“participative leadership style is always more effective ... web viewthe paper outlines the...

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEYBusiness School of Management

21844 Managing Work and People

“Democratic/participative leadership style is always more effective than

autocratic/directive leadership style”Assignment 1: Individual Research Report

Word Count: 2203

Ida Sophie Demetriades Toftdahl 10983106

Spring 2011

Executive Summary

Leadership styles are contingent upon people and situations, and range on a broad spectrum

from people-oriented to task-oriented leadership style. To a backdrop of five overarching

leadership perspectives: competencies; behaviour; contingency; transformational; and

implicit, this paper examines participative/democratic (people-oriented) and

directive/autocratic (task-oriented) leadership styles. The paper outlines the most popular

and renowned leadership theories, and discusses situations suitable for different styles. It

examines contemporary examples from a small global Australian start up business that has

recently employed two new staff which introduced opportunities for testing leadership.

Contents

Executive Summary..........................................................................................0

Part I: Introduction................................................................................................2

Part II: Critical Literature Review........................................................................3

Contingencies in Leadership Styles..................................................................4

Models of Contingencies...................................................................................5

Four Combinations or Continuums of Leadership Style:..................................6

Leadership and Management: Transformational versus Transactional.............7

Part III: Practical Implications..............................................................................8

Conclusion..........................................................................................................10

Reference List.....................................................................................................11

Student ID: 1098306 Report: Leadership Styles Page 1 of 13

Part I: Introduction

Historically, great man theory argues that “the fate of societies and organisations is in the

hands of powerful, idiosyncratic, individuals” and leaders (Buchanan & Huczynski 2010,

p. 599). There are however divergence around what leadership is in academia and mass

media, and midst practitioners and members of the public. A continuously evolving

discipline, the concept of leadership has been referred to as an ability to influence, an

influencing process or “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend

real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes” (Stogdill in Buchanan &

Huczynski 2010, p. 596; Daft & Lane 2005, p. 44; Robbins, Waters-Marsh & Millett

2004); The ongoing discrepancy relates to the effectiveness of leadership theory and

leadership styles. There seems to be agreement however that leadership aims at goal

achievement and involves human behaviour, direct action, organisations or individuals,

and relationships. According to Daft and Lane (2011), leadership is reciprocal and involves

a spectrum or circle of life. Included are two familiar terms in academia and business:

democratic and autocratic leadership. Democratic, or participative leadership style, is a

current popular trend which refers to a person who shares and delegates authority, relies on

and encourages subordinates’ participation and knowledge for completing tasks and

reaching goals, and therefore depend on “subordinate respect for influence” (Daft & Lane

2005, p. 44; Daft & Lane 2011; DuBrin 2010; Pride, Hughes & Kapoor 2009; Rounds &

Segner 2011). Autocratic, or directive, leadership style tends to centralise leader authority

and “derive power from position, control of rewards, and coercion” (Daft & Lane 2011, p.

45; Hamilton 2010; Lussier & Achua 2010). Although research suggests the former has

been known to increase positive employee feelings, a leadership continuum or mix of two

or several styles might be more appropriate, depending on circumstances such as skill level

or time pressure (Lewin 1939 in Robbins; Chemers 1997). Research also indicates that

people with “high authoritarianism and low need for independency prefer autocratic

leadership”, especially in critical situations where absolute power outweighs the expense,

or where people simply prefer to be directed (Chemers 1997; McShane, Travaglione &

Olekalns 2009; Quinn 2011; Robbins, Waters-Marsh & Millett 2004; Vroom & Yetton

1973). The critical literature review examines appropriate leadership styles within this

continuum.


Part II: Critical Literature Review

Leadership Theories refer to different schools of thoughts and leadership types that have

been identified by academics and business leaders over time. In order to understand it’s

complexity, it is useful to examine a spectrum from broad trait theories which focus on

personal qualities and characteristics, and more specific behavioural theories which again

establish between people-oriented and task-oriented leadership (Chemers 1997; Chemers

& Ayman 1993; Robbins, Waters-Marsh & Millett 2004). Leadership can be organised into

five overarching perspectives including; “competency, behavioural, contingency,

transformational and implicit” (McShane 2009, p. 419). Focussing on contingencies, these

five perspectives are explained and referred to throughout the report in order to reflect

contemporary examples to a framework of leadership theory.

