Building an Authentic Leadership Image (J-B CCL (Center for Creative Leadership))

Follow the Author

---

But strong moral convictions about leadership are the life-blood of this community of scholars, and it would be quite wrong, we feel, to drive this purposefulness out of these essays. Readers will be well advised, therefore, to approach this volume with a willingness to engage and debate with the authors. You may not agree with their opinions, but, having read each entry, you should know why they hold to them. Finally, many crucial theoretical questions are just touched on in this book. One abiding issue is the possibility of a general theory of leadership; that is, a holistic theory which would offer a comprehen- sive idea of all leadership phenomena, homogenizing all the different — often contrasting — perspectives around the same paradigm.

Many writers on the subject lay claim to having devised just such a theory, while others argue that the socially constructed nature of the concept makes it neither possible nor desirable. Nonetheless the belief that we are all talking about more or less the same thing would seem to imply a common idea. This volume is a kind of testament to the motivating force of the search for a unifying theory of leadership, at the same time as being a celebration of its complexity. Moreover, we would thank the School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond and the International Leadership Association ILA for the assistance given to providing and recruiting many of the contributors.

Axelrod In this complex world, no single leader has the knowledge and ability to effectively envision, plan and achieve social, political or organiza- tional goals entirely on his or her own. Modern leadership demands collaboration with many people, each of whom has special knowl- edge, skills and expertise that generate unique insights and perspec- tives. To function effectively, collaborators must feel free to participate fully in the process, providing informa- tion, giving advice and expressing dissent.

All too often, however, people do not feel free to speak their minds, particularly in situations where there is an asymmetry of social power. The problem is widespread not only in organizations but also in public dialogues. In the s, a booklet issued by the American Society of Friends challenged prevailing societal attitudes in a report entitled Speak Truth to Power Cary This directive has since become a rallying cry for the disenfranchised who seek to voice their aspirations for social change.

How often do we avoid speaking truth to power, especially when it is truth that we believe those in power do not want to hear? We rarely admit to ourselves that it is anxiety that keeps us silent, but most of our rationalizations are grounded in fear of reprisal if we speak out — at best, of being disregarded or ostracized and, at worst, of being fired. History, as couched in legend, tells us that the recipient of unwelcome news often strikes out brutally at the messenger. Our fears teach us to believe it. Surveys of what leaders and followers want from each other in hierarchical organizations inevitably place loyalty high on the list see, for example, Kouzes and Posner The wise subordinate carefully considers what his manager might mean by loyalty and may err on the side of risk-aversion.

Some seek safety in acquiescence, but that self- protection may be purchased at high cost to the organization. Yet dissenters are often derided for being selfish and disloyal even though they adhere to their beliefs and values at their own expense Sunstein Much has been written about radical, public forms of dissent, such as whistle-blowing, but many studies of dissent in every-day decision- making have focused on decisions that were poorly conceived because of the failure of those involved to fully evaluate all relevant informa- tion, including contrarian views.

The powerful social forces that produce the Abilene Paradox Harvey a, b and groupthink Janis — the desire to be accepted as part of an in-group and the fear of ostracism for expressing dissenting views — are salient in all interper- sonal relationships. Some leaders signal their subordinates, whether intentionally or not, that they are uncomfortable with dissent and may even consider it to be an expression of insubordination.

But it is essential that they discriminate clearly between constructive dissent and insubordination. To dissent is to express a difference of opinion, to disagree. To be insubordinate is to be disobedient. The former is part of an effective decision-making process; the latter is a rejection of its outcome. The former supports legitimate authority; the latter contests it. There are, of course, limits to constructive dissent. At some point, if a consensus is not reached, the prudent dissenter must either accept the decision of those in authority or continue to voice his dissent in another arena.

Certainly, some circumstances warrant bypassing the normal chain of command in a hierarchy or even going outside of the organization to major stakeholders, the courts or the press. Each dissenter must make that decision for himself. However, it is far less likely that matters will progress to such a pyrrhic struggle if the dissenter believes that he has been heard and engaged in an open dialogue. What can be done by leaders of organizations and societies to encourage constructive dissent? First, leaders must demonstrate that they welcome viewpoints that challenge their own.

This requires that they treat others as collaborators, rather than reflexive or reactive followers, and be willing to share thought leadership, admitting that their associates may have better ideas then they do. Second, they must encourage open dialogue, ensuring that there are no undiscussables that compel a collusion of silence Ryan and Oestreich This requires that they be willing to bear a close examination of all aspects of their organization and their own leadership. Third, they must suppress ideacide by rewarding innovative thinking and discouraging habitual conformity Hornstein This is not an easy approach to take.

It requires personal courage, psychological hardiness and a strong sense of purpose. People learn to trust that the leader means what she says only when there is evidence of it in practice, when the values are opera- tionalized in policies, procedures and reward systems that are verified by collective experience. Through these mechanisms, the organization and its leaders cultivate, or deplete, the interpersonal trust that is at the heart of all effective social relationships Jaques When people trust each other, they feel free to speak their minds.

