Leadership concepts and applications

Headless chickens describes an organization which is alive, and able to operate and continue to exist, but that has no sense of what it is, or where it's going. By calling itself a headless chicken, the group on the case study of a higher professional education organization correctly identified how it was feeling, but also identified how the organization got to the unfortunate position. Once these two factors are known, a path can be charted out of the situation by surgically installing a new head, by someone who understands the nuances of what it will take to get the surgical procedure to take.

The process of change in on organization cannot be initiated with the simple change of a leader. The organization also has a culture which has been built over the lifetime of the organization. Changing the leader, when the new leader is brought in from the outside of the organization will almost necessitate a change in culture, and negotiating these issues is much like trying to reattach the chickens head. The new leader may look the same, and have the same title, just like one chicken head looks the same as the next. However, without the proper preparation for the surgery, skillful hands, and a vision as to what the animal, or organization will look like after the operation, the organization may appear from the operation room with the head looking the wrong direction, unable to see where it is going because it is focused on looking back at where it's been.

In the college of higher education, a new administrator was installed in an attempt to bring change. However the first new principle, installed in 1996, supplied little in the way of solid leadership. His laissez faire or possibly management by exception methods gave the staff no real foundation on which to build toward the future.

This paper will investigate the nature of change within the organization, and look into the different leadership theories which have made their way into the marketplace in order to answer the following questions.

What it the change process within an organization, and how can the organization prepare for, and transact through meaningful, lasting change?

What leadership style is the most effective for initiating lasting change?

What are the differences between leadership, empowerment, and management, and how is the organization served by each?

Literature Review

The Change process

Managing organizational change is much more complicated than teaching staff or personnel new tasks or replacing staff with new personnel. The new tasks, often based on new goals and objectives for the organization, will also have an effect on the organizations culture. The existing organizational culture will also have to adapt to the new priorities, and purposes which are included in the new tasks. In order for people to make the transition to the new processes, the organizational culture needs to be nurtured through the change process which will include three distinct steps. Then the organization will adapt to the new processes, new technology, and after testing the waters, establish a new equilibrium around the new identity

The impact of an organizational culture on the well-being of the business organization has been explicitly recognized by many organizational researchers (Dennison, 1984; Camerer and Vespalian, 1988; and Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983). Tunstall (1986) suggests that a company's culture is the amalgam of shared values, behavior patterns, mores, symbols, attitudes, and normative ways of conducting business. Culture may influence what organizational strategies are selected and whether they are successful (Cartwright and Cooper, 1993). Existing cultural orientations may be quite supportive of the mission and success of a firm at a particular point, but not at all appropriate when significant strategic change becomes necessary, as in the case of the educational model in this case study.

Culture has been recognized as a consideration in the strategy implementation process (Bourgeois and Brodwin, 1984). Culture is assumed to explain the success of some organizations (Peters and Waterman, 1982), to represent an essential element in effectiveness of organizations if it fits the strategy (Schwartz and Davis, 1981), to act as a determinant of strategy (Ackerman, 1982), or as an influence on the implementation of decisions (Schwartz and Davis, 1981). Such claims contribute to the recognition that culture plays a large role in the overall implementation of specific strategies. As such, culture must also play a critical role when dramatic, significant strategic change is mandated.

Few concepts in organizational theory have as many different and competing definitions as does the ideas of organizational culture. Even though some disagreement and ambiguity have been noted in the numerous attempts to define culture for the organization, certain elements repeatedly emerge in nearly all definitions (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Schall gives a relatively accurate all-encompassing definition: "Culture is a relatively enduring, interdependent, symbolic system of values, beliefs, and assumptions evolving from and imperfectly shared by interacting organizational members that allows them to explain, coordinate, and evaluate behavior and to ascribe common meanings to stimuli encountered in the organizational context" (1983: 11)..

Kurt Lewin's (1935) model for organizational change was built on his familiarity with the physical sciences. He developed the force field analysis, and talked in terms of an organizational change process being one of unfreezing the organization, moving the organization through the change process, and then refreezing the organization in the new changed condition. His use of this pictorial representation was based on moving a block of ice from one container to another. When frozen in an ice cube, water can be placed in different sized containers, but the shape of the water will stay the same. Changing the organization is similar to putting an ice cube from one container to another. While the container has changed, the organization has not.

In order to facilitate a change in the identity of the organization itself, the ice must be unfrozen. The unfreezing process is often the step in the process which is neglected, and then when the organization failed to take on the shape which reflects new strategic directives, organizations leaders wonder why they spent so much time and energy attempting to change only to fail. Only after the water is unfrozen can it then be poured from one container to another. After the water is successfully in the new container, it can then be refrozen and take the shape of the new container. The organization takes on the shape of the new container, and is thereby changed both in form and function.

