|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
|
An Overview of Leadership | ||||
|
|
The Functions of Leadership | ||||
|
|
The Components of Leadership | ||||
|
|
The Options for Dealing w/ Unethical Behavior | ||||
|
|
Fielder's Contingency Theory of Leadership | ||||
|
|
The Styles of Leadership | ||||
|
|
Instrumental, Expressive & Supportive Leadership Styles | ||||
|
|
Factors Affecting Leadership Outcomes: Succession | ||||
|
|
The Motivation of Leaders | ||||
|
|
Leadership in Voluntary Orgs | ||||
|
|
Leadership & Organization in Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) | ||||
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
| - Project: Leadership |
|
||||
| - Project: How Would You Lead? |
|
||||
| - Project: Video: Master & Commander |
|
||||
| LEADERSHIP IS AMONG THE TOP FACTORS AFFECTING ORGS & BECAUSE ORGS & PEOPLE ARE NOT COMPLETELY RATIONAL, CHARISMA IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR | |||||
| Leadership is perhaps the most important, influential, & oft studied topic in orgl studies |
|
||||
| There is the assumption that leadership is the most powerful aspect of any org |
|
||||
| Even political events often hinge upon leadership as seen in the famous: "Great Man [ sic ] Theory of History" paradigm |
|
||||
| Much of history is the story of military, political, religious, & social leaders |
|
||||
| Leadership studies often examine why some great leaders were deposed despite apparent power & a record of successful accomplishments |
|
||||
| LEADERSHIP IS HEAVILY CONSTRAINED, INFLUENCED, & OTHERWISE SHAPED BY MANY FACTORS INSIDE & OUTSIDE THE ORG |
|
||||
| Meindl, et al, 1985, holds that leadership is romanticized as a solution for whatever is ailing an org |
|
||||
| Focusing on issues such as leadership often masks problems w/ structure, power distribution, etc. |
|
||||
| Etzioni, 1965, describes leadership as the ability, based on the personal qualities of the leader, to elicit the followers' voluntary compliance in a broad range of matters |
|
||||
| Leadership is distinguished from power in that it entails influence, i.e., the ability to influence preferences, while power implies only that subjects' preferences are held in abeyance |
|
||||
| Followers do alter their preferences to coincide w/ those of the leader |
|
||||
| Gouldner, 1950, describes the leader as any individual whose behavior stimulates the patterning of the behavior & ideology of some group |
|
||||
| For Gouldner, the leader is an influence on what the members |
|
||||
| Katz & Kahn, 1978, see leadership as the influential increase over & above the mechanical compliance w/ the routine directions of the org |
|
||||
| Thus leadership is closely related to power, but involves more than simply the power allocated to a position in the or or claimed by a member | |||||
| Leadership is something that is attributed to people by their followers | |||||
| There is little research on top leadership because these people have the power to control access to them & they have generally not allowed researchers in & when they do, they control by controlling access they control the findings of the research | |||||
| Much research on top leadership is the result of books written by the
leaders themselves:
Lee Iacocca & Chrysler Donald Trump Winston Churchill |
|||||
| There are an extremely large number of dependent variables used in leadership analysis | |||||
|
|
The contemporary conceptualization of leadership involves a combination
of FIVE factors, including the:
- position w/in the org itself - situation / context / environment - traits of the Leaders - traits of the Followers - nature of the relationships w/ subordinates |
|
|||
| Because each leadership role is the result of the unique combination of these factors, no one style of leadership is successful all the time | |||||
| Leadership affects both behavior & attitudes at all levels of the org, though the influence of top leadership is thought to be greater | |||||
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
| MANY SCHOLARS USE A TRAITS APPROACH, EXAMINING THE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF LEADERS, SUCH AS RATIONALITY, PERSUASIVE, INNOVATIVE CHARISMATIC, ETC. | |||||
| All orgs have a person or people at the top in leadership positions who, by Weber's conception of rationalized authority, wield power w/in the org |
|
||||
| Hall believes it is crucial to examine what a leader does above & beyond the basic requirement of the position |
|
||||
| For Hall, the persuasion of members & innovations in ideas & decision making is what differentiates leadership from the possession of power |
|
||||
| Hall's analysis assumes that individual characteristics are crucial for leadership because otherwise leadership would only entail the fulfillment of the requirements of the office |
|
||||
| Many analysts have assumed that there are a set of traits that leaders possess, but the trait approach has not gone far for TWO reasons |
|
||||
| The trait approach has not achieved its goals because | |||||
| a. no universal set of characteristics has been found since leaders have a wide range of characteristics |
|
||||
| b. the situation in which leadership occurs is as important as any factor found (Gouldner, 1950) |
|
||||
