the essence of leadership –final · pdf file1.1 leadership ... 3.1.1 transactional vs....

The Essence of Leadership –Final assessment| 7/10/2012

1 | P a g e

Student ID NO. 109025249

Module Name

Class #656 - MOD070 - Essence of Leadership

Assignment Title

The Essence of Leadership –Final assessment

Assignment deadline: Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Effective word count: 5.624 (deviation from 6000 = 6, 2%) This word count is done by excluding:

Module names

Titles

Indexes and front-page information

Bibliography

Appendix text

I confirm I have read the University regulations on plagiarism and that this assignment is my own work.

https://campus.college.ch/forum/topics/-656


2 | P a g e

Contents 1 A literature review of key theories of the nature and exercise of leadership in organizations ........... 4

1.1 Leadership ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.2 Management vs. Leadership ................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Leadership Models ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.2.1 History ................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2.2 Models .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2.3 Situational, transactional and transformational ................................................................... 6

1.2.4 Servant Leadership ................................................................................................................ 6

1.2.5 Universality ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Motivation ..................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Motivation Theories ...................................................................................................................... 7

1.4.1 Leadership vs. Management ................................................................................................. 7

1.4.2 Motivational levels and needs .............................................................................................. 7

1.4.3 Safe environment and motivation ........................................................................................ 8

1.5 Teams and Groups ........................................................................................................................ 8

1.5.1 Successful vs. unsuccessful teams ........................................................................................ 8

1.5.2 Team Energy and Team Development .................................................................................. 8

1.5.3 Individual contribution and Group Thinking ......................................................................... 9

1.5.4 Learning from failure ............................................................................................................ 9

2 Evaluation of selected leaders in your organization ........................................................................... 10

2.1 Setting the stage ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 The Segment Manager ................................................................................................................ 10

2.3 The Manager Operations ............................................................................................................ 10

2.4 Leadership vs. Management ....................................................................................................... 10

2.5 The transactional and transformational components ................................................................ 11

2.6 Vision ........................................................................................................................................... 11

2.7 Applied Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 11

3 Analysis of how two leaders perceive their roles ............................................................................... 13

3.1 Comparison ................................................................................................................................. 13


3 | P a g e

3.1.1 Transactional vs. Transformational ..................................................................................... 13

3.1.2 Leadership Traits ................................................................................................................. 13

3.1.3 Transactional startups ......................................................................................................... 14

4 What can be taken from this assignment into own practice and development as a leader .............. 15

4.1 Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 15

4.2 Competencies ............................................................................................................................. 15

4.3 Transactional vs. Transformational ............................................................................................. 15

4.4 Change through relationships ..................................................................................................... 16

4.5 Forum and module ...................................................................................................................... 16

5 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 17


4 | P a g e

1 A literature review of key theories of the nature and exercise of

leadership in organizations

1.1 Leadership

1.1.1 Introduction

The success of an organization is often related to effective leadership. Therefore huge investments are done in leadership development to create a competitive advantage. Several researchers show an increase attention and resources given to this leadership development. Especially this can be seen among the bigger organizations. Also different leadership development techniques have been used to make this leadership development more productive, such as leadership training, mentoring, SWOT analysis, coaching, action learning, 360-degree feedback and job assignments for example. It is save to conclude that leadership is a hot issue and therefore that having a good understanding of the essence of leadership is something worth the time and effort (Yukl, 1989;Daily et al, 2002;PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008;Day, 2000;Bilhuber et al, 2012). It is said that there are as many definitions of leadership as the amount of people who studied it. Leadership is about the process of influencing and guiding others in different ways to let them do what needs to be done. It is also about creating change and working through the relationship with people to establish a direction (Stogdill & Bass, 1990;Yukl, 2010;Kotter, 1990;Bass, 1985). Often leadership is placed alongside management while both have very different characteristics. It is said that leadership and management are qualitatively different and cannot be combined. Someone can be a leader without being a manager or a manager without being a leader. Some definitions of leaders and managers assume they have different personalities and values. They also are seen as different processes or roles. How these processes, types of roles are defined vary somewhat depending on the writer, but some global differences seem to be obvious (Yukl, 2010; Zaleznik, 1977;Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Stogdill & Bass, 1990;Bass, 1985;Kotter, 1988;Hackman, 1980;Mintzberg, 1980;Rost, 1991).

