Leadership

Leadership

What is a leader? What are the qualities that make good leaders? Does a leader manage? Is a manager also a leader? Are leaders charismatic characters, who leave the managing to others? Are Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer good leaders, good managers or both? How would Narendra Modi be categorised? As a manager possessing highly manipulative skills, or a leader revered by his people? Was Margaret Thatcher more of a leader than a manager? Was Winston Churchill, the magnetic leader of World War II, a good manager? Was Hitler?

?They who lead, must also manage

Anyone who has ever been responsible for organising the activities of others, or who has sought to get something done through other people has encountered some of the problems of managing groups.

?But can anyone be a leader? Are leaders born or made? Are there some arcane initiations or procedures that we can acquire to become leaders? Do we have to be liked or popular to be good leaders? Or is it the reverse, and if we are effective, popularity follows? Does the leader lead from the front or the rear? And whichever, who does the management if not the leader?

?It is one thing to know what needs to be done—quite another to be able to do it and mostly you have to achieve results through other people. This is particularly relevant if you have recently been promoted and are responsible for getting results. You have to change from doing things yourself to getting them done through other people.

?Delegate responsibly

You probably won’t have sufficient knowledge of everything done in the organisation—you have to delegate and rely on others. If you do have the knowledge, you won’t have the time to do it all yourself—you must delegate. You can’t be in two places at once; if you have to attend a meeting in Delhi on Monday and an important committee requires your presence in Lisbon, London, or Luxembourg at the same time, you can’t cope with everything; you have to delegate. This is one of a manager’s most difficult tasks and often depends on the power his or her position possesses.

?There are three kinds of power in organisations:

·?????? Coercive power based on physical advantage.

·?????? Remunerative power based on material means.

·?????? Normative power-based symbolism.

Coercive power requires the use of physical restraint or force. Prisons and military situations are examples. Remunerative power is the ability to control distribution of resources. Businesses and organisations control salaries, wages, money, promotion, non-cash rewards such as time off and are typical of remunerative control. Normative power derives from the tactical use of symbols such as prestige, position, love, and affection, to achieve agreement or acquiescence from others. Normative power may be seen as suggestive or persuasive authority often found in not-for-profit organisations, voluntary groups, charity societies, fraternities, and universities.

?All three kinds of power can be observed in organisations but mostly with one more dominant than the other two. This general power environment contributes largely to the character of the organisation, its friendliness perceived by employees and outsiders. Members at the top of the hierarchy are influenced by normative power; those at the bottom are often subject to coercive power.

?Organisational power structure

Participation in the organisational power structure ranges from negative, through moderate involvement to positive. Negative interest is typical of those members who disassociate themselves from the organisation. They never make use of company facilities and seldom, if ever, attend company events. At the extreme, these ‘unsociable’ employees are alienated from the organisation of which they are members.

?Moderate involvement in the power structure varies over time from lukewarm to enthusiastic. These neutral participants can be influenced for or against proposals exhibiting what is sometimes considered to be an unbiased viewpoint. Such involvement is often calculative, the views held, and opinions expressed are in direct relationship to the likelihood of reward or stricture.

?Positive participation stems from a moral and favourable view of the organisation and is often intense. It is found in ‘enthusiasts’, loyal party followers, faithful church members, and dedicated company employees. With three types of power and three types of involvement, there are nine orders of organisational compliance:

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Degree of involvement:

????????????????????????????????????????????????? Negative????????????? Moderate?????????????? Positive

????????????? Power:

????????????? Coercive??????????????????????????? 1?????????????????????????? 2????????????????????????? 3

????????????? Remunerative???????????????????? 4????????????????????????? 5????????????????????????? 6

????????????? Normative?????????????????????????? 7????????????????????????? 8????????????????????????? 9

?

Etzioni[1] argued that particular kinds of power and involvement usually go hand in hand. The most common forms of compliance found in organisations are 1, 5, and 9, the three forms termed congruent with each other.