| MANY SCHOLARS HAVE FOCUSED ON THE EXTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEADERSHIP SITUATION NOTING THAT THIS IS MORE DETERMINATIVE OF SUCCESS THAN THE INTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS | |||||
| The situational approach assumes that the set of conditions of the moment, the situation, defines by whom & in what manner leadership will be exercised |
|
||||
| The situational approach has dominated sociological thinking, especially in small group analyses |
|
||||
| The emergent approach combines the trait & situation approaches in the belief that different situations call for leaders w/ different traits; thus leaders emerge to meet the situation (Yukl, 1981, 1989) |
|
||||
| Hollander & Julian, 1969, supplement the emergent approach by integrating the dynamic btwn leaders & followers where leaders influence the followers & followers influence leaders in the context of the former dynamic |
|
||||
| The position of the leader in the org gives the leader a power base leading the followers to the expectation that the Leader has the legitimate right to that position & that the Leaders acts for the org |
|
||||
| The position of the leaders & the followers is especially important during times of dissent |
|
||||
| The leader should act in such a way that the expectations of the followers' expectations are fulfilled |
|
||||
| Here the interrelationships btwn the traits of the leader & the position's authority interact in that on set of traits is optimal for a given position in a given situation | |||||
Yukl, 1981, Figure on Leadership Variables indicates the dynamics of
SIX variables impacting leadership, including:
|
|||||
| There are THREE Advantages of Yukl's Framework
a. It identifies factors that contribute to or may block leadership b. It can deal w/ leadership at all levels w/in the org c. It recognizes that the end results or outcomes have an important feedback effect on leadership |
|||||
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
| - Project: Options for Dealing w/ Unethical Behavior |
|
||||
THE OPTIONS FOR DEALING W/ UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR INCLUDE:
|
|
||||
| In 1985 there were over 1300 scholastic articles in print in the area of ethics in administration, mgt, business & public admin, business etc., focusing on what was ethical or unethical in typical business practices |
|
||||
| Richard Nielson (1987) focuses on what people in orgs can actually do when they believe behaviors / practices are unethical |
|
||||
| While it is important to know what is or is not ethical, it is just as important to know what to do when confronted w/ unethical behavior |
|
||||
| 1. DON'T THINK ABOUT IT |
|
||||
| Not thinking about unethical beh avoids a zero sum game btwn superiors & peers |
|
||||
| Not thinking about, not engaging in a zero sum game avoids getting into the situation where someone has to win & someone has to lose |
|
||||
| Not thinking about one path of action makes one more susceptible to go down the wrong path, strategically or otherwise |
|
||||
| One risks becoming similar to the good Nazi as one tries to make the best of a bad situation, but participating in the evil policy / practices |
|
||||
| The bad Nazi may be kind, even reluctant, but ultimately they are involved in evil policy / practices | |||||
| The ability of people to compartmentalize, to not think about what is going on, questions the validity of assuming that all mgrs naturally understand what is right or wrong; there are powerful pressures to obey orders & not think about what is going on | |||||
| 2. GO ALONG & GET ALONG |
|
||||
| Going along has the same advantage as not thinking about unethical behavior: one avoids the situation where someone has to win & someone has to lose |
|
||||
| Going along means that one must think about the unethical beh at least for a while |
|
||||
| Thinking about & going along unethical beh has the quality of an injury or illness as it slowly bleeds the individual conscience or as guilt consumes one like a cancer |
|
||||
| Under constant pressure, mgrs & wkrs simply give in & become good 'organization people' |
|
||||
| Conforming might affect areas of dec mking & action unrelated to the unethical beh as it reigns in thinking, initiative, enthusiasm, etc. & deprive mgrs & wkrs of info | |||||
| 3. PROTEST | |||||
| An advantage of protesting is that one can feel good about making an effort to stop the unethical beh | |||||
| The disadvantage of protesting is that the org can usually disregard objections & punish those who objected | |||||
| 4. CONSCIENTIOUSLY OBJECT |
|
||||
| Conscientiously objecting to unethical beh means that one refuses to participate in it in any shape, manner, or form | |||||
| Conscientiously objecting makes a clear statement to the org that at least one person considers the beh unethical & refuses to participate in it | |||||
| Like protesting, conscientiously objecting makes one feel good about oneself as one stands up for what they believe | |||||
| Consc obj may encourage others by example | |||||
| If the org recognizes the right to consc obj, then one may also be able to keep one's job | |||||
| Because very few orgs recognize the right to consc obj, one is likely to lose one's job, & thus the org loses an important voice against the unethical beh | |||||
|
|
By protesting or consc objecting one often loses the ability to advance | ||||
| 5. LEAVE | |||||
| Leaving gives a signal that it will lose good people if it continues unethical beh | |||||
