|
When leadership styles determine organisational success
2006-05-07 08:20:44
By Maria Masebo
Styles of leadership vary considerably, and necessarily so, as different types of leadership are better suited to certain situations than to others.
A particularly successful style of leadership in one set of circumstances may be most unsuccessful in another setting.
There are two broad categories of leadership styles: the first is the authoritarian or formal type of leadership; and the second is the supportive and more flexible type of leadership.
The authoritarian leadership is characterized by the dominance of the leader who controls all aspects of the work, gives detailed orders and makes all decisions.
The quality most required of followers is obedience.
The supportive leadership is more flexible, incorporating participatory decision-making and a certain degree of professional freedom and initiative.
In deciding on which mix of leadership types is needed, we have to analyse certain factors which are bound to vary from situation to situation.
These factors are;
• The character and personality of the leader;
• The type of work group;
• The task
• The environment.
The character and personality of the leader are important factors to take into consideration because the style of leadership must be one that he or she feels comfortable in.
Each person naturally has a particular style of work and this style will enhance his or her effectiveness. Leadership styles do depend to a large extent on the leader’s values and preferred style of operation.
A leader who is both self-confident and confident of the subordinates’s competence and trustworthiness may allow a greater degree of flexibility and more decision-making at lower levels.
On the other hand, someone who lacks both self-confidence and confidence in others will need greater personal control and insist on all decisions being taken only at the highest level.
In the case of Tanzania, almost a century of colonial domination has created a strong authoritarian and centralized decision-making system of leadership.
Colonialism could not afford to trust, give power to, or consult with the grassroots levels of the indigenous people.
Instead, the colonial administrator or manager made all decisions whilst the indigenous people were expected to obey unquestionably.
An authoritarian style of leadership provides certainty as decisions will be made by one person or a small group of people, whereas relinguishing absolute control so that decisions are made at different levels by different groups of people may reduce predictability.
When managers choose whether to have either a more structured or a more flexible leadership style, they are influenced by a number of important considerations.
For example, when the manager’s personal success, speed and efficiency are of the essence, then the structured authoritarian style is the best.
However if the manager believes that it is important for the workers to experience job satisfaction and to participate in decision-making, then absolute and unquestioning obedience from subordinates will not be seen as a desirable objective at all.
Many managers combine certain aspects of a structured authoritarian system with aspects of a flexible system.
For example a school head may require strict and absolute obedience in certain matters from both staff and students and yet be very flexible and consultative on other matters.
The particular degree of structuredness or flexibility may depend on the related factors of the type of work group, the type of task and the environment.
In some cases absolute authoritarianism may lead to intransigence and opposition from subordinates, and in extreme cases this will lead to strikes and violence.
On the other hand, too much consultation and too much flexibility may be interpreted as weakness and lack of direction and may well result in disaffection by subordinates.
Generally, a well-educated, competent and professional work group desires greater initiative and decision-making power.
Such people believe they have a great deal to offer and will feel frustrated if they are expected merely to obey.
A less educated and less technically competent group will feel a need for greater authoritarianism and formal structuring.
They will feel unhappy and threatened if they are required to show initiative or take decisions. Moreover, inexperienced people and learners appreciate a greater degree of structuring and detailed instructions they can follow.
Much also depends on the pat experiences of the group. A group that has never made decisions before or has never worked as a cooperative team will find a flexible decentralized situation seriously disturbing.
However, a group that has previously enjoyed a great deal of decision-making power may find the role of passive obedience both insulting and oppressive.
The relationship within the group is also significant.
A group whose members respect and trust each other and who feel confident in their own competence will be happier and work far harder in a flexible and responsible position whereas a group that is distrustful of each other, lacks confidence and feels incompetent, needs a strong authoritarian leadership.
The interest of the group in the problem or work in hand is another key factor.
If the problem interests and affects them deeply, they will want to become more involved in the decision-making, whereas if the problem appears unimportant or peripheral to their interests they may be quite happy to have the decisions made by others.
For example, parents committees in the rural areas have taken a keen interest in ensuring that their district schools are soundly built, because they know that if they do not check on the quality they may be cheated.
In the urban areas, parents show little interest in such matters because the schools do not belong to them. They expect the government to check quality and standards.
Cultural factors influence the work group and their work style. The colonial culture did not encourage discussion, consultation or group decision-making.
Instead it placed a premium on passivity and obedience.
Traditional African culture, in contrast, values thorough discussion, consultation and consensus and consensus implies lengthy negotiations and compromise.
Socialist culture offers a third alternative, a combination of centralized planning and decentralized decision-making sometimes known as democratic centralism.
This means that certain broad principles and guidelines are agreed upon, but within, these local groups have a great deal of decision-making power, particularly in terms of how they apply these principles to their actual situations.
In deciding upon the leadership style it is essential to be aware of the local cultural demands, for what might appear to be very effective system of leadership in one country, or context, may well be disastrous in another.
Finally the expectations of the group and the way they relate to authority must be considered.
A group may regard flexibility as weakness and a leader who consults such a group may end up losing the group’s respect.
Another group may regard lack of flexibility as tyrannical and may feel a need to undermine and defy a leader who is not sufficiently consultative.
Some groups may tolerate and even welcome periods or ambiguity and uncertainty which they may regard as necessary aspects of a creative process, whereas other groups may regard ambiguity and uncertainty as chaotic and disturbing.
Creative people have very different expectations from routine loving people. Similarly highly educated and highly skilled people will not tolerate systems of work which may be taken for granted by unskilled workers.
|