Thus, the challenge for leaders who wish to make the most of the knowledge and talent that is available in their organizations is to build trust throughout their constituencies by clearly and consistently conceptualizing their associates as collaborators rather than followers and welcoming both advice and dissent. Schroeder Aesthetic leadership concerns the manner in which artists, and other aesthetic workers, perform leadership functions within groups, communities and culture, often outside established positions of authority.

Aesthetics has generally been concerned with questions of beauty and the notion of universal tastes. Others have argued that there is a distinct aesthetic realm, which allows people to respond to beauty in terms of colour and form. Recently, artists have been called upon for aesthetic leadership in management — as leaders, practitioners, vision- aries and inspirers e. Austin and Devin ; Hatch et al. Thus, aesthetic leadership need not refer merely to creativity or vision, rather aesthetic leadership may emerge from insight into cultural, political or interpersonal issues; aesthetic state- ments on social injustice or crucial cultural concerns; or, at a more general level, provide alternative ways of seeing problems, history or received wisdom.

In this way, aesthetic leadership may either complement or contradict more traditional leadership forms, such as politics, religion or management. It may be that aesthetic leadership draws some of its power from the position of the aesthetic producer outside conventional leadership positions. Well-known examples include Jacques-Louis David, whose famous painting The Death of Marat catalysed support for the French revolution by shrewdly mixing fine art with propaganda.

Lin, who, an under- graduate university student at the time, steadfastly refused to compromise her aesthetic principles during a bitter battle over her minimalist design, held to her strong, clear vision, as described in the Academy Award winning documentary of the rancorous debates about how the war should be memorialized Mock Research and thinking about aesthetic leadership spans several disciplines, and often encompasses management studies, art history and sociology — aesthetic leadership represents one strand within the growing field of aesthetics and management.

Aesthetic Management and Metaphysical Marketing from Wagner to Wilson provides several case studies of aesthetic leadership, providing a useful genealogy of aesthetics within the economy.

Stephen Taylor and Hans Hansen provide a useful review of this emergent field, focused on aesthetic inquiry. Aesthetic leadership may rest in leadership qualities of charisma, interpersonal skill or vision, yet remains elusive, and difficult to cate- gorize or contain. Often, aesthetic leaders have trained in areas somewhat distant from typical leadership or management disciplines — literature, art or theatre, for example — and this training may offer a capacity for innovative insight. However, insight or vision alone remains insufficient; aesthetic leadership requires a rare combination of desire, determination and drive, along with a prodigious aesthetic gift.

Special offers and product promotions

Austin and Devin ; Guillet de Monthoux ; Hatch et al. Weber identified legitimate authority as resting on one of three systems of social control: Those with power are accorded authority by virtue of the legitimacy of the prin- ciples by which they hold power. Subsequent political science litera- ture has explored authority in relation to the state and problems of social coordination.

Lukes notes that the focus has either been analytical, concerned with identifying the elements of authority, or normative and directed on the legitimacy of authority. For some these are distinctly separate with legitimacy understood as context-related and therefore subject to change. Carter suggests that authority is the antithesis of force For Raz authority is normative power, consisting of the ability to change behaviour by providing other overriding reasons for action legitimized by a sufficient number of people.

A key assumption is that authority belongs primarily to a sanctioned and mutually recognized role Friedman Such positional authority depends on the recognition of those subject to it and the capacity and desire of the occupant to take up the role Lukes Yet mutual recognition is not always necessary to sustain authority, its exercise may not always be apparent, the criteria by which the credentials of authority are chosen may be unclear and the nature of the recognition accorded can result in the surrender of judgement Lukes The relational nature of authority by which legitimacy is established, maintained or lost and new voices of authority emerge continues to be a fruitful area of enquiry, as is the capacity for multiple sources of authority to co-exist Lovell Raz , argues that authority and reason are bound together.

Lukes insists that the objectives an authority wishes to pursue cannot be determined a priori and are often contested. Consequently, the identification of relations of authority is complex, involves a process of interpretation, and is perspective related. Authority is here inherently unstable, subject to conflict, negotiation and change.

Authority is derived from personal competence and commitment to the task that is constantly prone to corruption from collusive patterns of behaviour involving both those in authority and their subordinates Chapman Here it remains useful to distinguish between someone who has an inner authority that appears to be embodied in the individual personality, someone who is an authority, and commands a respectful hearing, and someone who is in authority.

These three forms of authority refer to the self, to reputation and to position respectively and while each is distinct there is likely to be some relationship between them. Although such relations take place within a social context marked by structural inequalities, relations of authority cannot simply be reduced to these, nor is the impact of underlying power structures so evident in specific contexts. Analyses that focus on the dynamically unfolding relations of authority can better account for those in which authority is transi- tional, when those with authority no longer command it nor have the need to do so.