| If we leave & work for a competitor we help a more ethical org gain mkt share | |||||
| We feel better because we had the courage not to cooperate w/ unethical beh | |||||
| The disadvantage of leaving is that most wkrs are very replaceable & so the org loses an ethical voice when we leave | |||||
| If the situation was a zero sum game, then mgt might see wkrs / mgrs leaving as a victory; the opposition has retreated / surrendered | |||||
| If we leave & someone else cooperates, we have only helped ourselves | |||||
| The example one sets is that if one encounters unethical beh & leaves, that is the only / best option | |||||
| Leaving sets up the 'love it or leave it' mentality in the org | |||||
| At some point we may realize that we did not have the courage to stay & fight | |||||
| "The courage to be is the ethical act in which
man affirms his own being in spite of those elements of existence which
conflict w/ his essential self affirmation"
Tillich, 1952
|
|||||
|
|
Leaving cuts off dialogue & thus the org & even the person loses the chance to learn more about the situation | ||||
| There are limits to dialogue in a zero or negative sum game in that everything one says can be used against one if people are not interested in transforming the situation into a positive sum situation | |||||
| Dialogue has little utility unless one is solely focused on the phil / spiritual transformation that can be a part of peacemaking as an end in itself (Brinton, 1973; Buber, 1965) | |||||
| 6. SECRETLY BLOW THE WHISTLE | |||||
| Blowing the whistle can be very effective if the org is likely to react to publicity, public pressure, govt intervention, profl accreditation orgs, the courts, etc. |
|
||||
| An advantage of blowing the whistle is that the whistle blower cannot be retaliated against | |||||
| A disadvantage of blowing the whistle is that one might feel dishonest, cowardly, traitorous, paranoid of being caught, etc. | |||||
| Secretly blowing the whistle can create an atmosphere of distrust in the org & create a 'witch hunt' mentality w/in the org | |||||
| Because many orgs investigate leaks, the secret whistle blower may have to face additional ethical questions bout whether to tell the truth in the leak investigation | |||||
| If the secret whistle blower is discovered, they may be fired, or they may find it difficult to be trusted by other mgrs, wkrs, clients, etc. | |||||
| 7. PUBLICLY BLOW THE WHISTLE | |||||
| Publicly blowing the whistle can be just as effective as secretly blowing the whistle | |||||
| People who publicly blow the whistle are often treated both as heroes as well as pariahs | |||||
| The major disadvantage of publicly blowing the whistle is that the org may retaliate w/ a legal suit, firing, transfer, smear campaign, etc. | |||||
| Publicly blowing the whistle makes it difficult to interact w/ the people one is criticizing | |||||
| Publicly blowing the whistle makes colleagues feel betrayed, attached, harmed it | |||||
| Publicly blowing the whistle does not help the reputation of the org, & may even put it out of business | |||||
| 8. SECRETLY THREATEN TO BLOW THE WHISTLE | |||||
| Secretly threatening to blow the whistle has all the advantages of secretly blowing the whistle w/ the additional advantage that, when it works, i.e., when the org changes its unethical beh, the org doesn't have to be hurt by bad publicity & / or sanctions that could follow | |||||
| Secretly threatening to blow the whistle has the disadvantage of secretly blowing the whistle in that it does not permit dialogue btwn the unethical people & the whistle blowers | |||||
| 9. SABOTAGE | |||||
| Sabotage in the face of unethical beh usually entails hurting or destroying the larger program in which the beh is found so that mgt shuts it down | |||||
| The advantage of sabotage is that it can be effective & ones identity is protected | |||||
| The disadvantages of sabotage are that one may be caught, one may feel guilty, there is often an investigation, innocent people may be hurt, etc. | |||||
| The biggest disadvantage of sabotage is that there is no dialogue so there is no opportunity for real change | |||||
| 10. NEGOTIATE & BUILD CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE | |||||
| Because in general when one person opposes a group of people in cooperate beh, that one person is likely to lose, it is difficult for one person in an org to bring about change | |||||
| The advantages to building consensus for change are that
- there is strength in numbers - the org is less likely to retaliate against a grp - it builds a cooperate climate |
|||||
| The best negotiation strat for change is the tit for tat ( TFT ) strat where the change agents respond to positive moves by the other side w/ positive moves, and response to negative move w/ negative moves | |||||
| The difficulty of the TFT strat is that the change agents might not have positive or negative responses available, while the org has nearly unlimited options | |||||
| It is not uncommon for people who are pursuing bad / unethical goals to use bad / unethical methods to cover them up or punish those that threaten them | |||||
| Negotiating & building consensus are more likely to be successful when the org is accustomed to positive sum solutions to problems | |||||
