadership and changes in the organization as a result of organic growth are discussed and the roughly suitable sign of leadership to implement these changes are given.What is leadershipLeadership is a astray studied phenomena in the scientific literature but it is hard to give a populateent and comprehensive definition of it. This is, according to Grint (2004), due to deprivation of agreement on four problems which are related to leadership(1) the unconscious sour problem is leadership derived from the personal qualities, or is it social process?(2) the scene problem has the leader formall y allocated authority, or leads he with informal puzzle out?(3) the philosophy problem are actions determined by context and situation, or by intentional influence?(4) the purity problem is leadership an privates, or a group phenomenon?In the same year of Grints look into publication, Northouse also reviewed his theory more or less leadership. He stated that leadership is a process and involves influence, occurs in a group and involves goal attainment.However, an universal definition of what is meant by organizational leadership is commonly stated as the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members.In short, leadership is a combination of the leaders traits, the behaviour of the leader, and the situation in which the leader exist. This means that leadership could be different in any situation.Differences music director and leaderIn m whatever management b ooks and scientific articles the terms manager and leader are used interchangeably which imply that these words obtain the same meaning. Because this is not correct and fag end lead to misconception, the main differences and comparisons between a manager and a leader, based on an article of Abraham Zaleznik (1977), are given in short in table 3.1Managers and leaders. plank 3.1 Managers and leadersManagersLeadersAttitudes toward goalsTake an impersonal, passive outlookGoals arise out of necessities, not desires.Take a personal, active outlook. Shape rather than respond to ideas. diversify moods evoke images, expectations.Change how great deal think about whats desirable and possible. adapt company direction.Conceptions of lickNegotiate and coerce. Balance opposing views.Design compromises. reverberate choices.Avoid risk.Develop fresh approaches to problems.Increase options. Turn ideas into exciting images. research risk when opportunities appear promising.Relation with othersP refer working with people, but put forward minimal emotional involvement. Lack empathy.Focus on process, e.g., how decisions are make rather than what decisions to make.Communicate by sending ambiguous signals. Subordinates perceive them as inscrutable, detached, manipulative. Organization accumulates bureaucracy and political intrigue.Attracted to ideas. Relate to others directly, intuitively, empathetically.Focus on center field of events and decisions, including their meaning for participants.Subordinates describe them with emotionally rich adjectives e.g., love, hate. Relations appear turbulent, intense, disorganized. to that degree motivation intensifies, and unanticipated outcomes proliferate.Sense of selfComes from perpetuating and strengthening existing institutions. see part of the organization.Comes from struggles to profoundly wangle human and economic relationships.Feel go bad from the organization.Different leadership styles and effectivenessTo achieve success, a l eader unavoidably an appropriate leadership style which fits in spite of appearance the whole organization. Therefore it is decisive to know which different leadership styles there are and which of them are virtually effective in certain circumstances. Although there are several studies about these topics, just some theories and styles will be explained in this section.The two most fundamentally different and common used leadership styles are transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Transactional leaders adjust their style to the existing organizational culture and operates within that framework. The structure is given in which their goals and needs leave to be reached. This leaders implement only incremental changes. In contrast of that, transformational leaders have a clear vision of what have to be done, and the organization has to alter to reach this vision. So, the groups wants and needs and the organizations culture need to change. They lead trough implem enting melodic theme changes (Bass, 1990).Rooke and Torbert (2005) looked at another way to the topic of leadership. They argues that there are heptad transformations of leadership, although seven ways of leading, which they called action logics. Each of the seven transformations is a leaders dominant way of thinking and leaders have the possibility to prompt through these categories.Out of their research of thousand leaders, they observed the next action logics showed in table 3.2 Seven ways of leading, with their characteristics, their strengths and the percentage of the sample that be considerables to it.Table 3.2 Seven ways of leadingthis action logicAction logicCharacteristicsStrenghts% of research sample profiling at this action logicOpportunistWins any way possible. Self-orientedmanipulative might makes right. practiced in emergencies andin gross sales opportunities.5%DiplomatAvoids overt conflict. Wants to perishobeys group norms rarely rocks theboat. true(p) as support ive gluewithin an office helps bringpeople together.12%ExpertRules by logic and expertise. Seeksrational efficiency.Good as an individualcontributor.38%AchieverMeets strategic goals. Effectivelyachieves goals through teams jugglesmanagerial duties and marketdemands.Well suited to managerialroles action and goaloriented.30%IndividualistInterweaves competing personal andcompany action logics. Creates uniquestructures to resolve gaps betweenstrategy and performance.Effective in venture andconsulting roles.10%StrategistGenerates organizational and personaltransformations. Exercises the powerof mutual inquiry, vigilance, andvulnerability for both the short andlong term.Effective as a transformationalleader.4%AlchemistGenerates social transformations. Integratesmaterial, spiritual, and societaltransformation.Good at leading society-widetransformations.1%The managerial implications of these findings is that the Opportunist, Diplomats, and Experts are associated with below intermediate cor porate performance. The Achievers are associated with effective implementing of organizational strategies, but only the Individualist, Strategists, and Alchemist (which accounted for 15% of the sample) have the capacity to innovate and to transform organizations in a successfully way.Because there is no single style that is effective in all situations, Flamholtz created his Leadership Effectiveness framework whereby the situation determines which style of leadership will be most effective. According to Flamholtz, leadership effectiveness is dependent on leadership tasks, situational factors, leadership styles and the combination of the style-situation fit. An overview of Flamholtz Leadership Effectiveness framework give the axe be seen in figure 3.1 The Flamholtz leadership effectiveness framework.Figure 3.1 The Flamholtz leadership effectiveness frameworkLeadership EffectivenessLeadership tasksWork preference great deal OrientationSituational factorsOrganizationWork to be donePeo ple doing the workLeadership stylesDirectiveInteractiveNondirectiveStyle-Situation FitThe leadership tasks consist of work orientation and people orientation. Work orientation, which means that the work has to be done, is related to goal emphasis and task facilitation. People orientation gives forethought to the needs of the people doing the work, and is related to personnel development, interaction facilitation and supportive behaviour.The situational factors can be divided into the degree of task programmability, which is the extent to a work task can be specified prior its execution, and the potential for line of business autonomy, which is the extent to someone can work without supervision.Each leadership crime syndicate in Flamholtz framework pertains two leadership styles.Autocratic and benevolent despotic belong to the directive category. This styles declares what is to be done independently without, and with an explanation.Consultative and participative belong to the int eractive style. A leader with such a style respectively gets opinions before deciding on the plan presented, or first formulates alternatives with a group and then decides.The last two styles, consensus and laissez-fair, belongs to the nondirective category. By the consensus style has every member of the group an equal voice in making decisions, the individualistic style leaves it up to the group to decide what to do.Overall, to achieve a graduate(prenominal) level of effectiveness a leader has to find a offset in emphasizing the work and people orientations of leadership tasks