To invest in a sustainable relationship of authority, albeit one that contains the seeds of its own dissolution, the relationship must be available for challenge and the transactions and the rationale for these transparent. To the extent that the boundaries of authority are ambiguous, these need to be negotiated and re-nego- tiated. Such relationships can neither assume a compliant subject nor succeed through the use of sanctions, but are inherently fragile and require repeated demonstrations of authority reliability.

Such relation- ships are a shifting terrain fluctuating from resistance to compliance and are difficult to transfer from one context to another. What we seek in the other we may hope for in ourselves. We remain cautious about authorizing a role, institution or person anticipating disappointment or worse. Good authority is hard to find and disappointments are all too frequent. Freud highlighted the fundamental importance of an internalized authority and its origins in the family, arguing that the child exists initially in a state of total dependence on its parents.

Too much authority becomes authoritarianism, encouraging submission and the projection of frustrated aggression onto others who are perceived to be weaker Adorno et al. Too little authority is said to provide no strength or solidity against which to react Lasch , Others face the more demanding challenge of abusive forms of authority when authority breaches, invades or violates our personal physical or emotional selves, our bodily integrity Williams Sennett explores the impasse between bad authority and resistance to it.

A good authority symbol- izes strength, solidity and stability over time, using that strength to care for others p. It offers shelter from the storms of growing inde- pendence and a place of recuperation, reflection and re-learning. It contains the hopes, fears and fantasies, contradictory perceptions and experiences toward authority. What remains for the active subject is a respect and appreciation for the work undertaken by the mentor or guide in fulfilling the obligations of that role. Following Hegel, Sennett Mutual recognition does not eradicate asymmetries of authority and depen- dency but does offer a relationship where each now feels respected.

We can act cooperatively if we play neither the victim nor the master Benjamin Rather, human history was the struggle of real people in organized relations to each other. Sennett attempts to connect the journey of liberty to the structure of large-scale institutions.

He argues that with consciousness of the link between strength and time comes the realization that no authority lasts forever.

Critical to this is a sense of inner authority, and the continuing struggle to secure and maintain this, if subjects are to challenge the misuse of authority whilst enabling others to find their own voice and construct relations of authority founded upon recognition and social justice. This can partially be explained by the failure of the trait theory of leadership to identify a clear and unique set of personal characteristics that would identify great leaders. Furthermore, it also reflects the general shift towards the study of observable behaviour in psychological research.

The major result and contribution to lead- ership theory of all three approaches is the discussion and presentation of two distinct dimensions of leadership behaviour: Starting with a list of 1, descriptors of leadership behaviour, the researchers finally composed a questionnaire consisting of items and respective questions: The questionnaire was widely used in various settings e. Consideration behaviour CB emphasizes the relationship aspect of leadership beha- viour. Considerate leaders support their followers, include them in the decison-making processes, treat them as equal, and foster open communication and teamwork.

Initiation structure behaviour IB focuses on the tasks to be accomplished. Leaders who score high in this dimension structure tasks and schedules, clarify roles and responsibili- ties, and set and control standards for work completion. As the two identified clusters of behaviour have proven to be inde- pendent of each other, four different combinations were studied in regard to their effectiveness: While some research has shown the HH to be the most effective combination of leadership behaviour — very considerate toward the people involved and highly structured toward task completion — other research has indicated that in some situations HL or LH respectively will be the better choice.

In parallel with the research conducted at Ohio State, scholars at the University of Michigan were studying the potential impact of leadership behaviour on small group performance Katz and Kahn ; Likert , As the most interesting result, three different types of effective leader- ship behaviour could be identified: Effective managers demonstrated task-oriented behaviour similar to the behaviour characterized as IB in the Ohio State research.

In particular, effective managers focused on planning and coordinating activities and supported their subordinates in setting challenging yet achievable goals. Their extensive support towards subordinates was built on trust, confidence, appreciation and recogni- tion. Finally, effective managers would demonstrate a participative approach to leadership, preferring the supervision of groups over closer control of individuals, and fostering cooperation and joint deci- sion-making.

However, subsequent studies presented contradictory results and remained inconclusive Northouse The resulting scores are then combined and located on a two-dimensional grid. Minimum effort is being exerted in regard to both dimensions by rather indifferent or even apathetic managers.

Managers exer- cising this style seek to balance their concern for people and their concern for the tasks involved on a level of adequacy and modera- tion. Highly friendly relations and a very good atmosphere have the clear prevalence over low concern for productivity and task completion within this leadership style. Job performance and task completion are the major focus of this result-driven lead- ership style.

Relationship and communication with people is reduced to the minimum necessary for clear instructions and performance control. This leadership style has a very high consideration for both tasks and people. Fostering commit- ment through supportive relationships and teamwork is equally important to promoting the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. Furthermore, two additional patterns of behaviour have been identified by Blake and McCanse Benevolent behav- iour is demonstrated only to secure goal achievement and job performance.