| Unfortunately many mgrs are only accustomed to negative sum solutions where they attempt to win & punish the loser | |||||
| It is only natural to have the 'fight or flight' reaction, even in orgs wherein when one is confronted w/ a threat at work, one often wants to leave or attack rather than calmly negotiate & build consensus | |||||
| An additional reward to negotiating & building consensus is that for many, these activities are in themselves satisfying; negotiating & peacemaking can be empowering, transformative, & satisfying | |||||
|
Links |
|
Links |
||||
|
|
FIEDLER'S CONTINGENCY THEORY MOVED THE LEADERSHIP DEBATE FROM FOCUSING ON LEADERSHIP TRAITS TO EXT & INT ENVL FACTORS AFFECTING LEADERSHIP |
|
||||
|
|
Fred E. Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership effectiveness was based on studies of a wide range of group effectiveness, & concentrated on the relationship btwn leadership & orgl performance |
|
||||
| Fiedler's contingency theory is founded upon determining the orientation of the leader, the elements of a given situation, & the leader orientation that was found to be most effective as the situation changed | ||||||
|
|
Fiedler's contingency theory is one of the earliest situation contingent leadership theories |
|
||||
|
|
According to Fiedler, if an org attempts to achieve group effectiveness through leadership, then there is a need to assess the leader according to an underlying trait, assess the situation faced by the leader, & construct a proper match btwn the two |
|
||||
|
|
One characteristic of the leader, ie their relationship w/ subordinate, & three characteristics of the situation determine leadership effectiveness, ie leader member relations, task structure, & position power |
|
||||
| A LEADER'S ASSESSMENT OF THE LPC REVEALS A LOT ABOUT THEIR LEADERSHIP STYLE & SKILLS | ||||||
|
|
In order to assess the attitudes of the leader, Fiedler developed the ‘least preferred co worker’ (LPC) scale in which the leaders are asked about the person w/ whom they least like to work |
|
||||
|
|
Although the name implies that it assesses the cowkr, the scale measures a characteristic of the leader, not the subordinate |
|
||||
|
|
Leaders are asked to think about the LPC & describe them using the semantic differential type scale |
|
||||
|
|
The LPC scale is a questionnaire consisting of 16 items used to reflect a leader’s underlying disposition toward others |
|
||||
|
|
The items in the LPC scale are:
|
|
||||
|
|
Each item in the scale is given a single ranking of btwn one & eight points, w/ eight points indicating the most favorable rating. |
|
||||
|
|
The LPC scores leaders from a continuum of those deriving the least satisfaction from interpersonal relationships to those deriving the most satisfaction from interpersonal relationships |
|
||||
|
|
How the leader relates to the LPC indicates a lot about their leadership style & skills |
|
||||
| Leaders low on the LPC scale do well under moderate situation control | ||||||
| Leaders high on the LPC scale do well under both high & low situation control | ||||||
|
|
SITUATIONAL FACTORS DETERMINE HOW FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE A SITUATION IS TO A LEADER |
|
||||
|
|
According to Fiedler, a leader’s behavior is dependent upon the favorability of the leadership situation |
|
||||
|
|
Three factors work together to determine how favorable a situation is to a leader, including member relations, task structure, & position power |
|
||||
|
|
A. Leader member relations are the degree to which the leader is trusted & liked by the group members, & the willingness of the group members to follow the leaders guidance |
|
||||
|
|
B. Task structure is the degree to which the group's task has been described as structured or unstructured, has been clearly defined & the extent to which it can be carried out by detailed instructions |
|
||||
|
|
C. Position power is the power of the leader by virtue of the orgl position & the degree to which the leader can exercise authority on group members in order to comply w/ & accept his direction & leadership |
|
||||
|
|
A leader w/ good leader member relations, highly structures tasks, & high position power will be in a situation of high control |
|
||||
| A leader w/ poor leader member relations, unstructured tasks, & low position power will be in a situation of low control | ||||||
| THE RELATIONSHIP BTWN LPC FACTORS & SITUATIONAL CONTROL DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEADER / WKGRP | ||||||
| Fiedler posits that there are two varieties of leaders, the task oriented type and the people oriented type | ||||||
| In his studies, Fiedler discovered that task oriented leaders were more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, while relationship oriented leaders perform better in moderate control situations | ||||||
| Fiedler concludes that there is no leadership style that is effective in all situations, and that certain leadership styles adapt better to some situations than to others | ||||||
| The effectiveness of a leader / wkgrp is dependent upon the orientation of the leader and to the favorableness of the situation | ||||||
 |
||||||
|
|
CRITIQUES OF FIEDLER'S CONTINGENCY THEORY ARE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE, FINDING THAT FIEDLER'S FACTORS, & OTHERS, ARE NEEDED TO EXPLAIN LEADERSHIP |
|
||||
| In 1981, the first meta analysis of Fiedler's contingency theory research was presented by Strube & Garcia, & they supported the theory overall | ||||||
