Leadership is the act of guiding and leading an organization or a group of people. It also refers to the ability to undertake and implement a successful function. Leadership usually involves a number of activities. A good leader should establish a clear vision and share it with other team members so that they get to follow voluntarily. To add on, he or she must provide the requisite information, understanding and methodologies to achieve the vision. Leaders must balance and coordinate conflicts of interests among members and stakeholders. In times of crises, they are required to rise to the occasion and must think and creatively act in stressful situations.
Unlike management, Leadership is not a quality that requires teaching. However, it can be learned and enhanced through instruction or mentoring. Leaders are a very integral part of any given organization or a group of people. Without leaders, a state of anarchy is almost sure to arise within teams. Little progress can be made in such situations because it can be tough to agree on issues. Many organizations are increasingly finding a hard time in obtaining leaders who are coherent with their teammates in understanding and communication. The most common approach to leadership is whereby the quality gets taught in institutions as a field of study. This method, however, appears not to be yielding good results. Various scholars and researchers have written on this matter. Some opinions diverge while others seem to be in tandem with each other.
Petriglieri and Jennifer examine how and why business academic institutions seem to be complicit in a growing separation between leaders and their followers, including the organizations they are meant to serve. They postulate a general argument that business schools encourage this disconnect through a so-called "dehumanization" of leadership. This problem, they claim, manifests itself in the process whereby leadership becomes reduced to a set of skills and its promotion of personal virtue. Dehumanization serves as a valuable excuse against the precariousness and ambiguity of leadership in modern workplaces.
They also claim that most leaders no longer serve as role models and overseers of the common interest. These so-called leaders are more often than not viewed as gluttonous, disconnected plutocrats who disproportionately profit from globalization, profit maximization, and lenient regulatory systems.The two authors suggest that the solution to this dehumanization is re-humanizing leadership. Furthermore, this process lies in an expanded body of scholarship that encompasses analytical, functionalist and critical perspectives (Petriglieri & Jennifer 640).
Yukl gives a review of the major theories of leadership. He summarizes findings from empirical leadership research. The main topics and controversies include management vs. leadership, leader traits and skills, and leader activities and behaviors. He further examines leader influence and power, situational determinants of leader behavior, transformational leadership and its importance in the effective performance of organizations. Yukl highlights the methodological issues in leadership and integrates a framework showing how the different theories fit together (Yukl 289).
Collinson and Tourish argue that conventional methodologies used in teaching leadership within business schools have heavily relied on ground-breaking models. These models emphasize the role of individuals with charisma, in setting convincing ideas to which all organizational stakeholders are expected to follow. Such tactics pay limited attention to power dynamics, contextual influence, and the consequence of follower resistance and dissent. Their article examines the pedagogical capacity of critical leadership studies. This field of study is an emerging, alternative archetype. It questions deeply ingrained assumptions that agency and power should get bestowed on a handful of leaders. It also acknowledges that the conformity and compliance of followers, as well as dissent and resistance, are essential features of leadership dynamics.
Their work additionally explores the dysfunctional results of such dynamics of power on individuals, societies and organizations. One major claim they make is that assumptions, methodologies, theories and findings of mainstream research work have had a big influence on the structure and delivery of leadership courses within business schools. Such psychological methods tend to privilege and exalt individual leaders while at the same time underestimate the dynamics of power (Yukl 594).
Daud, Zulkiflee, et.al in their study, examined the relationship between the desire for power and personal traits with the insight on office politics. They found that power manipulation and competition became the essence of office politics. Furthermore, the practice of organizational politics can profoundly impact on the main business processes such as budget setting, strategy information, performance management, as well as leadership. This situation occurs because, when individuals play organizational politics, it interferes with the information flow of an organization.
Information can be misdirected, distorted, or suppressed so as to manipulate a situation for the sake of short-term personal gains. Apart from causing trouble to the team members, the final result can be far more destructive. Managers and employees who insist on concentrating on political work aspects may end up spending less time focussing on their jobs.