Any combination of leadership styles can be demon- strated at various times by managers who strive for personal advancement rather than for job performance or relationship building. The behavioural theories have introduced two powerful concepts into the development of a comprehensive theory of leadership as well as into the practice of leadership training and development: By enhancing the earlier focus on personal characteristics of leaders in trait theory through the study of leadership styles, the behavioural approach has clearly added an important dimen- sion to the discussion and understanding of the impact of leaders on the leadership process; there also is some first evidence on the effec- tiveness of participative leadership.

Furthermore, the respective research could not identify a universally effective set of leadership behaviours Yukl Finally, this approach focuses on the leader and his or her behaviour and fails to comprehensively consider and incorporate the situational context of as well as the values and motives underlying the various leadership behaviours. Blake and McCanse ; Northouse ; Shriberg et al. There is clearly some sense in this, although taken to extremes it becomes ridiculous; does change and evolution really depend on leaders?

Most forms of organizational activity have as much to do with continuity as change — for example, people communicate with each other to build trust, decide what to do and check on progress. Does leadership have nothing to do with these continuing activities? Some go so far as to claim that leaders are solely responsible for making change happen, for the way in which it is conducted and the eventual outcomes.

The link between leadership and change is not always drawn so strongly. Many small innovations arise from people solving problems simply to get a job done, but then give rise to new ways of working and the discovery of new opportunities. Regardless of who creates or initiates change, individuals and groups differ in how they respond. In fact it might make more sense to focus on the leadership of continuity, sustaining a sense of identity and purpose in spite of continuous and sometimes life-threatening changes Barry This perspective emphasizes the narrative processes by which people negotiate their place in unfolding events.

What kind of narrative is this, though?

Are leaders acting out archetypal heroic myths? A more realistic metaphor, if one is needed, would be a soap-opera in which a number of interweaving plot-lines develop through intermittent cliff-hangers and teases, involving a limited number of characters deeply rooted in the particularity of their place and time.

Leaders may figure as characters in this process, although significant changes plot developments may be initiated in a number of ways. The main problem with this metaphor is that if overall leadership of the effort is shared by all the characters, do we really need the concept of leadership? Wishing to highlight the pervasiveness of change in organiza- tions, we talk about organizational becoming.

Insofar as this is an ongoing process, that is to the extent actors try to make sense of and act coherently in the world, change is inherent in human action, and organizations are sites of continuously evolving human action. Tsoukas and Chia Individuals manage themselves in relation to changes within and around them, and in so doing they are constantly re-creating themselves.

There is, as it were, no dry land on which to stand, clear of the constant flow; or to return to our earlier metaphor, no script-writer, producer or director exempt from the action of the story-line.

Customers who bought this item also bought

Leaders of groups, organizations and countries may be distinguished by their more-than-usual influence on the sense- making process and the shared identities that emerge from it. A related but quite distinct approach emphasizes the centrality of personal development in any kind of organizational development Owen Participants find that this encourages greater thoughtfulness about what they hope to achieve, an awareness of their own energy and resilience for the work involved, and the likely responses of other people who may be affected by change.

However, it is not really clear that personal development is an accurate analogue for organizational or social change, except in the very abstract terms implied by process theory. Particularly, whereas self- mastery may be a desirable goal for many people, social systems that seek control by a single super-ordinate leader are rightly termed totali- tarian, and tend to be highly resistant to change in the emergent sense mentioned above.

The problem of agency seems to be perennial: But of course there is no simple answer to the complexity of change. Some writers stress the centrality of conversation, mediating internal and external worlds Shaw ; others turn to the auto- poetic powers of social as well as natural systems, in which individual agency is effective if inspired by a universal informing spirit Wheatley However there is more than one idea of charisma. According to St Paul Corinthians, Talcott Parsons see Tuccari attempted to clarify the differences by stating that there are two notions of charisma.

One is focused anthropologically as a world in which religion and magic play a funda- mental role in the social sphere. A fundamental Weberian notion is that modernity is character- ized by World disenchantment — Entzauberung der Welt. In support of this inter- pretation, see Dow ; Tucker ; Tuccari The concept of charisma has continued to be modified by socio- logical, political and organizational scholars Shils ; even into the postmodern era we lack a solid understanding of charisma in relation to organizations Bryman This lack of understanding of charisma has indeed kept it mysterious.

The aura surrounding charisma has also created a serious worry of what happens when this personal quality gets out of control and turns to evil Keeley To gain a better understanding of charisma, modern researchers began to reexamine the classic work of Max Weber. The three major questions are: Is there everyday charisma? Can charisma be rational? Can charisma function effectively within a formal organization?

The charismatic revolu- tion depends on beliefs and revelation. Charismatic authority seeks to overturn the existing social order that is stagnant or in crisis. It is unencumbered by formalities and organized arrangements. Conger further stated that Weber was ultimately concerned with understanding the creation and transformation of institutional arrange- ments.