1.1.2 Management vs. Leadership

Management is about setting objectives and organizing the work that has to be done. Managers must

motivate subordinates and communicate the tasks. The measurements of performance must be set and

the people aligned to the tasks. Meanwhile it is important that there is a workable balance between the

tasks, the group and the individual to create an optimal working environment. Management is focused

on efficiency and is very much rational in nature. It is about planning and budgeting, concerned with

organizing and resources. Management is more transactional and task oriented (Drucker, 2007 &

2008;Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005;Adair, 2007;Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Kotter, 1990)

Leadership is done on a higher level than management. It is more about the relationship with people.

Leadership is focused on motivating and inspiring people. Many people studied the essence of

leadership and most of them concluded that leadership is about guiding people in a direction, being an

inspiration and having a shared vision. If management is reactive, then leadership is active and pro-

active. It is very much about achieving change through the way people think by inspiration and being an


5 | P a g e

example. Leadership is more transformational and people oriented (Zaleznik, 1977;Burns, 1978;Bennis &

Nanus, 1997).

1.2 Leadership Models

1.2.1 History

In the first part of the twentieth century the traits and skills theories of leadership were most popular. It

was assumed that personality and personal qualities made the leader. Specifically the factors

intelligence, dominance, self-confidence an achievement focus and interpersonal skills were seen as

important traits (Barnard, 1948;Higgs, 2003;Metcalfe, 2006)

More research was done on leadership styles in the 1950s and 1960s because the traits and skills alone

did not answer many questions about leadership in new kinds of organizations. People tried to identify

the most effective way for leaders to behave towards their followers. Two key dimensions about task

oriented and people oriented styles were defined. Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958), Blake & Mouton

(1964) and Likert (1967) produced models which can be placed under these dimensions. (Barnard,

1948;Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009;Pardey, 2007 ;Mullins, 2005;Rafferty & Griffin, 2004)

The fact that these leadership style theories all tended to imply that there is one best style of leadership

was a problem. This led in the 1980s and onwards to the development of contingency theories which

stated that the effective style of leadership depends on the situation. Therefore current ideas are more

focused on situational leadership, particularly Blanchard & Hershey and John Adair’s models. Related to

this is the Continuum model of Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958), which shows different styles of

leadership and the relationship between the level of freedom that a manager can give to a team and the

level of authority that comes with that freedom. (Yukl, 2010; Bertocci, 2009;Pardey, 2007;Mullins,

2005;Hunt, 1991;Wadell, 1994).

1.2.2 Models

This Continuum model can also roughly be linked to the group development elements of Tuckman (1965)

because the four different styles of his model relate quite well to the different stages in a team’s

development. The Tannenbaum en Schmidt (1958) continuum can also be related to McGregor’s (1960)

supposition of Theory X and Theory Y. Boss-centered leadership is on the side of Theory X and

subordinate focused leadership is on the side of Theory Y (Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005).

The Management Grid of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton was developed in the US after researching

management and leadership styles in the oil industry during the 1950s. They compared the

distinguished characteristics of high-performing and low performing management groups. The

conclusion was that there were two key factors. The first was the concern for tasks and results and the

second was the concern for people (Pardey, 2007).

It is important to create a climate and system of management that creates an effective organization.

Likert (1967) identified four systems of management to describe the relationship, involvement and roles

of managers and subordinates in industrial settings. While the models of Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1958),


6 | P a g e

Blake & Mouton (1964) and Likert (1967) were focused on the personal style of leaders, they are less

focused on the situation that the leader is operating in (Yukl, 2010; Mullins, 2005;Bertocci, 2009).

1.2.3 Situational, transactional and transformational

Situational leadership is about having no single leadership style that fits all situations. Successful leaders

can adapt their behavior to the specific needs of the situation. Leadership style can be seen as a

combination of directive (task oriented and transactional) and supportive (relationship oriented and

transformational) behavior (Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009).

Transformational and transactional leadership is situational and cultural dependent. How these styles

are used depends on the situation and the people. The situational approach emphasizes the importance

of contextual factors that influence the leadership process. These contextual factors will also influence

the way in which the transactional or transformational leadership styles will be used and to what extent.