Identifying the factors opposed to change and then minimizing them is heart of managing the process of change. Within the organization, there exist unspoken expectations regarding the way the organization functions. This is the heart of the organization's culture.

In order for he organization to change, the factors of the culture must be addressed, and the staff given support for a new organizational identity. This approach to organizational change has been called the socio-technical approach to organizational development.

Rather than defining the organization by a technical, or task basis, and then forcing the human resources to conform to the tasks or technologies, the organization is allowed to develop along human and relational lines in order to maximize the human and relational element. Thus when the organization faces a change process, the human element and relationships which form the basis for inter-company interactions must also be addressed to facilitate the change. Ultimately, the two elements of the organization must be addressed together, the technical and the social, in order to bring about lasting change in the organization.

Thus, the change process is a matter of identifying and minimizing the human element opposed to change. This may require leadership training, or training the staff in human relationship skills. In conclusion, the change process is a multifaceted, and multileveled dynamic transition. The expectations of the staff must be met, and staff skills upgraded as well if a change process if to occur without significant opposition. Change can be managed effectively, if those leading the change identify all the factors opposed to the change before engaging the process. Leaders in a change process must provide social support as well as technical expertise to unfreeze the organization, move through the change process, and then refreeze the organization in the new state.

Leadership in the change process

As the behavior of the leader so is the behavior of the follower." This proverb can be seen in families, groups of friends, and also can be applied to the business environment. Many academicians and practitioners view leadership as the most important topic within the realm of organizational behavior. The success of an organization is more heavily dependent on the quality of its leaders than on any other factor. Leaders play a major role in making decisions that determine organizational goals and how these goals can be accomplished. Leaders determine how the organization functions during the process of pursuing its goals.

While many studies have sought to identify leadership styles and theories since the end of WWII, the ideas of transactional and transformational leadership styles were introduced by Bass (1985), and then expanded to create the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). This 360 degree study can help track the evolution of the leadership styles. A few years later, Avolio and Bass (1991) introduced leadership theoretical models which included three styles of leadership.

Transformational leaders are those who guide followers in the direction of established goals by clarifying role and task requirements, yet leaving employees free to determine the details of how to achieve the tasks. They often are aware of personality traits, and blend their leadership directives with subtle motivational techniques. Transformational leaders are often charismatic and visionary, and can often inspire followers to transcend their own self-interest for the good of the organization.

Barling, Weber and Kelloway (1996) completed a field experiment with 20 managers trained in transformational leadership and compared them to untrained control groups. They found positive training effects, especially on the managers' intellectual stimulation in the performance of their job. Followers' commitments and financial performance also increased as consequences of the managers' training to be more transformational in their leadership style. A transformational leader instills feelings of confidence, admiration and commitment in the followers through his interaction with them. He is charismatic, creating a special bond with followers, articulating a vision with which the followers identify and for which they are willing to work. Each follower is coached, advised, and delegated some authority. The transformational leader thereby stimulates followers intellectually, arousing them to develop new ways to think about problems.

Transactional leaders hold a view of their tasks as a transactional process whereby leaders respond to subordinates' lower level and security needs. Leaders and subordinates are viewed as bargaining agents whose relative power regulates an exchange process as benefits are issued and received.

Unlike transformational leadership, in the transactional relationship, the leader makes no particular effort to change followers' values or involve them in a process by which they internalize organizational commitment. In times of crisis, people become suspicious to the adequacy of their leadership. If they have confidence in the leader, they are willing to assign more than usual responsibility to the leader. However, if they lack confidence, they are less tolerant of the leader than usual.

Laissez-Faire Leaders exercises little influence or control over their group. Leaving them to sort out their roles and tackle their work, this leader does not participating in this process himself. This approach often leaves the team floundering with little direction or motivation. The Laissez-Faire leader's hands off approach often is interpreted as a leader who does not care, or does not really know what is happening in the everyday activities of his or her organization.

Leadership, Management, and Empowerment

As can be seen in the above definitions of leadership, leadership involves empowering the staff of an organization to take control of, and take responsibility for the aspects of their job. Leadership style is the methods by which individuals pass along the motivation from themselves to their staff. The purpose of leadership is not only to get organizational member to do certain tasks. The purpose of leadership is to get members to take responsibility for, and feel committed to the tasks. At this level, the members of the organization will share a high degree of the organizations values as their own personal values, and will likely extend the level of their involvement in order to improve the overall organization.

Empowerment is a term which arose in management literature when there was little transformational leadership practices in organizations. Leadership after it progressed without significant change for an extended period of time will undoubtedly evolve into a transactional style. Thus empowerment was used to describe the process of beginning to break down the transactional relationship between workers and managers. Today, empowerment should be understood as a part of, and one of the tools of transformational leadership. Empowering workers gives them the tools to use to engage, and transform the organization through their own input and contributions.