| Their work was based on thirty three tests used by Fiedler to develop his model & 145 tests of the validity of the model | ||||||
| The accuracy of their conclusions, however, have been challenged on the basis of a flawed selection of studies, and on inappropriate statistical analysis | ||||||
| In a subsequent meta analysis, Peters, Harke, & Pohlmann (1985), used the data from studies based on the meta analytic procedures of Hunter, et al (1982) | ||||||
|
|
Peters et al (1985) used more recent & improved research standards, & although results were supportive of Fielder's theory, they also concluded that results required more explanation that just the contingency theory. |
|
||||
|
|
They found that the theory was fitting for the studies on which it was based, but that studies specifically testing the theory yielded less supporting evidence |
|
||||
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|
| - Project: Instrumental, Expressive, & Supportive Leaders |
|
||
| INSTRUMENTAL LEADERS FOCUS ON THE TASK, & EXPRESSIVE LEADERS FOCUS ON THE SOCIO EMOTIONS | |||
| Etzioni, 1965, developed a dual leadership approach, suggesting that in most cases leadership rests in more than 1 form & that the two forms may conflict | |||
| For Etzioni, there are TWO primary functions of leadership which include: | |||
| a. instrumental or task leadership | |||
| b. expressive or socio emotional leadership | |||
| Orgl demands will determine which form will be successful | |||
| The majority of leaders display both instrumental & expressive qualities | |||
| Most research demonstrates that a group needs both instrumental & expressive leadership | |||
| Etzioni believes that socio emotive leadership by supervisors is doomed to failure because these efforts run into existing socio emotional interactions as determined by upper level mgt. | |||
| The use of human relations in leadership is no guarantee that any behavioral change will take place (Perrow, 1979) | |||
| In Western culture, a leader who focuses on instrumental leadership often uses an authoritarian style & is thus likely to rely on the power of the position & be more punishment centered | |||
| The expressive or supportive leader is "characterized by... employee oriented, democratic behavior, uses general supervision, & is considerate of this subordinates" (Filley & House, 1969) | |||
| People who exercise leadership by taking care of the social & emotional needs of people in their group are known as expressive leaders | |||
| Other studies have paralleled the findings on instrumental & expressive leadership using the terms, respectively, "initiating & consideration" or "production orientation & employee orientation" | |||
| SOCIO EMOTIONAL LEADERS EMPLOY CONSIDERATION, CONSULTATION, & SUPERVISION | |||
| The supportive leader uses THREE socio emotional appeals, including: | |||
| a. consideration for subordinates through being considerate of needs, treats w/ dignity, kindness, not punitive, through the increase of employee centered as opposed to work or task centered work relationships | |||
| b. consultative decision making by asking subordinates for their ideas or opinions, & is participative, & democratic | |||
| c. general supervision as opposed to a close supervision, which delegates authority & allows freedom of discretion | |||
| Filley & House, 1969, found that supportive leadership, as opposed to autocratic leadership, is related to FOUR indicators of subordinate satisfaction & productivity | |||
| SUPPORTIVE LEADERSHIP FOSTERS COOPERATION, DESIRABILITY, PRODUCTIVITY, LOWER TURNOVER, & LOWER GRIEVANCES | |||
| Supportive leadership has: | |||
| a. less intragroup stress & more cooperation | |||
| b. leaders who are viewed as more desirable | |||
| c. greater productivity | |||
| d. lower turnover rates | |||
| e. lower grievance rates | |||
| EFFECTIVE LEADERS FOSTER A CLIMATE OF INDEPENDENCE & PARTICIPATION | |||
|
|
Filley & House conclude that supportive leadership is most effective when: | ||
| 1. decisions are not routine in nature | |||
| 2. the info required cannot be standardized or centralized | |||
| 3. decisions w/o time pressure: integrate subordinates into a participative decision making process | |||
| 4. subordinates feel a strong need for independence | |||
| 5. subordinates regard their participation in decision making as legitimate | |||
| 6. subordinates see themselves as able to contribute to the decision making process | |||
| 7. subordinates are confident of their ability to work w/o the reassurance of close supervision | |||
| PARTICIPATION, SATISFACTION, COMMITMENT, PRODUCTIVITY, ETC. ARE ALL INTERDEPENDENT VARIABLES IN THAT THEY ALL IMPACT EACH OTHER | |||
| Jermier & Berkes, 1979, found that satisfaction & commitment to the org were related to supportive leadership | |||
| The positive findings around supportive leadership may be confounded by the fact that the workers themselves may be supportive / productive & require less supervision & be more productive | |||
| But Dubin, 1965, has found that autocratic styles increase productivity | |||
| They suggest that the causal ordering btwn satisfaction & productivity might be reversed | |||
| Lawler & Porter suggest that productivity might lead to satisfaction | |||
| But does an org care if workers are satisfied or not?