Leadership effectiveness depends on personality, the tasks to be accomplished, power, perceptions and

culture. (Yukl, 2010;Pardey, 2007;Conger,2007;Mullins, 2005;Bertocci, 2009;Kouze, 2007;House, 1995).

1.2.4 Servant Leadership

There is a special accent of transformational leadership called servant leadership, which is more focused

on serving the people. Transformational and servant leadership are both oriented on having a good

relationship with subordinates. Transformational leadership places this relationship with followers in the

context of the organization where servant leadership places this relationship in the context of serving

these followers wherein the organization is second. Servant leadership is even more about

individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation and the satisfaction lies in the service itself

(Stone et al, 2004;Gill, 2011;Bass, 2006;Yukl, 2010)

Transformational leadership is mainly focused on the western organizational models and is invented in

the US. It therefore is not always suitable for other cultures and countries. Many important leadership

theories and empirical evidence is very much North American and Western Europe in character.

Transactional and transformational leadership theories are some of the most studied leadership

approaches in western countries. Some scholars have tried to present evidence about the near

universality of the transactional and transformational leadership paradigm (House, 1995;Bass,

1995;Lowe & Gardner, 2000;Palrecha et al, 2012).

1.2.5 Universality

Against this near universality we find that cross-cultural, psychological, sociological and anthropological

research shows that not all cultures share the same approach and assumptions about leadership

behavior and style. It is needed that a better understanding is formed of the way in which leadership is

approached in different cultures. A more empirically grounded theory must be formulated to explain the

different leadership behaviors and effectiveness across cultures besides western Europe and North

America (Dorfman, 1996;House, 1995;Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Palrecha et al, 2012).

Besides culture, the leadership style being used will also depend on the people being led. Blanchard and

Hersey (1972) extended their model with the development level of the follower. The leader’s style

should be driven by the competence and commitment of the follower. Development levels are also


7 | P a g e

situational because when highly trained and focused people are placed in a situation in which they do

not have the skills to perform, they probably will drop to a level of low commitment and competence.

The leadership style of the leader should correspond to the development level of the followers to create

a highly effective situation. (Mullins, 2005;Hunt, 1999;Pardey, 2007;Bertocci, 2009;Yukl, 2010;Wadell,

1994).

1.3 Motivation

1.3.1 Introduction

How to motivate individuals and teams was an important element of the management theories during

much of the 20th century. A theory which could fit all situations was not found. The search for it did lead

to many different views on how people become motivated. Roughly speaking there are three levels of

motivation; -the individual level, which is often about the biological level and therefore related to the

lower levels of Maslow, - the group and community level, which is about loyalty and commitment and

related to the upper levels of Maslow and the organizational or workplace level, also related to the

higher levels of Maslow’s motivational model (Bass & Riggio, 2006;Arnoff & Litwin, 1971;Miron &

McClelland, 1979;Maslow, 1954;McGregor, 1960;Herzberg, 1966;Hackman & Oldham, 1980).

1.4 Motivation Theories

1.4.1 Leadership vs. Management

Leadership is about the process of influencing and guiding others in different ways to let them do what

needs to be done. Individuals will put more effort into their work when there is a clear relationship

between performance, effort and reward. The expectancy theory of motivation is about what motivates

people to desire a certain outcome of an action or a task (Vroom, 1995;Buchanan, 2007).

Management is about task fragmentation, finding the best way to perform work, training of

subordinates for optimal performance and rewarding people for meeting and exceeding performance

targets. When properly applied it will meet the expectations of the employees and it can predict the

outcomes of certain tasks (Vroom, 1995;Winslow Taylor, 1911;McGregor, 2006;Buchanan, 2007).

1.4.2 Motivational levels and needs

Through the observations of workgroups when doing their tasks under different circumstance a

hypothesis was formulated that motivation to work, productivity and quality of work are all related to

the nature of the social relations among the workers and between the workers and their boss. These

observations are related to Group Think because the focus was on how the group thoughts influenced

the group members. It is also about the Human Relations movement which studied the behavior of

people in groups (Mayo, 1975;Mullins, 2005;Yukl, 2010;Bertocci, 2009;Janis, 1982).