?In general, coercive power produces negative involvement (1) and conversely, negative involvement has to be corrected by coercive power. Remunerative power produces moderate involvement (5); moderate involvement can be stimulated by the use of remunerative power. Normative power produces positive moral involvements (9) and vice versa.

?Organisations possessing congruent compliance structures―1, 5 and 9―are more effective than those having tensions and conflicts of incongruent systems. Organisations function most effectively using remuneration or utilitarian rewards rather than coercion or symbols as the basis of control. Above all, the system must be easy to understand and measure, and clearly related to performance.

?Coercion, such as reprimands or even dismissal, and normative controls, such as appeals to loyalty, are secondary in their importance.

?As to leaders’ personal characteristics, in a continuous survey conducted in Europe, certain attributes are consistently rated by a cross-section of managers responsible for corporate results as the most valuable qualities for senior level management. Rated most important are willingness to be observed as the person responsible for the group, integrity, enthusiasm, imagination and ability to take decisions.

?Next, the ability to spot opportunities and adapt quickly to change, capacity to cope with unpleasant situations, prepared to work hard but not necessarily long hours, and readiness to delegate.

?Then follow analytical ability, readiness to understand others and willingness to take risks. Capacity for clear understandable speech and writing are also thought desirable.

?Regarded of low importance are ambition, administrative ability, open-mindedness of purpose. Capacity for abstract thought is at bottom of the list.

?Quality and acceptance of decisions

All decisions have these two characteristics―the quality of the decision, that is its “goodness” or efficacy to deal with the problem and the acceptance of the decision by those who have to implement it.

?On the face of it, a simple quality decision is all that is necessary to acquire new machinery. But, if it is being worked by union labour, their views must be taken into consideration. Any replacement is likely to be with improved equipment. The more such machines are in the hi-tech sphere, the greater is the improvement each year. Obviously, replacing a well-used piece of equipment with an up-to-date model possessing additional ‘bells and whistles’, will need a degree of acceptance by the workforce. The quality decision has moved somewhat towards the acceptance side of the decision.

?Nevertheless, the majority of problems that arise in business are in the area where,

Q = A

?that is, importance of quality and acceptance of the decision are about 50% each. The question arises as to the best way of taking a decision in such circumstances. A lot depends on the manager and her or his ability to handle difficult situations. Of greater significance, is the particular relationship the manager has with subordinates at the time the decision is has to be taken. This acceptance dimension is absent in case analysis because cases do not necessarily expand on the personalities and temperament of characters in the case unless it is essentially to do with human resources management.

?In real life, this behavioural aspect influences the way a Q = A decision should be taken. Here are two situations; the manager is X, the subordinates, O:

?

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? X

?

?????????????????????????????? X

??????????????????? O???????????????????? O??????????????????????????????? O?????????????????? O

?????????????? O????????????????????????????? O???????????????????????? O?????????????????????????? O

?

?

???????????? O????????????????????????????????? O?????????????????? O???????????????????????????????? O

?

??????????????? O??????????????????????????? O???????????????????????? O??????????????????????????? O

??????????????????? O???????????????????? O??????????????????????????????? O??????????????????? O

?

???????????????????????? Situation 1??????????????????????????????????????? Situation 2

?

In situation 1, the manager is a member of the group, accepted, respected and maybe even liked by members of the group. If a Q = A decision has to be made in such a situation, the manager takes a quality decision and uses leadership skills to gain acceptance.

?

In situation 2, the manager is outside of the group, which can be for all sorts of reasons, but mostly concerned with quotidian, everyday problems. Where a Q = A decision has to be made in a 2 situation, the manager should not take the decision. The group makes the decision, and the manager employs skills of chairmanship and manipulation to upgrade the quality of the decision.

(by Len Rogers who has taught, trained and developed many well-known leaders)

[1] Etzioni, Anitai (1971) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. (Free Press)

?