Under this guise, the German sociologist wanted to explain the forces of individual creativity that completely contradicted the other two systems. In order to do this, it was natural that Weber got very interested in the role of the follower in charismatic authority. House made a major contribution to the study of charisma in formal organizations. By establishing testable hypotheses about the behaviour of charismatic leaders, follower effects and situation factors, he was the first to empirically examine these relationships Bryman This seminal work offered a very intricate model based on the interaction of leader characteristics i.

The study repre- sented the basis for the way the new leadership theorists initially viewed how charisma could function within the organization. In addition, the study was instrumental in showing the profound impact followers have in the relationship. Called antibureau- crats, the authors saw them as championing innovation and bringing about change. The idea of charismatic leaders being change agents has brought about an increased interest in the charismatic process primarily due to the inflexible bureaucratic organizational climate in the United States Conger The work of House , Peters and Waterman , and the emergence of transformational leadership, have reduced the con- fusion and ambiguity surrounding charisma.

The realization that charisma cannot function in a vacuum but as a social relationship has become more accepted. As Bryman explained, charisma is a social relationship in three ways; the importance of followers in the affirmation of charisma, the leader and follower find a greater purpose in charisma than is typically the case and charismatic relationship is antithetical to the notion that charisma is purely attribution. Burns and Bass quickly advocated the need for charisma in every leader to transform and revitalize organiza- tions. They introduced the concepts of transactional and transforma- tional leadership.

Coined by Bryman as the new leadership approach, transformational leaders achieve results through followers in one or more ways. For example, transformational leaders inspire followers through charisma, meet their emotional needs through indi- vidual consideration and stimulate them intellectually by stirring their awareness of problems Pierce and Newstrom The most important impact of Bass and later Avolio has been their systematic research of leadership using a reliable and valid instrument. The instrument comprised 10 factors under four categories; transformational leadership which includes charisma as a significant component.

Most importantly, the instrument has been found to be a reliable measure of charisma Avolio et al. Graham believed that research which measures both charismatic leaders and their followers is the best way to remove the perception of charisma as mysterious and magical, believing along with Howell and Klein and House that followers of charismatic leaders have been largely ignored.

Believing that charisma resided in the relationship between the leader and follower and not in the leader only, Klein and House found differ- ences in the relationships between the levels of charisma and the homogeneity of followers. Furthermore, many leadership researchers have theorized that a social construction perspective is necessary to better understand the relationship of charismatic leaders, followers and the environment.

As Bryman stated, the social constructive perspective creates an opportunity to illuminate the understanding of how charismatic leadership works in organizations. Meindl stated that charisma cannot be viewed as predetermined based on a specific definition, but viewed as a social relationship that is a function of the leader, follower and environment. Therefore, Drath and Palus defined charisma as part of a highly emotional and socially charged process by which this leader embodies what members within the community have in their minds and hearts, and in return these people legitimize this leader with special characteristics.

Burns Though often unrecognized, paradigms from classical science inform social sciences like leadership studies. Based on equations developed by Galileo Galilei and Descartes, Newton invented the calculus of differential equations in the s. Theoretically, it might be possible to determine the underlying causes for everything and indeed, through the lens of this paradigm, science and technology made unprecedented advances for more than three centuries.

At the close of the nineteenth century, the universe of the Newtonians began to crumble as physicists began their explorations in the quantum world. In other fields, such as biology, modelling nature through linear equations also had severe limitations. Thus, cause and effect deter- minism borders on mythology as a credible description for complex natural phenomena. Through quantum and later chaos theory discov- eries in physics, and through complexity theory in biology, the twen- tieth century witnessed physical and natural scientists rethinking their fundamental paradigms.

Instead of presenting the idea of a determin- istic machine, the emerging paradigms describe a living universe that is continually changing through adaptation. For example, organizations are run, systems are operated, followers are developed, and lines of communication are built.

Management theorists jumped head- long into the Cartesian mechanistic paradigm during the Industrial Revolution. They examined organizations, and through scientific management, experimented with ways to manipulate workers and organizational structures to increase efficiency.

For more than a cen- tury, management and leadership theorists have employed Newtonian reductionist methodologies as they have investigated ideas about charismatic, democratic, autocratic, humanistic, collaborative, team, community, feminist, male, modern, post-modern, transforming, transactional, top-down, bottom-up and middle-of-the-road leader- ship.

They have conducted countless studies about the traits of good and bad leaders and followers, about power and its characteristics, environmental factors, social ills and a host of other atomized topics. Over the last 15 years, some social scientists have begun to re-evaluate their fundamental paradigms in light of the demise of the mechanical- universe paradigm Burns ; Lewin and Regine ; Lissack ; Stacey ; Wheatley The emerging paradigm based in complexity theory from biology and quantum and chaos theories from physics allows social scientists to understand human organizations as complex adaptive systems.

As this new paradigm gains traction, there will be profound changes in the ways in which people think about leadership in human organizations. A living organization needs to be nurtured. Healthy organizations remain healthy as they continually adapt to the ever-turbulent envi- ronment. In the new paradigm, reductionist analysis and manipulation of the various components of the organization is not crucial.