If workers expect autocratic supervision, supportive leadership may be counterproductive |
|||
| A supportive org has THREE features including a less formalized structure, a reliance on inputs of members, & technology that is constantly changing | |||
| Thus orgs in which decisions are routine, info is standardized, etc. will have effective leadership that is more task oriented | |||
| In this type of org, members may be threatened by the decision making process or have no wish to participate | |||
| Fiedler, et al, 1967...1987 find that stable, structured situation, a strict, autocratic form of leadership is most likely to be successful | |||
| In a dynamic situation, external threats, ambiguity, etc. the more lenient, participative form of supervision would work better |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
| TOP MGRS HAVE A GREATER IMPACT THAN MID & LO LEVEL MGRS, & ALL CAN FOSTER PARTICIPATIVE DECISION MAKING, OR NOT | |||||
| While it would be good if all personnel were self motivating & desirous of participating in decision making, & that the org as a whole innovated & engaged in continual interaction w/ its env, this rarely happens |
|
||||
| Leadership at the top of the org does make a difference in terms of objective performance indicators & the attitudes of the personnel involved |
|
||||
| The range of behavior affected by 1st or 2d line supervisors is proportionally small |
|
||||
| But orgs do face limits of what top leaders can do based on technology, the org env, etc. |
|
||||
| LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION IS PROBLEMATIC IF THE NEW MGR IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OLD MGR |
|
||||
| Gouldner's Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, 1954, is the best known case study of managerial succession |
|
||||
| The old manager was loose, indulgent & the gypsum plant ran on the "brother" system: people were treated as friends & co workers |
|
||||
| The new manager changed the system to one that was punishment centered which led to a severe increase in internal tension & stress & a lowering of overall performance |
|
||||
| Guest, 1962, studied an auto factory & found that new management created an increase in productivity |
|
||||
| In the gypsum & the auto plants, the two mgrs.' expectations toward operation of the plants were different |
|
||||
| The new gypsum mgr. believed that top mgt. expected him to clear out non productive personnel, while the auto mgr. did not |
|
||||
| In the gypsum plant, the tradition for the mgr. to come from the inside was violated |
|
||||
| The old gypsum mgr had been active in the community |
|
||||
| LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION IS OFTEN PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE ORGS DO NOT ACTIVELY PREPARE FOR IT | |||||
| The new gypsum mgr had little recourse but to use a formal bureaucratic mechanism of control since he did not have the personal connections to the workers or the community |
|
||||
| The auto plant was in a metro area where the mgrs. were not community leaders, there had been rapid turnover of mgrs., new mgrs. came from the outside | |||||
| The gypsum plant workers had no orientation toward cutting costs & improving productivity | |||||
| The "brother sysetm" was comfortable one where rewards, intrinsic & extrinsic, came w/o an orientation toward efficiency & productivity | |||||
| In the auto plant, the mgr moved to use informal contacts w/ his subordinates & bring them into the decision making process & relegated "rule enforcement to a 2nd level of importance." | |||||
| The auto mgr worked w/ the existing personnel & structure, whereas the gypsum mgr. brought in new staff & set up a new hierarchy | |||||
|
|
Guest concludes that the auto mgr was successful because he gained the consent of the governed |
|
|||
| Grusky, 1961 & Gordon & Becker, 1964, found that the larger the org, the higher the rate of succession, though this has been contradicted | |||||
| The larger the org, the less the impact of succession because large orgs are apt to be more complex & formalized, & thus more resistant to change | |||||
| LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION IS AFFECTED BY THE SUCCESS OF THE ORG, ORGL STRUCTURE, THE EXTL ENV, THE INTL ENV, MGT STYLE, ETC. | |||||
| In baseball there is little doubt that the rate of succession is affected by the success of the org | |||||
| Gamson & Scotch note that the firing of baseball coaches may be more of a ritual scapegoating than an attempt to hire a better coach | |||||
| They support the previously discussed finding that those at the top of the org have a greater impact than those lower in the hierarchy | |||||
