Effective Leadership Power, Research Paper Example

Abstract

This paper examines effective leadership power and the influence of leadership qualities on people. The particular focus is geared towards the US Military-Navy.  The paper considers the historical context to the present day and a personal perspective on becoming an effective leader.  The paper is split into three distinct parts: (1) Introduction – background to leadership styles and the need for effective leadership (2) Leadership in the Military – particular focus on the US Navy and approach to leadership in the armed forces  (3)  Personal reflection – How I propose to develop my own leadership qualities.

Introduction

There are essentially three distinct types of leadership style that define leadership approach.  These are:

The level 5 leadership style

The CEO of a firm is best categorized as a “Level 5” leadership style.  Level 5 is the Executive who builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. Nearly all of the good-to-great companies contained level 5 leaders in the critical transition phase.  Great leaders have been describes as quiet, thoughtful, self-effacing and reserved with a philosophical outlook e.g. Lincoln, Socrates as opposed  to warlike leaders such as Caesar, Patton who lack personal humility in favour of god like qualities.  Executive A shied away from attention and often gave credit to others for successes in the organization.

Level 5 Leaders are not charismatic charmers of people but instead are determined inspirational leaders. They take control and lead by example building a culture of discipline and focused on the success of the Company.  They do not create a coercive or tyrannical regime but a meritorious organization built upon performance and recognition.  These people are self-determined and willing to go to extraordinary measures in order to fulfil their objectives.  The CEO increased the stock by 128% and posted a profit in the second quarter. Level 5 leaders often have others acknowledging their success as opposed to seeking public acclaim The Media hailed Executive A as the main reason for the Company’s success.

Transactional leadership style. 

Such leaders believe that people are motivated by reward and punishment.  They believe in a strict sense of organisation and a clear chain of command, further when people accept a job they pass all authority over to the Manager.  Hence the prime objective of the worker is to do precisely what the Manager tells them.  This Executive  believes the subordinate to be at fault when things go wrong . The transactional leader will create clear organization structures and reward will follow for task accomplishment.

Limitations and boundaries are clearly understood and often formal disciplinary procedures are in place.  This Executive  believes in a clear chain of command and rewarding performance. The Transactional leader often uses the style of “Management by Exception” i.e. if an assigned duty is working well, then it does not require attention and may be left alone.  The Executive  also rewards employees for their successes. Intervention only where something is going wrong or potentially looks like going wrong.  This style is very contract oriented between the boss and the subordinate.  The Executive  establishes clear goals by clarifying roles and task requirements.

Despite the limitations of this style, it remains very popular and is in wide use today.  The main limitation being defined as the assumption of  a “rational man’, a person who is largely motivated by money and simple reward, and hence whose behaviour is predictable.”  (Changing Minds.org).

Transformational leader

A Transformational leader is  identified by the characteristics of a person with vision, a strong sense of purpose and very goal oriented.  He believes that people will follow those who inspire them.  Hence goal attainment is by inspiring your subordinates motivating them by enthusiasm and energy.  Working for these types of leaders can be a great experience as they derive a great deal of passion about their work and genuinely want you to succeed.  Such leaders start with a clear identification of a vision. Executive C believes people can achieve great success when they are inspired and passionate about a vision.  Leaders of this type are quick to exploit the vision by sharing it with their team. Such leaders are often seen to be using mind mapping or brainstorming sessions with their subordinates.  The believe in inclusivity and the power of team dynamics. Leader here try  to remember employees birthdays and special events and prefers that employees see the leader as a coach or mentor figure.  They believe in structured approaches to Problem Solving and Decision Making and often follow a Kepner Tregoe Management style.  The Executive  takes a pride in his approach to problem solving.  ” Transformational Leaders are always visible and will stand up to be counted rather than hide behind their troops. They show by their attitudes and actions how everyone else should behave. They also make continued efforts to motivate and rally their followers, constantly doing the rounds, listening, soothing and enthusing. ”  (Changing Minds.org)

Leadership has always been of paramount importance in all branches of the armed forces and there is a considerable history of inspirational leaders in the Army, Airforce and Navy.  This paper considers the valuable contribution of leadership in the Military and how this has evolved through history to make up the modern leadership practices of today. In addition, an examination of the varying styles and methods of leadership with particular reference to command and control in the Navy.