Instead, conducting leadership depends on the richness of the web of relation- ships, the free flow of critical information, and individual-agent and organizational learning, which leads to an adaptive response to the environment. Constrained by the mission and values of the organiza- tion, these are the things that nurture an organization, and they conspire to facilitate its long-term survival. This middle ground between ossification and randomness is where the organization can continually self-organize.

Leadership is conducted as the complex adaptive system learns from and successfully adapts to environmental challenges. Leaders key position holders have important functions that facili- tate the adaptive process of a complex adaptive system. Second, key position holders must assure that the organization is engaged in continuous assessment of environmental demands as they relate to the primary mission and values of the organization, testing adaptive strategies that could poten- tially satisfy those demands.

As an organization continually grows and adapts to environmental demands, its ultimate purpose and core values become clearer because they are viewed in multiple environmental contexts over time. Thus, the organization is able to lift its collective vision to discover creative ways to continually adapt in order to fulfil its enduring essential purpose. From an organizational perspective in systems theory, contingency theorists view organizational and administrative processes and choices as contingent upon the particular character or nature of the organization itself, the environment of the organization at that particular moment, and the specific task or tasks the organization seeks to accomplish at a particular time.

Contingency theorists stress several key concepts. There is no universal or one best way to lead. There is, however, some common ground among the universal principles of leadership that fits all situa- tions. The effectiveness of a given pattern of leader behav- iour is contingent upon the demands imposed by the situation.

For an individual leader, contingency theory assumes that leadership is changeable and should be variable for different situations; thus, these theories stress using different styles of leadership appropriate to the needs created by different organizational situations. The contingency theories noted below include grid, continuum and decision tree models, and focus on three variables: Fred Fiedler , , , generally considered the father of leadership contingency theory, departed from trait and behavioural models by asserting that three organizational contingencies determine appropriate leadership behaviour: Fiedler argued that combinations of the three contingencies create favourable or unfavourable conditions for leadership, that is, situations in which the leader can exert influence over the group.

High levels of leader—member relations, task structure and positional power provide the most favourable situation to exert influence over others; low levels of the three contingencies provide the least favourable lead- ership situation to exert influence.

Fiedler determined that a task- oriented style is more effective in situations wherein the leader has very much or very little influence; a relationship-oriented leader is more effective in situations only moderately favourable to influence. In other words, it may be easier for leaders to change a situation to achieve effectiveness, rather than change leader- ship style. They suggest the leader affects the perfor- mance, satisfaction and motivation of a group in a number of ways.

The responsibility of the leader is to observe and understand the situation and choose appropriate leadership styles and actions paths depending upon goals of subordinates and leader. The responsibilities of the leader, to offer rewards for achievement of performance goals, to clarify paths towards these goals, and to remove obstacles, are accomplished by adopting certain leadership styles according to the situation. Leader styles will be directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented, depending on subordinate needs and abilities. Leadership behaviours are matched along a continuum of subordinate and environmental characteristics, from structured to unstructured situations; thus, if group members have a high need for motivation, directive leadership is provided, specific advice is given and ground rules are established to provide structure.

Effective leaders adjust their leadership to fit these contingencies of group and environment and to motivate subordinates. House and Mitchell add that leaders who have influence upon their superiors can increase group satisfaction and performance. Additionally, Tannen- baum and Schmidt describe a range of behavioural patterns available to a manager or leader, from democratic relationship-oriented lead- ership to authoritarian task-oriented leadership.

Los clientes que compraron este producto también compraron

The choice of leader actions relates to the degree of authority used by the leader and the amount of freedom available to the subordinates. They believe a leader should be flex- ible and adapt the leadership style to the situation. Hersey and Blanchard , developed the Situational Leadership Grid which contains two dimensions of leadership: Hersey and Blanchard suggest that leadership style should be matched to the maturity of the subordinates psychological maturity, subordi- nate self-confidence and ability and readiness to accept responsibility and job maturity relevant skills and technical knowledge.

As the subordinate maturity increases, leaders should be more relationship- motivated than task-motivated. Leadership will vary with the situation and the leader may delegate to, participate with, sell ideas to, or tell subordinates what to do. Vroom and Yetton and Vroom and Jago developed a decision tree contingency model for leader decision-making, a norma- tive model that emphasizes leader behaviour from authoritative to participative. According to this model, the effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the situation: The Vroom-Yetton Leadership Model includes the selection of one of five leadership styles for making a deci- sion: Autocratic 1 when the problem is solved using information already available; Autocratic 2 when additional information is obtained from the group before the leader makes a decision; Consultative 1 when the leader discusses the problem with subordinates individually before making a decision; Consultative 2 when the problem is discussed with the group before deciding; and Group 2 when the group makes the decision with the leader simply acting as facilitator.

The leadership style is chosen by considering seven questions that form the decision tree. They maintain that both decision quality and acceptance are affected by follower participation during decision-making. While contingency theories have been a valuable approach to understanding leadership behaviours, there have been criticisms of the approach. Critics suggest contingency theorists are limited in their conceptualization of leadership and the empirical strength to support the various arguments.