| Grusky & Brown's argument follows Gouldner & Guest that external & internal pressures for success affect performance | |||||
| Grusky, 1970, found that rapid succession is associated w/ limited control by top mgrs | |||||
| Pfeffer & Moore, 1980, found that length of dept heads' tenure was increased as the "paradigm development" increased, i.e. as there was greater agreement of the theoretical basis of the discipline | |||||
| Meyer, 1975, found that in periods of env & org uncertainty there is a greater rate of succession | |||||
| In orgs w/ loose structures & where leaders are expected to have a great deal to do w/ what goes on in the org (involvement), leadership will have a large impact | |||||
| Some observers hold that a new US President has a small effect because the bureaucratic system is designed to maintain stability | |||||
| The argument thus far is that org structure affects how much impact leadership can have | |||||
| Family ties make top leadership succession less sensitive to performance | |||||
| Top mgrs tend to be succeeded by individuals w/ the same career specialization | |||||
| Mgt succession is political in that players manipulate impressions as the successes & failures of a mgr | |||||
| Galbraith notes that mgrs are captives of their orgs in that as they come into an org they may have little control of the situation | |||||
| Example: Gov. Warner coming into office as state moves into a deficit situation | |||||
| Lieberson & O'Conner, 1972, found that sales, earnings, & profits of major corps were more affected by the env (macro economic factors) than by the leaders of these corps | |||||
| These findings are disturbing to many analysts & business leaders | |||||
| Thomas suggests that leadership does have an effect on individual firms, but at the aggregate level, the loss of the losers cancels out the wins of the winners, making it appear as if there were no effect | |||||
| Thus we must see the effect of leadership as a variable ranging from transformational to little or nothing | |||||
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
| MGRS MAY BE MOTIVATED BY GAINING CONTROL & / OR BY THE ACQUISITION OF POWER & WEALTH | |||||
| Berle & Means, 1932, argue that corporate executives have become technical mgrs, separated from the concerns of capitalist owners |
|
||||
| Zeitlin, 1974, argued that corp. leaders are part of the capitalist class because of their phenomenal power & wealth, though their interests may be different |
|
||||
| For Zeitlin, the motivations of mgrs & corp execs appear simple as compared to capitalist owners (i.e., old money) wherein the former appear only to want money like any wkr, while the latter want power | |||||
| But because execs can accumulate a fortune, they have the possibility of gaining power & control & effectively entering the upper class | |||||
|
|
From Zeitlin's corp class theory, one assumes that orgl decision are made on the basis of continuing the acquisition of power & wealth |
|
|||
| James & Soref, 1981, support Zeitlin & oppose Berle & Means in that mgrs are hired/fired on the basis of profit performance demonstrating that mgt. & owner interests overlap |
|
||||
| But what is good for a corp may or may not be good for society |
|
||||
| Zeitlin concludes that the interest of accumulation of wealth contradicts social interests only when the concentration of wealth gets so large that it harms the development & efforts of the middle class |
|
||||
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
| LEADERS IN VOL ORGS ARE BECOMING LIKE MGRS IN BUSINESS ORGS | |||||
| In most orgs, voluntary or non voluntary, the leader is hired by the board of directors & top mgt. based on criteria set up in advance |
|
||||
| In many volunteer orgs, the leader is elected, though many are also hired as in a non voluntary orgs |
|
||||
| LEADERS IN VOL ORGS ARE NORMATIVELY MOTIVATED & OFTEN USE AN OLIGARCHIC STYLE | |||||
| According to Etzioni, voluntary orgs leaders & members are normatively motivated |
|
||||
| See Also: Etzioni |
|
||||
| Voluntary orgs are often ruled w/ an oligarchic style, in that several people at the top rule the org via a 'dominant coalition' |
|
||||
| When an oligarchy rules, like an individual, they often wants to stay in power | |||||
| See Also: Styles of Leadership |
|
||||
| Tannenbaum, 1968, found that union leaders have higher incomes than the rank & file & are more likely to live like there mgt. counter parts |
|
||||
| VOL ORG LEADERS DEVELOP SKILLS UNIQUE TO VOL ORGS, DEV PATRONAGE, GROOM A SUCCESSOR, REMIND PARTICIPANTS OF BENEFITS | |||||