People have different needs. The Hierarchy of needs was formulated by Maslow (1954). The need

hierarchy theory was based on the belief that there are five groups of basic needs which develop in a

hierarchy. All the levels need to be satisfied to reach the upper level. They are done sequential. Critiques

wrote that these motivations can be done without sequence in workplace circumstances within

organizations (Clayton, 1972).


8 | P a g e

People have intrinsic motivations related to the higher levels of the needs of Maslow and people have

extrinsic motivations which are related to the lower levels of the hierarchy of Maslow. Intrinsic

motivators are about achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement and the extrinsic

motivators are about supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, company policy and working

conditions. (Herzberg, 1966;Bass & Riggio, 2006;Buchanan, 2007;Hackman & Oldham, 1980;Maslow,

1954) .

Another important motivational theory is about Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X and Y are totally

different and opposite assumptions about people at work and what motivate them. Theory X demands

an autocratic and transactional leader and Theory Y match with a participative and transformational

leader. X people are transactional candidates and Y people are transformational candidates (Buchanan,

1997;Mullins, 2005;McGregor, 2006).

1.4.3 Safe environment and motivation

People tend to be more motivated when working in a safe environment. It is likely that the behavior of

leaders play an important role in creating a psychological safe environment. Several scholars have

discovered that supportive management and leadership style is an important building block of a

psychological safe working environment. When a leader is available, and accessible, inviting input and

supports openness and fallibility, then the perception of safety among followers seems to grow

exponentially, which also strengthened motivation. Servant leadership, about pattern of behavior

through which leaders are open and supportive to their followers, promote their wellbeing and

motivation in the higher regions of Maslows (1954) hierarchy of needs (Carmeli & Zisu,

2009;Edmondson, 1996;Nembhard & Edmondson, 1996;Greenleaf, 1977;Maslow, 1954;Hirak et al,

2012).

1.5 Teams and Groups

1.5.1 Successful vs. unsuccessful teams

The difference between successful teams and unsuccessful teams can be found in a combination of the

internal team climate and atmosphere and the effectiveness of the team leader. Another important

factor is how the organization approaches the team and how well it supports the needs of the team. It is

also said that the most consistently successful teams had a right mix of balanced team-roles (Mullins,

2005; Belbin, 2012;Kouze & Posner, 2007).

There are some conditions for effective teamwork. A real team is stable over time, the direction is clear,

meaningful and challenging. The team’s structure is balanced between task composition and norms. It

supports good processes. The tasks fit together and the norms are clear and aligned. The organizational

context provides the support the team needs (Hackman, 2002).

1.5.2 Team Energy and Team Development

If we assume that there is fixed total team energy in a team, then this energy can be used in two

different ways. When the energy is positive, the team can work on the higher levels of Maslow. If the

energy is negative, the team will not get past the lower levels of Maslow and team development is

disturbed. Successful teams tend to have that positive team energy where unsuccessful teams seem to


9 | P a g e

fill themselves with negative team energy. The team roles are not filled in properly and this produces

unbalanced teams (Mullins, 2005;Sherwin, 2012;Belbin, 2012).

Teams seem to develop themselves on a clearly defined growth cycle. Teams develop and mature as

does its members. They go through four stages of development; Form, Storm, Norm and Perform. First

the goals and definitions of the group are important (Form), then the expectations are challenged

(Storm) after which assumptions are settled in (Norm) so that the group can produce (Perform) -

(Tuckman, 1965;Pardey, 2007;Mullins, 2005;Pedler et al, 2010) .

1.5.3 Individual contribution and Group Thinking

Different people make different contributions to a team. People tend to have one or two preferred roles

in a team. The main role and the ‘backup’ role which is the alternative role. They are the roles in which

people feel most comfortable and are most effective. People have preferred team roles and the key to

success lies in getting the right mix of team roles to form a balanced team. It is important that your role

and competencies needed for that role are used on the proper moments and within the proper context.

When a certain role is not needed for the job or it is a bad fit within the organizational context, then a

different approach must be searched for (Boyatzis, 1982;Pardey, 2007;Mullins, 2005;Belbin, 2012).

Group thinking can have a profound influence on the way team members think. When Group thinking is

the main force then loyalty to the group’s previous policies, or the group consensus, overrides the

conscience of the individual members of the group. Members can get into a void of thinking, sucked into

a blind spot of group-thought. Not looking for alternatives or avoid to rethink a strategy that is failing

are often characteristics of Group thinking (Janis, 1982;Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005).