Circumstances do not stay fixed for long, for example, which would necessitate a constant renegotiating of leader- ship behaviours and styles. The interactions of all factors are very complex and unpredictable. Fiedler and others suggest that further research is needed to encompass more variables that may be within various situations.

Bolman and Deal suggest that contingency theorists fail to distinguish between manager and leader behaviour, and support for a person or support for specific actions. Studies in the area of contingency theories seem to have dimin- ished, due, in part, to the increase in contextual approaches to studying leadership, whereby contextual factors are seen as a basis for certain leadership behaviours or their dispositional antecedents. These con- textual factors can include leader hierarchical level, national culture, leader—follower gender or organizational characteristics, among others Antonakis et al.

Research is ongoing within the realm of chaos, chaordic and complexity theories, including spiral dynamics. Beha- vioural complexity from the notion of paradox Denison et al. In recent years we have witnessed a surge of books exploring creativity in a business context Bills and Genasi ; de Brabandere ; Gogatz and Mondejar ; Kelley ; Proctor , and in response to the Cox Review of Creativity in Business Cox the UK Budget Report included the launch of a feasibility study for a London creativity and innovation hub at the centre of a wider network of creativity and innovation centres.

Various commentators Bills and Genasi ; De Cock ; Mumford and Gustafson have pointed out that creativity is a rather slippery concept. One of the founding fathers of creativity research summed it up rather nicely at the end of his career: Apart from defi- nitional vagueness, creativity as a subject for scientific study also strug- gles with what Rickards and De Cock have called the ontological paradox: More recently a special issue of the journal Creativity and Innovation Management vol.

The back- ground was the successful launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik and the perceived loss of national technological advantage. Brainstorming is without doubt the best known way of stimulating creativity in the workplace. The three major principles for generating ideas in the work environment were: Many academic studies have shown since that nominal non-interacting groups seem to produce more ideas than brainstorming groups and no conclusive evidence has been offered to date as to the quality of the ideas produced.

The CPS model has proved very influential Puccio et al. Rickards and Moger recently wrote an overview article on the understanding of leadership as a process contributing to creativity and innovation, and their research serves as a useful point of departure for those wishing to explore the links between leadership and creativity. Cross-cultural leadership recognizes the moderating effect that culture can have on leadership processes. It also seeks to discover the similarities and differ- ences between cultures as to what is generally considered to constitute appropriate and inappropriate leader—follower relations.

Interest in cross-cultural leadership was initially prompted by the rapid expansion of a large expatriate work force driven to the far corners of an increasingly globalized world. In response, cross-cultural leadership theorists tended to focus their efforts on providing broad-based descriptions of the char- acteristics of a particular national culture, combined with an account of the specific idiosyncrasies of conducting business within that national culture Hickson and Pugh These were replete with case studies and guidelines as to what to do and not do in order to survive and excel in a culturally different context.

This type of work continues to be an important staple of the popular management book market, but has been superseded by more sophisticated attempts to develop universal theoretical models of cross-cultural leadership. One major line of inquiry has been to seek to identify the persistent behavioural patterns exhibited by leaders from different national cultures. Specifically, the focus of this work has been to identify the ways in which predominant cultural values moderate leadership behavioural patterns Dorfman and Howell Differences are systematically described by systems that categorize and compare cultural values.

Several influential universal frameworks comprised of cultural value dimensions emerged from this work including Kluck- hohn and Strodtbeck , Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner and Hofstede Another major line of inquiry has sought to identify and delimit the shared prototypes or profiles of outstanding leadership that might be distinctive to specific national cultures. Prototypes contain a set of attributes that define the essential characteristics of a category, for example, an effec- tive business leader.

Followers who categorize a manager as a prototypical leader are likely to allow him or her to exert leadership influence on them. If leader- ship concepts differ as a function of cultural differences, they can con- strain the influence of expatriate managers: This long-term programmatic research project involved approximately scholars from more than 62 nations over an year time period. Field data were collected from more than 17, managers, in organizations, across three industries, using quantitative and qualitative methods.

Systematically testing more than 20 hypotheses, the GLOBE has added significant depth to our under- standing of cross-cultural leadership. Although significant progress has been made towards developing universal models of cross-cultural leadership, Dorfman has offered a timely warning about the limitations of this research in the form of four caveats he believes should be borne in mind when applying a cross-cultural lens to leadership research.

With the first caveat, he warns leadership researchers against the perils of ignoring significant differences within a country as well as significant differences between countries that are considered part of a country cluster. With the second caveat he points out that a cultural dimension that has been identified as being associated with a particular national culture may, in fact, vary and seem contradictory at times.

The third caveat is that individual differences will still exist in the adherence to cultural values and, as such, not all individuals will display the cultural values of their indigenous culture. Related to this, the final caveat for leadership researchers offered by Dorfman is to consider that cultures are not static but are dynamic and continually evolving.

