Abstract
Leadership is a very important aspect of an organization that influences the success or otherwise, of an organization. While other factors may affect the success of the company, leadership is one such factor that has been largely ignored. In 1939, a group of researchers under the leadership of Kurt lewin researched on the different styles of leadership and came out with three specific types of leadership styles that are explained below (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 2002). In their study, three groups of children were assigned to an autocratic, democratic and a Leissez faire or delegative leader and the children were then given an arts and crafts assignment and led by these three leadership styles. The children’s behavior in response to these three leadership styles was observed and the psychologists then identified these forms of leadership and their characteristics, including their applicability to different situations. The aim of this paper is to analyze the leadership styles of the various actors in the case study, and to make a recommendation on how to improve the leadership of the company, with particular emphasis on efficiency, cost reduction, customer satisfaction and staff turn over
Introduction
Kurt lewin and his team came up with the following leadership styles and also attempted to define the characteristics that define these styles and their applicability in every day corporate life. These leadership styles are explained below:
Authoritarian leadership style- Lewin found out that authoritarian leaders are not that bad, as the name suggests. However, they are known to provide very clear expectations for what is expected of everyone in their team, how it should be done and also when it should be done (Yukl, 1989). There is a very definite line between the leaders and the subordinates and as expected, decisions are made by the leaders and there is little, if any input from the other members of the group.
Researchers in this case found that the decisions made under authoritarianism were usually less creative and were not positively received by the subordinates. Abuse of this style was seen as controlling, dictatorial and very bossy; in fact, other scholars view it as being bureaucratic. Authoritarian leadership has been found to be more applicable and effective in situations where there is little time for the decision to be made, and also where the leader is the most knowledgeable individual in the group. It exists in bureaucracies such as government institutions and educational facilities where there is little input from the students.
The second form of leadership as identified by Lewin’s study is the democratic leadership style. According to lewin, this is probably the most effective form of leadership although its success is also circumstantial, and depended on the nature of subordinates (Ekvall & Arvonen 1991). In this form of leadership, the leader offers guidance to the group but allows their participation and input in any issue that is being discussed. Lewin’s study found out that as much as it’s very effective, productivity is likely to be low but the quality and motivation of the subordinates is increased. Lewins study showed that children in this group had a lesser performance although the quality of their contribution was very high. Participative leaders usually allow their subordinates a decision making contribution but always ensure that they retain the final say in the group. Group members however feel very much engaged and are likely to be more motivated and creative (Conger,1993).
Researchers also found that under the delegative or Leissez-fair leadership style, the children were the least productive of all the groups. The children in this case also made incessant and unreasonable demands on the leader, did not show cooperation and at the same time, they were unable to work independently. Delegative leaders offer very little guidance to their subordinates. While it can be effective in some situations, especially where the people involved are very skilled and highly qualified, it still leads to very low level of motivation especially because the roles are not properly defined (Tylerv & Cremer,2005)..
Everline Gustafson
Everlyne reveals the characteristics of a democratic, charismatic and transformational leader. very accommodative to the needs of the staff, especially the female staff.
She exhibits the following characteristics
- She is a tall and unflappable individual, who showed warmth towards the other staff in the company.
- She is knowledgeable in the work of her staff, we are told that she has worked her way up the organization and understands what the staff is going through.
- She is accommodating and gives staff a flexible working schedules
- She is sensitive to the staff needs and offers them many training opportunities
- We are also informed that staff adored her as their leader
Eric Rasmussen
- The new department head exhibits the characteristics of a bureaucratic, dictatorial and autocratic leader.
- He is majorly concerned about the efficiency and cost reduction in the department
- He has informed the staff of his expectations of their work as clearly as possible
- He has is hardworking, no nonsense and out of touch with the rest of the staff
- Has instituted a system that tracks the performance of employees automatically thus employees are continuously monitored.
Martin Quinn- the senior vice president
- He exhibits leissez faire leadership style, democratic and transformational
- We are told that he was concerned about the performance of the department and thus hired the new employee
- He does not seem to interfere with the work of the managers and lets them to handle their tasks as they wish
- Allows the managers input in their decisions and the running of their department
Evaluation of their leadership styles
In evaluating their individual leadership styles, we shall analyze the advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages of a democratic, charismatic and transformational leadership
- Staff motivation is greatly increased as a result of the leaders concern for their plight. As shown, staff turnover had hit a low of 10% as compared to the industry average
- Staff become very productive and the quality of decisions is improved
- Staff are generally happy, and therefore staff loyalty is improved, which also leads to better quality of services
- The company is able to meet its strategic goals together with the staff, as the staff ‘own’ , and are an integral part of the company strategic roadmap
- Workers have a greater sense of esteem as their ideas are valued in the organization
Disadvantages
- Its time consuming, letting employees have some input in decision making as it slows down the process
- Sometimes, productivity may be reduced as employees take so much of their time outside the core work
- The ability to participate in decision making may be abused by some staff
Advantages of bureaucratic, dictatorial and authoritative leadership
- It assures the company of productivity of staff as they are closely monitored
- It ensures some order in the company as staff knows what to do when and how to do it
- The leader is firmly in control of activities in the company and this gives him a sense of satisfaction that everything is according to plan
Disadvantages
- Staff turnover is likely to be at its highest as a result of low employee morale
- Poor service delivery as a result of staff being in a hurry to meet targets always leads to dissatisfied customers
- Industrial labor relations may be adversely affected by this form of leadership leading to strikes
Recommendations
In order to alleviate the present situation, the following needs to be done
- The conditions of work for the staff must be improved; this concerns the number of hours to be worked, and also the salaries to staff
- Staff should be allowed some input in decision making, meaning that they should be given a platform to air their grievance and such should be addressed in totality
- The management should inform Eric of the need to engage staff more in their work, so that the service delivery could be improved
- Training of staff should be taken more seriously and management needs to invest more in the development of staff
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen the various leadership styles and there applicability in different situations. We have also analyzed their nature and response of staff to different styles. This is important to any manager in ensuring that in whatever situation, the leadership style adopted is appropriate to ensure maximum productivity and staff satisfaction in this day and age where staff, or rather, human capital, has been glorified to be the most important resource in any organization (Conger,1993).
References
Howell JM, Hall-Merenda KE (2002). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 84(5): 680-694.
Kuhnert KW, Lewis P (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review. 12: 648–657.
Yousef DA (2000). Organizational commitment: a mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 15(1): 6-24.
Yukl G (1989). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Journal of Management. 15(2): 251-89.
Tyler TR, Cremer DD (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedure and reactions to organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly. 16: 529-545.
Walumbwa F, Orwa B, Wang P, Lawler J (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 16(2): 235-257.
Daniel Goleman (2000)Leadership that gets results.Harvard business review
Walumbwa F, Orwa B, Wang P, Lawler J (2005). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 16(2): 235-257.
Burns JM (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger JA (1993). The brave new world of leadership training. Organizational Dynamics. 21: 46–58.
Ekvall G, Arvonen J (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the twodimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 7: 17–26.
Ekvall G, Arvonen J (1994). Leadership profiles, situation and effectiveness. Creativity and Innovation Management. 3: 139–161.