In his research, Fairholm (10) explains how strategic planning has proven to be precious but limited. He further states that the activity is merely a technical fix that covers only part of the question regarding organizational effectiveness. Likewise, it only deals with a few of the dilemmas institutions face. The efforts of public administrators to regulate organizational goals are necessary, essential, and in tandem with current best practices. These control mechanisms only prove to be part of the puzzle. In the face of such a reality, the concept of strategic thinking comes up to fill the gaps and reduce the limitations that strategic planning experience has proven to show. Fairholm (15) presents an integration of strategic thinking, leadership ideas, and traditional planning tasks. He carries out this analysis to make important connections and distinctions.
An analysis of the articles shows that they all acknowledge the fact that there seems to be a leadership crisis in both business and academic institutions. Evidence of this is whereby G Petriglieri and JL petriglieri argue that organizations and learning institutions appear to be complicit in an expanding rift between leaders and their followers in the institutions they represent. Collinson and Toursih claim that the models used in teaching leadership only emphasize on the roles of those with charisma in providing leadership roles. Daud, Zulkiflee et al., (7) discuss the perils of organizational politics. They claim that when people in an organization are at loggerheads, vital functions become compromised as a result.
However, divergent viewpoints also arise between the articles. Petriglieri has theorized a so-called dehumanization of leadership that the problem shows itself through the reduction of leadership into a set of skills. This process goes ahead to affect leadership in modern work environments. Collinson and Tourish (2) on the other hand mainly focus on the teaching methods. Furthermore, only charismatic individuals get deemed to be fit for leadership roles. However, this might not always be the case. They claim assumptions and theories behind most research works have heavily influenced these learning methods. Institutions pay less attention to dynamics of power and focus more on the individual. Zukl’s work is mainly an analysis of facts and comparison between leadership and management.
Daud, Zulkiflee et al., (9), expound on the relationship between the desire for power and personal traits. They mainly highlight the discord between leaders and their followers as a result of organizational politics. Such politics is usually a form of power struggle. Fairholm view is the most divergent from the rest of the authors. His primary focus is on strategic planning. He claims that it is helpful but limited. He is more concerned about how public officers can improve the effectiveness of their organizational structures.
A research gap that arises is the role of ethical values in leadership. It is important for scholars to study the effect of morals and ethics on leadership. After so doing, they can further study on how to integrate societal morals and ethical conduct in the improvement of leadership. When leaders get equipped with good morals, they can be more responsible and interact with their juniors in a more professional and understanding manner. It is then that they would realize the importance of teamwork.
Since leadership is a quality that cannot be taught but can be learned, business institutions need to implement the proper curriculum. The methodologies need overhauling and more appropriate ones established. Tutors should also not focus on individual charisma but enhance the understanding of power dynamics in organizations and learning institutions. Lastly, the importance of teamwork between leaders and followers cannot be emphasized enough. When members of an institution work as a team, there is bound to be less conflict and tasks get accomplished with efficiency and diligence. Vital processes within organizations can hence proceed without any interference such as disruption or distortion of communication. Team members can also coexist in harmony and form fruitful relationships that benefit everyone.
Works cited
Collinson, David, and Dennis Tourish. "Teaching leadership critically: New directions for leadership pedagogy." Academy of Management Learning & Education 14.4 (2015): 576-594. Retrieved from http://amle.aom.org/content/14/4/576.abstract?etoc N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2016
Daud, Zulkiflee, et al. "Office Politics: The Reduction of Employees' Need for Power." International Journal of Business and Social Science 4.11 (2013). Print.
Fairholm, Matthew R. "Leadership and organizational strategy." The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 14.1 (2009): 3-16. Print.
Petriglieri, Gianpiero, and Jennifer Louise Petriglieri. "Can Business Schools Humanize Leadership?" Academy of Management Learning & Education14.4 (2015): 625-647.
Yukl, Gary. "Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. “Journal of Management 15.2 (1989): 251-289. Print.