Eight key leadership competencies are defined as; personality, self-concept, drive,

integrity, leadership motivation, knowledge, cognitive and practical intelligence, and

emotional intelligence (McShane et al 2009). These “personal characteristics of superior

performance” are increasingly popular; however the perspective excludes complexities and

contingencies such as situations, skills set, and quality of relationships (p. 458). To

explain, it is common to speak of leadership behaviour as people-oriented or task-oriented.

A people-oriented style describes extensive two-way communication within a vertical

environment built on comfort, listening, support, favours, personal interests, and equality

(McShane et al 2011, p.460). Task-oriented leadership comprises assigning specific tasks,

clarifying duties and procedures, and enforcing rules and encouraging efficiency (McShane

et al 2011). Decreased people-oriented leadership may cause “absenteeism, grievances, and

turnover and job dissatisfaction” (McShane et al 2011, p.460). Decreased task-oriented

leadership may reduce job performance (ibid). Leaders have to change theirs and others’

behaviour depending on each individuals competencies and skill set, the situation and the

quality of relationships. Leadership styles can be viewed as a foundation and applied in a

mix or continuum depending on contingencies.


Contingencies in Leadership Styles

Pioneering yet too narrow, Fiedler’s Contingency Model builds on relationships and

power, and suggests that effective leadership is situational depending on the leaders’

natural style (McShane et al 2011, p.467). Within this fixed model, either the leader or the

situation needs modification to reach effectiveness (Hurd, Barcelona & Meldrum 2008).

However, diversity in location, culture, race, gender and education makes it a conundrum

to understand what motivates individuals to change. High emotional intelligence,

flexibility and understanding are widely identified as requirements to exercise efficient

leadership (Dulewicz & Higgs 2005; McShane, Travaglione & Olekalns 2009; Pahl 2008;

Quinn 2011; Robbins, Waters-Marsh & Millett 2004). A leaders success depends on their

ability to drive emotions in the right direction by determining what motivates people (Pahl

2008). To clarify, five process theories of motivation assist us in predicting and influencing

behaviour; expectancy theory; equity theory, goal setting theory; satisfaction-performance

theory and reinforcement theory (Borkowski 2005). Vrooms expectancy theory suggest

that a person’s motivation in terms of performance depends on their desire for an outcome

(valance); its relation to other outcomes (instrumentality); and the relationship between

effort and performance (expectancy) (Pahl 2008). Grounded in expectancy theory, path-

goal leadership theory is a prevalent contingency theory of motivation (McShane et al

2009, p.461). A carrot rather than a stick method, this theory advocates servant leadership

which views powerful leadership as coaching, facilitating and supervising (Borkowski

2005; McShane, Travaglione & Olekalns 2009; Quinn 2011; Robbins, Waters-Marsh &

Millett 2004). In this situation, leaders will guide employees commissioning their own

motivation. Supervisors can employ equity theory and satisfaction-performance theory to

determine what makes people tick. These theories relate to social relationships and job

satisfaction, and state that motivation depends on a person’s evaluation of their outcomes

(results) and inputs (contribution) in comparison to others’ (Griffin & Moorhead 2010;

McShane, Travaglione & Olekalns 2009). To increase motivation, one must alter, distort,

move, compare, or change individual’s inputs and outcomes. Both in team and individual

mentoring, one can employ Latham and Locke’s goal setting theory which promotes

specific and challenging goals and support elements to obtain commitment (Locke 2000,

2009; Locke & Kirkpatrick 1991; Locke & Latham 1990). Organisations, teams and people


alike, need rewards and motivation which is often individually centred. Although not

specifically a motivation theory, positive reinforcement theory conditions behaviour and

motivates employees (Lussier & Achua 2010). Thus, appropriate rewards cause efficiency

when employees are motivated to reach goals and desired rewards. The aforementioned

motivation theories are useful in describing the four leadership styles explained in the

following section: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented

(McShane, Travaglione & Olekalns 2009).