Instead, global leaders need to endeavour to become transcultural creative leaders Graen and Hui Den Hartog et al. In fact, over 20 years ago, McCormack commented: Not only is it beneficial to the manager, but it benefits the employee and the organization as well. The process of delegation involves the transfer of carefully selected tasks or activities from the manager to an appropriately selected indi- vidual. Clearly, the transfer of authority to carry out the assigned tasks is essential.

Individuals who have been given specific assignments must have the power to make decisions, and have full access to all the resources necessary to accomplish the objectives Yukl He felt that authority can be transferred to the employee, but ultimate responsibility for completion of the task lies with the manager. This not only provides a means of time management, but it also allows the manager to increase his or her productivity Lussier and Achua ; Yukl Additionally, it is important for managers to recognize that, at times, the employee may have more expertise in the area of the specific task, and it would benefit the organization more by delegating that specific task Yukl For the employee, delegation provides an important developmental opportunity.

It can make the job more interesting, challenging and meaningful Hughes et al. The employee can develop or enhance existing skills and abilities, and work toward gaining new skills that will benefit not only him or her, but the organization as well Yukl Additionally, it provides the opportunity to learn more about the work unit and can assist in developing new capabilities, talents and interests on the part of the employee Ponder ; Quinn et al. Employees who work on delegated tasks are more committed to the task at hand.

Moreover, successful completion of delegated tasks provides a means for building trust with the manager and self-esteem for the employee Quallich ; Yukl Organizationally, delegation can lead to higher productivity, higher quality decisions and increase the tasks accomplished and thereby strengthen the organization Bass b; Hughes et al. By providing these new opportunities for the employee, there can be a better allocation of organizational resources, and this management development opportunity can increase the pool of potential managers for the future Lussier and Achua It is important to recognize that there are some caveats related to delegation.

For all the benefits that seemed to be gained, some managers avoid delegation for a variety of reasons. Related to the self, some managers have power needs, and may feel that giving up tasks diminishes that power, or feel that it could be too much of a career risk Hughes et al. Moreover, certain tasks that might be delegated may have some prestige associated with them and therefore the manager wants to keep them for him or herself Hughes et al.

Additionally, some managers may be used to doing certain tasks themselves, or simply do not know how or what to delegate Lussier and Achua Subordinates may have different values and goals than the manager, and sometimes others are just simply too busy to take on a new task Yukl The first principle in learning how to delegate is for the manager to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each employee.

This process allows the manager to select the best person for each of the tasks that will be delegated Hughes et al. Second, the manager must decide what to delegate with an aware- ness of what can and cannot be assigned to someone else Quallich ; Quinn et al. Tasks that can be delegated include: Not all tasks are appropriate to be assigned to an employee.

For example, matters related to personnel should not be delegated, nor should confidential issues, crises or situations in which it is difficult to coordinate interdependent individuals Lussier and Achua ; Portny ; Yukl Kindle Cloud Reader Read instantly in your browser. Customers who bought this item also bought.

Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. How to Build and Deliver Your Message. Forceful Leadership and Enabling Leadership: You Can Do Both. Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value. The Art of Authenticity: The Sales Acceleration Formula: How to Thrive in Times of Change. Editorial Reviews About the Author This series of guidebooks draws on the practical knowledge that the Center for Creative Leadership CCL has generated, since its inception in , through its research and educational activity conducted in partnership with hundreds of thousands of managers and executives.

Much of this knowledge is shared-in a way that is distinct from the typical university department, professional association, or consultancy. CCL is not simply a collection of individual experts, although the individual credentials of its staff are impressive; rather it is a community, with its members holding certain principles in common and working together to understand and generate practical responses to today's leadership and organizational challenges.

The purpose of the series is to provide managers with specific advice on how to complete a developmental task or solve a leadership challenge. In doing that, the series carries out CCL's mission to advance the understanding, practice, and development of leadership for the benefit of society worldwide.

Product details File Size: Pfeiffer; 1 edition July 26, Publication Date: July 26, Sold by: Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Showing of 4 reviews. Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

The Life And Opinions Of Tristram Shandy Gentleman The Florida Edition

Great book for leadership reflection. Short, quick read but good to reference now and again. It's okay for a reminder of what's important but don't expect too much you didn't already know. This was a gigantic promo for the Center for Creative Leadership. This book was an absolute waste of both my time and money! One person found this helpful. See all 4 reviews. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers. Learn more about Amazon Giveaway.

• Bound by the City: Greek Tragedy, Sexual Difference, and the Formation of the Polis (SUNY series, Insinuations: Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, Literature)
• NaranoKaze (Japanese Edition)
• Where to Pee on a Pirate Ship (For ages 10 and up)
• Tribunal administratif de Paris : étrange découverte (ESSAI ET DOC) (French Edition)
• Rogue Males: Richard Burton, Howard Marks and Sir Richard Burton
• Karate Madness
• How to live? Notes Traveler.