Leadership Theories and Organizational Structure Explained

Organizing as a Management Function

Organizing constitutes a crucial management function. It is essentially concerned with task allocation, division of labor, chain of command, lines of authority and communication, delegation, span of control, as well as supervision and coordination (Shafiee, Razminia & Zeymaran, 2016). The manner in which these processes are organized significantly influences organizational effectiveness and efficiency. It determines how quickly or slowly decisions are made and implemented. This is particularly important in a constantly evolving environment, in which agility is a crucial parameter of competitive advantage (Felin & Powell, 2016). Organizational structure also shapes relationships between superiors and subordinates (Shafiee, Razminia & Zeymaran, 2016).

Types of Organizational Structure

There are different ways through which the organizing function may be executed. For instance, organizational structure may adopt either the centralized or decentralized form. The former entails concentrating decision-making authority in top organizational positions, while the latter involves distributing decision-making authority to lower levels of the organization (Bunderson et al., 2016). Organizational structure may also take a vertical or flat form. A vertical organizational structure entails a narrow management span and several hierarchies, while a broader span of control and fewer hierarchical levels characterize a flat structure (Felin & Powell, 2016). In addition, organizational processes are also grouped according to functions (such as finance and marketing), product divisions (such as food products and personal care products), or geographic locations (such as North America, Europe, and Asia) (Altman, 2016).

It is important to note that no single structure applies to all organizations. For instance, organizations in vibrant, active industries often require structures that permit agility and responsiveness, while those in stable industries may often succeed with more rigid structures (Felin & Powell, 2016). In addition, an organization may deploy more than one structure at the same time. For instance, an organization may combine the functional and divisional designs, resulting in what is referred to as the matrix structure (Altman, 2016). Essentially, every structure presents its own merits and drawbacks.

A tall or centralized structure usually ensures clear accountability, faster flow of authority, quicker decision-making, better coordination, and less conflict (Bunderson et al., 2016). Nonetheless, such a structure may hinder creativity and reduce employee motivation, ultimately affecting performance and productivity (Bunderson et al., 2016).

On the other hand, a flat or decentralized structure often enhances autonomy and empowers individuals at lower levels of the organization to make decisions, which may in turn minimize bureaucracy as well as foster creativity and innovation (Felin & Powell, 2016). Organizations such as Google and 3M have benefited significantly from such structures. Nonetheless, allowing extreme autonomy—especially to individuals who are not accountable—may cause an organization to lose control over its operations and affect decision-making (Felin & Powell, 2016). In addition, decision-making may be slowed since different perspectives must often be taken into consideration (Bunderson et al., 2016). Therefore, discretion must be exercised when attempting to flatten or decentralize an organization. Moreover, a blend of the functional and divisional structure (the matrix structure) may address the challenge of directing workflow authorizations to the appropriate individual, but may create confusion and interpersonal conflicts if roles are not clearly defined (Altman, 2016).

Overall, the different approaches to organizing present their own strengths and limitations. An organization must carefully weigh the associated merits and drawbacks, with specific consideration given to factors such as its size, geographic scope, product portfolio, and industry of operation. Careful selection of organizational structure is crucial for guaranteeing organizational effectiveness and efficiency.

Trait and Behavioral Leadership Theories

The importance of effective leadership in organizational success is indisputable. Leadership is essentially the process of guiding a group of people to achieve a defined goal or objective (Landis, Hill & Harvey, 2014). Scholarly work on the topic of leadership has produced several theories that describe the characteristics and behaviors of successful leaders. Generally accepted theories of leadership include trait theories, behavioral theories, situational (contingency) theories, as well as power and influence theories.

According to trait theories, leadership is an inborn quality that some individuals possess (Kunnanatt, 2016). For instance, an individual may naturally possess assertiveness, integrity, agility, confidence, as well as excellent communication and problem-solving skills—qualities that are said to make great leaders. Nonetheless, critics of the trait theory have argued that leadership qualities can be acquired through experience, training, and development (Kunnanatt, 2016). The adage "leaders are made, not born" has become popular in the contemporary world.

Critics of trait theories have particularly argued that successful leaders are defined by their behaviors, not their innate qualities (Kunnanatt, 2016). In this regard, leaders can be either production-oriented or employee-oriented, or autocratic or democratic. Production-oriented and autocratic leaders focus on the task at hand, with little consideration for the needs of employees. Though this style of leadership often facilitates quick decision-making, it may hamper employee motivation. Employee-oriented and democratic leaders, on the other hand, view employees as a valuable asset and create an atmosphere where the views, concerns, and needs of employees are taken into consideration. This style of leadership has been identified as particularly appropriate in today's work environment, where teamwork and collaboration are important (Kunnanatt, 2016). Nonetheless, it may slow down decision-making when different perspectives have to be considered.

From a trait and behavioral perspective, individuals often have their own expectations about the character of leadership. They hold beliefs about how a leader should generally behave and what is expected of them (Nichols & Erakovich, 2013). This gives rise to the implicit theory of leadership (Schyns, 2006). The implicit theory argues that individuals possess inner beliefs, convictions, value judgments, and preconceived notions that influence their behavior and their interpretations of the world around them (Bauer, 2015). These beliefs and convictions are often shaped by factors such as societal or corporate culture.

Conclusion

Overall, leadership is a subject that has attracted immense scholarly attention over the years. While some schools of thought argue that leadership is defined by inborn traits, others argue that it is defined by behaviors. Others view leadership as a context-dependent variable, while still others approach it from a power and influence perspective. Each of these schools of thought has its own strengths and limitations. A more effective leadership model would perhaps be one that blends the various approaches. In other words, an effective leader is one with certain characteristics and behaviors, one who can adjust their leadership style based on the circumstances at hand, and one with the ability to transform their followers.

References

Altman, M. (2016). HR organizational structure — past, present, and future. Workforce Solutions Review, July Issue, 13–15.

Bauer, D. (2015). Successful leadership behaviors in Slovak organizations' environment — an introduction to Slovak implicit leadership theories based on GLOBE study findings. Journal of East European Management Studies, 20(1), 9–35.

Bunderson, J., Vegt, G., Gantimur, Y., & Rink, F. (2016). Different views of hierarchy and why they matter: hierarchy as inequality or as cascading influence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1265–1289.

Felin, T., & Powell, T. (2016). Designing organizations for dynamic capabilities. California Management Review, 58(4), 78–96.

Kunnanatt, J. (2016). 3D leadership — strategy-linked leadership framework for managing teams. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 11(3), 30–55.

Landis, E., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. (2014). A synthesis of leadership theories and styles. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2), 97–100.

Nichols, T., & Erakovich, R. (2013). Authentic leadership and implicit theory: a normative form of leadership? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(2), 182–195.

Schyns, B. (2006). The role of implicit leadership theories in the performance appraisals and promotion recommendations of leaders. Equal Opportunities International, 25(3), 188–199.

Shafiee, H., Razminia, E., & Zeymaran, N. (2016). Investigating the relationship between organizational structure factors and personnel performance. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 3(2), 160–165.

Washington, R., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2014). How distinct is servant leadership theory? Empirical comparisons with competing theories. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(1), 11–25.