Empowerment is not a new idea within the business arena. The concept has been around since the 1960's when American car manufactures realized that they were losing to the Japanese producers. An extensive and extremely well-funded investigation for answers to the recurrent question, how do I get more out of my employees while simultaneously lowering my costs, produced implementable and constructive results. Employee empowerment, in its most basic definition, is effective delegation of both responsibility and resources. Management choose to involve employees at al levels in the decision-making process through providing resources and freedom to make decisions while making them directly responsible for the results of their decisions.

There are obvious methods to achieving the results that the stakeholders of an organization seek through empowerment. Increases in profitability, productivity, and creativity, are all feasible results of the empowerment. "Empowerment is an extremely cost-effective means of bringing about desired changes in performance and operational effectiveness" (Robbins, 2001) While empowerment sounds like a wonderful and transforming idea, it requires a stout devotion of the entire organization, from the top levels downward to implement successfully. The following are a few of the key factors to a successful implementation of an empowerment paradigm.

Extensive organizational preparation is needed to make the shift from transactional leadership to employee empowerment. An organizational-wide commitment is needed to prepare both management and its staff for the changes that are about to take place.

Education is a second tool in preparing for change. Psychological studies have determined that individuals are inherently resistant to change when they don't know the results, and are supported in the change process. Education within an organization will help eradicate some of the fear that's associated with change.

Clear role definition is needed to keep employees moving in a productive direction as they expand into new territory.

Management has the opportunity to align employees with corporate direction by disseminating vital information.

Organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment is a measure of the individual's identification with and interest in the overall effectiveness and success of the organization. Over the past two decades, organizational commitment has become an increasingly popular research subject as organizations attempt to identify those factors which activate personal and intrinsic motivation within the individual worker. The recent interest in the concept is a result of its relationship with other important employee behaviors and the overall beneficial effects on the entire organization when members feel a high degree of commitment to the goals, philosophy, and mission of their group. For example, organizational commitment appears to have an impact on job performance and turnover.(DeCotiis and Summer, 1987) Mowday, Porter, and Steers suggested that society as a whole benefits from employees' organizational commitment due to lower job movement and higher national productivity.(Mowday et al., 1982)

As a result, many theories have been generated in an attempt to determine the causes of such an important organizational attitude.

One popular explanation for the development of commitment is the concept of exchange, whereby the individual becomes attached to the organization in return for gains provided by the organization.(Angle, 1983) Researchers have found support for a relationship between commitment and both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.(Caldwell et al., 1980) Some investigators have attempted to determine the relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for predicting commitment. The majority of research findings suggest that commitment is more strongly associated with intrinsic rewards than extrinsic rewards

Socialization process of change

According to Louis (1990) organizational socialization is "the process through which organizational culture is perpetuated, by which newcomers learn the appropriate roles and behaviors to become effective and participating members (Louis, 1990). The presence of a new leader in the organization catalyzes a process of socialization for the leader as well as the entire organization. The topic has been discussed from various perspectives, such as socialization stages (e.g., Feldman, 1976) socialization tactics (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979) person-situation interactionism (Jones, 1983) newcomer sense making (Louis, 1980) symbolic interactionism (Reichers, 1987) stress and stress management. (Nelson, 1987).

Unless a new leader is raised up, and promoted from within, a new manager, department head, or leader is fundamentally and effectively 'different' in both his knowledge and his behavior culture than the rest of the organization. This difference is evident in his skills, as well as his communication style, his expectations, and his overall motations. It has been said that the behavior reflects leadership, therefore the organization will need to be directed toward taking on the leaders's personal culture as well as the new leader adapting to the existing organizational culture.

Effective socialization has been discussed in the literature at great length (Feldman, 1980, 1981; Schein, 1978). Wanous (1992) considers effective socialization to be synonymous with organizational commitment, although other researchers would more accurately describe effective socialization as an antecedant, and necessary step toward organizational commitment. Effective socialization should be understood as affectively causal toward increasing levels of organizational commitment.

Socialization content refers to what is learned during socialization process, or what is being imparted to the newcomer in the organization (Louis, 1980). Four content categories have been identified in the literature, which are: task, group, organizational, and personal.

Analysis

The changes which took place under the first new leader were clearly a case of unplanned and unsupported change. The organization attempted to change itself from the top down, rather from its people outward. According to the case study, the first clue of the impending failure should have been noticed when the vice principle resigned under the new principle. That he felt that his position was no longer needed is a clear signal that the new leader, installed on 1996, was not developing his people. Over the next few years, the staff members continued operation under the un-engaging leader created the headless chicken syndrome. The members knew the functions and tasks of their positions, but they did not have a clear sense of long-term strategy or direction.