Models of Contingencies

Leadership is sometimes limited or unnecessary. Leadership substitute theory for example

identifies contingencies where leaders could be substituted with co-workers, or a leader

may not be necessary if the employee displays self-leadership, self-direction and self-

motivation (McShane, Travaglione & Olekalns 2009). Where leadership is needed

however, the four leadership styles may apply. They are described in the table below

following four useful combinations or continuums.

# Style Description

1 Directive/

Autocratic

Directive/autocratic leadership is task-oriented and includes setting

performance goals and reviews, facilitation, discipline and rewards.

2 Supportive Supportive leadership is people-oriented and describes a friendly

and approachable leader who creates a pleasant work environment

based on mutual respect, no hierarchy, and employee satisfaction.

3 Participative/

Democratic

Participative leadership involves employees in decision making and

encourages employee suggestions and involvement.

4 Achievement-

oriented

Achievement-oriented leadership involves employee performance

reviews, including goals, efficiency, improvement, responsibility

and accomplishment. In this model, the relationship between style

and effectiveness, relates to employee characteristics and the

employees work environment.


Four Combinations or Continuums of Leadership Style:

Different combinations of leadership styles are appropriate depending on factors such as

skill and experience, locus of control, task structure and team dynamics explained below

(McShane, Travaglione & Olekalns 2009).

1. Leadership Style depends on skill and experience:

Moving from directive towards supportive is appropriate when employees are

inexperienced and unskilled.

2. Leadership Style depends on locus of control:

A combination of participative and achievement-oriented is contingent upon

employee preferences between internal and external control and discipline.

3. Leadership Style depends on task structure:

A mix of directive, supportive and participative is appropriate when the situation

depends on task difficulty, frequency, and routine.

4. Leadership depends on team dynamics:

It is appropriate to vary from supportive to directive depending on team cohesion;

low cohesion requires a more directive style.


Directive Supportive

Participative Achivement-oriented

Directive

SupportiveParticipative

Supportive Directive

Leadership and Management: Transformational versus Transactional

As we can see from the previous models, leadership styles depend on certain

contingencies. Additionally, leadership can be examined from a transformational or

transactional perspective. Leadership styles that appeal to employee’s values and aspiration

are transformational, whilst transactional leadership describe managerial leaders who find

ways to achieve organisational objectives more efficiently by for example linking

performance and resource management with rewards (McShane 2009). It has been

suggested that behavioural and contingency theories better describes management rather

than leadership (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2003; Gold, Thorpe & Mumford 2010a, 2010b;

McShane, Travaglione & Olekalns 2009). This is because it focuses on behaviour that

improves employee performance and well-being rather than on behaviours that moves the

organisation and work unit to a new direction. Importantly, organisations require leaders

who do both, however workload often prevent leaders from distancing themselves from

management (McShane 2009, p.469). Differentiation between the two is necessary to avoid

organisational stagnation. To clarify and divide, management can be defined as coping

with complexity and leadership defined as coping with change (Kotter in Robbins, Waters-

Marsh & Millett 2004). However, fifty years of research has found that people interpret

messages differently due to prior experiences and events (Dervin 1992; Macnamara 2005).

Thus, one style or theory cannot be entirely all-embracing. Similarly, people have

leadership prototypes. What works with some people and in some situations may not as

easily be applied or even be suitable in another. Experience depends on a person’s actions,

behaviour, thoughts, decisions, skills, knowledge, identity, environment, beliefs and values

(Dervin, Foreman-Wernet & Lauterbach 2003). The latter two in particular stands out in a

globalised world with increasing awareness of and sensitivity to, different beliefs and

values across cultures. Values are hard to change because they are long-lasting beliefs built

on moral and ethics about what is important in a variety of situations. Values and beliefs

thus play an important role in influencing individual behaviour.