Leadership styles in the military

The US Navy has defined leadership styles as  – “The Navy defines leadership as the ability to influence others toward achieving the goals and objectives   of   the   organization.   Leadership involves  inspiring,  motivating,  and  developing others” (Integrated Publishing, 2010).  The different approaches to leadership follow these method approaches:

Action Centred Leadership — The figure on the right illustrates the model as developed by John Adair in 1973.  The concept of it is what you do that establishes your leadership qualities. The leader takes a holistic view of the situation whilst balancing the needs of the three circles.  (Stewart & Associates, 2010)

Path Goal Leadership — This type of leader encourages and supports their co-workers in goal attainment by establishing a course that is both easy to follow and understand.  This makes it easy for them to work and achieve their objectives.  This leadership style would be particularly effective in a social services context.

This type of leader has four key attributes that of being supportive, directive, participative and achievement oriented.  This leader wants to work with you in getting the job done and achieving success.  (R.J, 1971).

Fielders Contingency Model of Leadership—  This style of leadership is used when it becomes appropriate to the specific situation.  It isdetermined by three specific situations:  (i) Leader Member relations (2) Task Structure and (3) Position Power.

As the diagram illustrates leaders have a dominant style and need to be matched according to the situation.

The Leadership Grid—  A relatively straight-forward leadership model that portrays different leadership styles in the workplace.  It effectively measures ability against willingness over the different leadership styles.  Hence a person with low abilities will respond favourable to a high degree of coaching and or mentoring skills.

Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid—  This leadership model contrasts the leaders attention between the balance of the work required and the attention needed by the people.  The following different scenarios can be deduced from this leadership model:

“Impoverished management

Minimum effort to get the work done. A basically lazy approach that avoids as much work as possible.

Authority-compliance

Strong focus on task, but with little concern for people. Focus on efficiency, including the elimination of people wherever possible.

Country Club management

Care and concern for the people, with a comfortable and friendly environment and collegial style. But a low focus on task may give questionable results.

Middle of the road management

A weak balance of focus on both people and the work. Doing enough to get things done, but not pushing the boundaries of what may be possible.

Team management

Firing on all cylinders: people are committed to task and leader is committed to people (as well as task).” source:  (Changing Minds.org, 2009)

Embodied in effective leadership are two distinct management styles.  These are classified as that of Laissez Faire and Democratic leadership.

Laissez faire

This style of management leadership is where the Manager simply sets or assigns the job and allows the employee to get on with it.  Although the Manager takes little direct involvement the objective is to recognize the individuals skills and perform a role of mentor or coach.  In this model the staff is encouraged to take on responsibility for the job providing added motivation.  This style of leadership best suits professional people.  For example a Program Manager leading a team of qualified Project Managers.  The style is not applicable to junior staff that may feel abandoned and potentially lose their way.

Democratic

The democratic manager is a delegator of responsibility allowing staff the authority to complete assigned tasks.  Staff may use their own methods but tasks need to be completed on time, within scope and accepted quality levels.  Staff are more involved in the decision making process and this is a motivator because of inclusivity.  Note that delegation of responsibility does not free the Manager from accountability; the Manager is accountable for the end result.  There is a danger that staff does not carry their weight and rely upon others to carry them.

Leadership and motivation

The Expectancy Theory of Motivation was developed by Victor Vroom and is based upon outcomes.  The model as illustrated below shows that in order for a person to be motivated, a number of key elements must be linked.  The elements being Effort, Performance and Motivation.  In order for this to happen there is three variables which he named as Valence, Expectancy Vroom, hypothesises that in order for a person to be motivated that effort, performance and motivation must be linked. He proposes three variables to account for this, which he calls Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality.

Vroom defined Expectancy as the concept that increased effort will result in increased performance at work. Hence the more effort I put into the task the greater my productivity will be.  This typically impacted by such items as: Available resources, the right skills for the job, the relevant managerial support for the job.

He defined Instrumentality such that if you perform well, then a valued outcome will be received.  In other words if I do a great job I will be rewarded in some way.  This is impacted by such items as :  Management relationship,  understanding of performance and outcome (rules), and trust in the decision makers and transparency in the outcome process.

Vroom defined Valence as the level of importance that the individual puts on the anticipated outcome.  Once Vroom determined the importance of these links re realised that the individual then changes their level of effort according to the value they place on the outcomes they receive from the process and on their perception of the strength of the links between effort and outcome.