| Voluntary org leaders tend to stay in office for the same reasons that other leaders stay in power |
|
||||
| Vol org leaders stay in power because they: | |||||
| a. develop skills which are unique to them & advantageous for themselves & the org |
|
||||
| b. develop political power through patronage & other favors |
|
||||
| c. tend to groom their successor |
|
||||
| d. remind members of the benefits they have brought to them |
|
||||
|
|
VOL ORG LEADERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE DEMOCRATIC WHICH IS FOSTERED BY A SMALL WAGE GAP, GOOD PAY, SENSE OF COMMUNITY AMONG MEMBERS & THE WIDER COMMUNITY, & ORGANIZED FACTIONS | ||||
| Lipset, Trow, & Coleman, 1956, found that in the ITU, FIVE factors created a greater tendency toward democracy |
|
||||
| a. the wage gap btwn leaders & followers is small |
|
||||
| b. the relatively high pay of members | |||||
| c. a strong sense of community among members | |||||
| d. a strong sense of community w/ the community | |||||
| e. the formation of orgl factions that are similar to political parties | |||||
|
|
Voluntary orgs are more likely to form "dual leadership" where factions develop than are non voluntary orgs | ||||
|
|
Political parties often develop public & associational leadership |
|
|||
| Public leaders run for & hold public office | |||||
| Associational leaders operate as administrators behind the scene | |||||
| While unofficial power arrangements exist in utilitarian orgs, they are more fully developed & common in voluntary orgs because of the loose org structure | |||||
| Leaders are more likely to have a strong impact than in a more structured org | |||||
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
| Strong, existing groups often become mobilized as movements (Oberschall, 1993) & existing soc groups make mvmts more likely to form if they are segmented so that they draw their members & other resources from different levels of society |
|
||||
| One segment of a soc mvmt, i.e. one group w/ one segment draws members & other resources from one level of society |
|
||||
| The more segmented the group associations are in any society, the more likely those groups are to mobilize into soc mvmt orgs |
|
||||
| For resource mobilization theory, members of a segment are alike & so want their wants tend to be alike as well |
|
||||
| Existing groups make the mobilization easier because they have established members, communications networks, partially mobilized resources, members w/ leadership skills, a tradition of participation, meeting places, an activity routine, social bonds, shared beliefs & symbols, & a common language, etc. (Oberschall, 1993) |
|
||||
| Leaders of SMOs focus on problems of mobilization, the manufacture of discontent, tactical choices, & the infrastructure of society & mvmts necessary for success (McCarthy & Zald, 1977) |
|
||||
| See Also: Leadership | |||||
| Resource mobilization theory notes that the block recruitment of existing groups means that much of the groundwork is already done & simplifies the process of enlisting a group into a soc mvmt |
|
||||
| Leaders of SMOs take greater risks than followers & receive greater rewards in the form of status, authority, & sometimes wealth & can therefore be a step to upward social mobility |
|
||||
| SMO leaders are political entrepreneurs & their status is dependent on their success or failure |
|
||||
| An effective SMO leader brings members & network members together & creates a common loyalty |
|
||||
| SMO leaders do not make or break a mvmt in the way the public often assumes in that leaders today often cater to the wants of the followers |
|
||||
| Charismatic, brilliant leaders in SMOs function in the same way as such individuals in private sector orgs |
|
||||
| Communications & influence in SMOs takes place in small groups w/in the mvmt & thus groups have influence over leaders just as leaders have influence over followers |
|
||||
| In most SMOs there is a higher level of organizational democracy than in a traditional private sector org | |||||
|
|
See Also: Org Democracy | ||||
| In the early stages of the development of an SMO organization is informal & the leaders have a high level of face to face interaction w/ members & potential members but once the mvmt grows, it must acquire a more formal structure & implement a division of labor such that there is less personal contact | |||||
| Too much formal organization too early results in less attractiveness w/ respect to sociability for members | |||||
| Too little formal organization in an SMO & effectiveness will suffer, resulting in members becoming discouraged | |||||
The End
|