Implicit leadership theory explains how leadership effectiveness is often viewed based on

preconceived beliefs about leadership features and behaviours (leadership prototypes)

(McShane, Travaglione & Olekalns 2009, p. 473). Thus, leaders influence on

organisational success is often inflated (p. 473). Most employees look for confirming

evidence of differentiating leadership because the belief makes them feel better. Explaining

organisational failure or success on a leader’s ability is a micro-economic belief that says

people generate life events rather than “uncontrollable natural forces” (p. 474). To meet

follower expectations, leaders must act in accordance with prototypes in order to bring

about organisational change, and to succeed. What sets a true leader apart may therefore be

their ability to separate themselves from the burden of leadership and accredit

organisational success to its stakeholders, meaning to employ the right leadership style at

the right time.

Part III: Practical Implications

In light of concepts described in the literature review, the following implications are

analysed in terms of the challenges facing the organisation in this case study. DIA is a four

year old global recruitment consultancy with four staff located around the world. They

have recently employed new and young staff to connect with and reflect external

stakeholders. The leadership styles chosen to meet each challenge are numbered and

sectioned into paragraphs outlining theoretical and practical examples. In particular, the

organisation faced challenges of knowledge transfer between established experienced staff

and new young staff, who worked in different locations and countries.

1. Directive Leadership with new and inexperienced staff:

DIA has recently employed two young and inexperienced staff, one of which came from a

military background. Experienced staff needed to transfer knowledge efficiently, teach

organisational practices and systems, and keep a dynamic growth. Directive leadership was

employed in terms of setting SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant,


Timely) and strict deadlines. Goal setting theory, including coaching, facilitating and

supervising, inspired specific and challenging goals that created a vision, drive and

commitment. The organisation provided directed guidance and resources to ensure new

staff had everything they needed to complete tasks. Tasks were listed in goal sheets and 90

day plans. The plans included daily, monthly, quarterly and yearly goals. This enabled staff

to see how their work related to the organisations mission and understand the value of their

work. We are here moving from directive towards supportive leadership.

2. Supportive Leadership Style

In the new DIA team, a supportive leader was important. All staff were well educated,

confident and capable. A friendly and pleasant work environment resulted in mutual

respect and increased team cohesion. This meant staff enjoyed their work which also

increased productivity.

3. Participative Leadership to empower staff and promote a comfortable environment

Participative leadership was employed particularly at team meetings where staffs were

welcome to suggest and present creative ideas that were often used. In conjunction with

goal setting theory, team members were able to set their own success goals, timelines and

rewards. This resulted in greater team cohesion and motivation. Together and in ‘one on

one meetings’ with their supervisor, team members provided each other with positive

reinforcement working towards more desirable rewards employing regular feedback.

Achievement-oriented leadership and equity theory describes how the team decided upon

different bonuses for different people dependant on their performance review with their

manager, their personal wants and needs, and the individual in comparison to others. A

combination of participative and achievement-oriented leadership increased efficiency,

improved individual and team responsibility and accomplishment.

As we can see, a mix of directive, supportive and participative is appropriate depending on

the situation. Routine tasks needed supportive leadership, monitoring and sufficient


resources. Participative leadership was needed depending on the frequency of tasks.

Members contributed in an open environment and set their own rewards, and servant

leadership was more efficient. Difficult tasks needed directive leadership which gave team

members a sense of value and regularity.

Conclusion

To answer the opening statement, it is incorrect to say that “democratic/participative

leadership style is always more effective than autocratic/directive leadership style” because

it is depends upon the situation, the people involved, and the tasks at hand. The case study

example outlined how participative, supportive and directive leadership was employed in

different situations and with different people to increase efficiency. Although it was time

consuming and challenging to train new staff and provide supervisory meetings, the team

benefited from a mix of leadership styles and team awareness of the leadership styles

employed in which situation. It is useful to employ management tools to ensure efficiency

including; daily contact, weekly meetings with agenda and goal sheets, quarterly

performance reviews and 90 day plans, yearly business plans and clear task and job

descriptions. In our knowledge worker age, it is also important that all individuals and

organisations are aware of the tools at hand, the leadership styles employed and individual

and organisational goals, to achieve organisational team cohesion.


