Dear Editor,
I have been reading with interest the scholarly articles on leadership written by our friend Dr Anand Goolsarran.
My understanding is that these are written in the context of Dr Goolsarran’s worthy ‘Watch on accountability’; however, it appears that they went beyond that focus and in the process seem to have overlooked a few essential angles of leadership which are pertinent to our current situation.
The contingency theory approach suggests that there is no one, universally determined model for effective leadership; the situational variables should determine the best.
For example, in an emergency situation an autocratic, dictatorial style becomes imperative, but in a normal or stable situation, a more democratic, participative style might be more effective.
The contingency theory emphasizes the need for flexibility based on the “perspective which argues that leaders must adjust their style in a manner consistent with aspects of the context” (Huczynski and Buchanan 2007). “The flexible style” demands that the leader act in consonance with situational dynamics; hence, ironically if there is one ‘best style’ it is the one that is a non-constraining, non-bureaucratic, variable style which gives the leader carte blanche to change his approach, having regard to the extant circumstances, and of course in accordance with the dictates of rational, legitimate leadership.
A typical definition of management was provided by Mary Parker Follet, a pioneer in the management literature field as “the art of getting things done through people.”
This is not to ignore the school that argues for a clear distinction on the grounds that their ‘roles’ are different as are indeed their ‘instrument’ in that leaders have followers while managers have subordinates.
Huczynski and Buchanan quoted Bennis and Nanus (1985) who observed that “managers do things right while leaders do the right things.” And I am tempted to add that leaders are more ‘emotional’ while managers are more rational; these are complementary and can be most beneficial when embodied in one and the same person regardless of their title.
Warren Bennis (1989) produced an interesting set of dichotomous relationships between leaders and managers including, leaders innovate, managers administer; leaders focus on people, managers’ focus on systems; leaders develop, managers maintain; leaders have long-term perspective, managers, short-term; leaders challenge the status quo, managers accept the status quo; leaders eye the horizon, managers eye the bottom line.
It has been suggested that there are as many leadership styles as there are leaders. While this might be an exaggeration to underscore a point, it is perhaps true that as individuals, no two leaders are alike. Management writers have grouped tendencies and traits that allow for broad categorization of many individual styles.
The more common of these categorizations include the following which flow from the seminal work of Weber (1905), Lewin, Lippit, and White (1939) and Burns (1978) et al:
(a) The charismatic leadership style reflecting the ‘personal’ qualities of the leader, his/her self-belief from which is projected flair, passion, enthusiasm and energy. The fortunes of the organization are intimately tied to the presence of the leader so that the organization can go down if the charismatic leader goes out.
(b) The participative/democratic/consultative style encourages full and continuing involvement of the entire ‘team’ in the decision-making processes.
Motivation is internally generated as team members feel empowered as opposed to the ‘dependency’ engendered by the charismatic leader.
(c) The transformational style is visionary, inspirational and highly motivational. The leader uses well-developed communication skills to get people to buy into his/her vision and objectives, to exercise delegated authority and manage allocated resources effectively while the leader ‘develops and sells’ new value-adding initiatives as ‘the change agent extraordinaire’ of the organization.
(d) The ‘flexible’ or ‘situational’ style
While the leadership styles mentioned above (and others not discussed herein) are anchored more in the traits and personal characteristics inherent in ‘the leader,’ this objective style is based on the dynamics of the situation.
It is anchored in the contingency theory developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1988), who proposed that “successful leaders are those who can adapt their behaviour to meet the demands of their own unique situation.”
Positives of the flexible /situational leadership style:
The biggest plus factor of this style is its commonsensical, pragmatic, easily-understood appeal; the need for ‘flexibility’ in leadership and recognition of the contextual/situational imperatives cannot be discounted. This positive ‘feeling’ is also supported by objective, empirical studies.
Negatives:
The effectiveness of this style depends on the leader’s ability to correctly diagnose “the situation” and respond timely and appropriately.
The ability of the leader to do so is critically circumscribed by other significant “dimensions of context,” such as the organization culture, working conditions, external economic factors, organization design and technology, the expectations of others above and below in the organizational hierarchy as well as their potential perception of a leader who changes his approach often which might be interpreted as fickleness or even instability to which they cannot relate easily.
Are leaders necessary? Are mangers more relevant?
Until recently, the omni-presence and inevitability of ‘leaders’ was a sine qua non. But that is now being challenged, especially in respect of the charismatic, transformational types who some see as “dangerous”. For example, Rakesh Khurana (2002) makes a scathing assessment of transformational leaders who burst on the scene like the God-given saviour of an organization, even a country, in decline.
Khurana’s criticism includes their cavalier ‘above the law’ attitude, their exaggerated self-belief and their tendency to destabilize the organization in pursuit of imprecise revitalization.
Their harmfulness has been exemplified in several corporate scandals of late, like Enron. Even more so, with the disastrous failures in the global financial institutions the world is wary of charlatans in leaders’ clothing. Such views recall the distinction between leadership and management identified above.
There seems to be a crying need for a new paradigm of pragmatism and flexibility; for ethical leaders who can apply common sense to commonly recurring situations.
The growing numbers of ‘gurus’ going down the drain and dragging down industry, commerce, country and the common man with them in the so-called race to the bottom cannot continue.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