Hence if the individual gains the perception that any one of these is true subsequently, His increase effort will not increase his performance,  his increased performance will not increase his rewards and he will not value the rewards on offer.  Hence under Vroom’s expectancy theory the individual will not be motivated. This organization requires all three elements in order to achieve positive motivation.  In essence this theory work on perceptions or peoples beliefs or values.  Hence even if an organization believes that it has provided all of the necessary motivating factors, if the individual does not believe this it does not work.

In the example provided.  The Company (organization) believes that it has done everything possible to the production of high quality audio products.  Despite this the employees are not doing well.  The employees are not putting in the right amount of effort because they believe the reward system is inequitable.  Hence if you put in more effort you receive the same reward as those who put in less. Effort is not therefore adequately compensated for high production achievers.  The other aspect is the bonus scheme.  The reward is so small by the time deductions have been made it is simply not worth the effort.  The lack of incentive and inequitable support by the firm’s management has impacted the Valence.  Hence the employees have not bought into the goals of the production system because the rewards have been linked to the effort required and the belief of the employees that the effort and reward system are inequitable. This has impacted employee morale and subsequently production targets have dropped.

Within the concept of Vroom’s Model it is also important to consider aspects of communications and inclusivity.  Communications is about transparency and openness and above all equity in the reward systems.  Inclusivity is about “buy in” and treating the employees as an integral part of the solution.  Before implementing changes discuss these with the workforce and if appropriate union representatives.  Try to reach a level of understanding and common ground in the mechanics of the model.  For example:  the ways in which productivity and quality will be improved.  The effort that will be required and the means by which this will be rewarded on an equitable basis.  By doing this there is a better chance of getting the valance right and thereby increasing chances of success. It is also useful to overlay this theory with other theories, for example that of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.  It provides an added dimension and you should be able to see some important correlations.

Personal reflection

My personal leadership style follows the model illustrated on the left. It contains four main elements:

1. Participating
2. Delegating
3. Directive
4. Coaching

I attempt to gain active participation in the assignments being performed. This includes delegating responsibility to subordinates in performance of their duties.  I direct these activities, assuming overall accountability but delegating responsibility. During this entire process I act as a coach and mentor to my staff facilitating a successful outcome.  This model works well in a military setting where we are very focused on mission accomplishment and the achievement of specific goals and objectives. Continuing professional development is a personal goal looking towards consolidation of both theoretical and practical leadership training.  It is important to find your own personal choice of leadership style “today’s military officers are exposed to a wide range of leadership styles” (Stormiing Media, 2010).  This style is reflected in that of Admiral Chester Nimitz “he has been described as a team player, relying on each and everyone of his staff to get their respective jobs done. His priority was always to the task on hand and to his men. Nimitz felt personally responsible for each and every one of his men when they carried out his orders that might jeopardise their lives.” (Singapore Government, 2010).

Works Cited

Changing Minds.org. (2009). Changing Minds.org. Retrieved 12 20, 2009, from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/transactional_leadership.htm

Integrated Publishing. (2010). Leadership Styles. Retrieved 11 15, 2010, from Integrated Publishing: http://www.tpub.com/content/advancement/14144/css/14144_69.htm

McCullough, S. T. (2009). Health Information Technology And Patient Safety: Evidence From Panel Data. Health Affairs, 357-360.

R.J, H. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science quarterly, 321-339.

Rulland, C. M. (1999). Decision Support for Patient Preference-based Care Planning. Americal Medical Infomatics Association, 304-312.

Singapore Government. (2010). Sigapore Ministry of Defence. Retrieved 11 15, 2010, from Singapore Government: Personality Profile: Chester William Nimitz

Stewart & Associates. (2010, 3 8). Models and Theories. Retrieved 3 8, 2010, from Stewart & Associates: http://www.stewart-associates.co.uk/leadership-models.aspx

Stormiing Media. (2010). Nimitz and Goleman: Study of a Civilian Leadership Model. Retrieved 11 15, 2010, from Stormiing Media: http://www.stormingmedia.us/16/1661/A166105.html

Thunhurst, C. (2009, 5 29). Giving health visitors a leadership role. Retrieved 3 8, 2010, from Public Service Community: http://www.publicnet.co.uk/features/2009/05/29/giving-health-visitors-a-leadership-role/