Reference List

Alvesson, M. & Sveningsson, S. 2003, 'Managers doing leadership: The extra-ordinarization of the mundane', Human Relations vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 1435-1459.

Borkowski, N. 2005, Organizational behavior in health care, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Mass.

Buchanan, D.A. & Huczynski, A. 2010, Organizational behaviour, 7th edn, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Chemers, M.M. 1997, An integrative theory of leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Chemers, M.M. & Ayman, R. 1993, Leadership theory and research : perspectives and directions, Academic Press, San Diego.

Daft, R.L. & Lane, P. 2005, The leadership experience, 3rd edn, Thomson/South-Western, Mason, Ohio ; [Great Britain].

Daft, R.L. & Lane, P.G. 2011, The Leadership experience, 5e [ed.] edn, South-Western Cengage Learning, Australia ; Mason, OH.

Dervin, B. 1992, 'From the mind's eye of the user: the sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology', in J.D. Glazier & R.R. Powell (eds), Qualitative research in information management, Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, Colo, pp. xiv, 238 p.

Dervin, B., Foreman-Wernet, L. & Lauterbach, E. 2003, Sense-making methodology reader : selected writings of Brenda Dervin, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.

DuBrin, A.J. 2010, Leadership : research findings, practice, and skills, 6th edn, South-Western/Cengage, Mason, OH.

Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. 2005, 'Assessing leadership styles and organisational context', Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 105 - 123.

Gold, J., Thorpe, R. & Mumford, A. 2010a, Gower handbook of leadership and management development, Gower, Burlington, VT.

Gold, J., Thorpe, R. & Mumford, A. 2010b, Leadership and management development, 5th edn, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

Griffin, R.W. & Moorhead, G. 2010, Organizational behavior : managing people and organizations, 9th edn, South-Western/Cengage Learning, Australia.

Hamilton, C. 2010, Communicating for results : a guide for business and the professions, 9th edn, Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.

Hurd, A.R., Barcelona, R.J. & Meldrum, J.T. 2008, Leisure services management, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.

Locke, E.A. 2000, The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior, Blackwell Business, Oxford ; Malden, MA.


Locke, E.A. 2009, Handbook of principles of organizational behavior : indispensable knowledge for evidence-based management, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, Sussex ; [Hoboken].

Locke, E.A. & Kirkpatrick, S. 1991, The essence of leadership : the four keys to leading successfully, Lexington Books, New York.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. 1990, A theory of goal setting & task performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Lussier, R.N. & Achua, C.F. 2010, Leadership : theory, application, skill development, 4th edn, SouthWestern/Cengage Learning, Australia.

Macnamara, J.R. 2005, Jim Macnamara's public relations handbook, 5th edn, Archipelago Press, Broadway, N.S.W.

McShane, S.L., Travaglione, A. & Olekalns, M. 2009, Organisational behaviour on the Pacific rim, 3 rd edition. edn, McGraw-Hill, North Ryde, N.S.W.

Pahl, N. 2008, 'The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Leadership'.

Pride, W.M., Hughes, R.J. & Kapoor, J.R. 2009, Foundations of business, 2nd edn, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Pub., Boston.

Quinn, R.E. 2011, Becoming a master manager : a competing values approach, 5 edn, Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.

Robbins, S.P., Waters-Marsh, T. & Millett, B. 2004, Organisational behaviour, 4th edn, Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.

Rounds, J.L. & Segner, R.O. 2011, Construction supervision, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.

Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W. 1973, Leadership and decision-making, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.


“participative leadership style is always more effective ... web viewthe paper outlines the...

Documents