1.5.4 Learning from failure

Group thinking can also be guided to a more positive direction. To be better equipped to cope with

uncertain environmental conditions, many organizations reorganized their processes around work

groups. Several studies mentioned the possibility that group learning can enhance work group

performance. When related to high reliability organizations then it seems that learning from past

failures ensure more reliable and effective systems. Learning from failures is essential and feedback

from failure can improve change toward more adaptive practices and improvement of strategic

decisions. When Group thinking is focused on learning from failure, then the individual team members

are more open to learn from mistakes than they probably would on their own (Kozlowski & Bell,

2003,Ilgen, 1999;Edmondson, 1999;Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001;Carmeli & Sheaffer, 2008;Hirak et al, 2012).


10 | P a g e

2 Evaluation of selected leaders in your organization

2.1 Setting the stage In my current organization the projects are done under the supervision of the strategic board and the

tactical and operational boards. Within the strategic board there is a segment manager acting as the

leader of different organizational segments. The tactical board has a manager operations who is

responsible for common tactical decisions made for the operational levels which are concerned about

the day to day business. Both these leaders are different in the way they approach their followers. The

segment manager is transformational and concerned with relationships and motivations whereas the

manager operations is transactional and focused on tasks driven by rewards (Burns, 1978;Bennis &

Nanus, 1997;Zaleznik, 1977).

2.2 The Segment Manager The segment manager is directing parts of the organization to a defined future perspective which is

formulated in a clear vision. The leadership style of the segment manager is about transforming

leadership. He is raising leaders and followers to higher levels of motivation and morality through

envisioning his goals by organizing empowered meetings and presentations. The segment manager is

influencing the lower layers in the organization so that they conform to the general vision of the

company. He is guiding the organization in a specific visionary direction. He mainly works through

relationships with people to motivate and inspire them. Through his vision the segment manager is

establishing a direction and creates the change. He tries to change the way people think about what is

desirable and possible to achieve the needed change for the vision and direction of the company (Burns,

1978;Bennis & Nanus, 1985;Kotter, 1990;Zaleznik, 1977).

2.3 The Manager Operations The manager operations direct and guide the project managers. His level is analytical and about the

numbers. He is responsible for getting the work done through the project managers. The main focus of

his leadership style is transactional. The manager operations is concerned with efficiency and how to

translate the strategic vision into workable tasks. It is transactional management in relation to efficient

behavior for a specific and well known reward when the tasks are completed within the expected

efficiency rates. The needed effort is guided on the lines of skills, effort and expectancy. He is focused on

good experience for the teams he directs. It is about task fragmentation, finding the best way to

perform work, organizing training to do delegated tasks and giving the right reward for meeting and

exceeding performance targets (Burns, 1978;Bennis & Nanus, 1997, McGregor, 1960;Buchanan,

2007;Vroom, 1995).

2.4 Leadership vs. Management Leadership is being done on a higher level than management and it is more about the relationship with

people. The segment manager is above all more a leader than a manager and he is focused on

motivating and inspiring people where the manager operations is setting objectives and organizes the

work that has to be done, which is more managerial in nature. The segment manager is guiding people


11 | P a g e

in a direction and through inspiration communicates a shared vision. In contrast to this guiding and

inspiring is setting the measurements of performance and aligning the people to the tasks at hand,

which is the main managerial concern of the manager operations. The manager operations is focused on

the balance between the tasks, the group and the individual to create an optimal working environment.

His management activities are about efficiency and are very much rational in nature whereas the

segment manager tries to achieve change through inspiration and motivation (Drucker, 2007 &

2008;Yukl, 2010;Mullins, 2005;Adair, 2007;Bennis & Nanus, 1985;Kotter, 1990;Zaleznik, 1977;Burns,

1978).

2.5 The transactional and transformational components

When looking at the transformational and transactional components of Bass (1985) then it can be said

that the segment manager has more to do with the transformational components about idealized

influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration whereas the

manager operations is more focused on the transactional components of contingent reward and

management by exception. If the segment manager would lead by exception then the company would

be at drift very soon. This does not mean that the manager operations does not use some of the

transformational components, but it makes clear that the main focus of his leadership style is more on

the transactional front where the main focus of the segment manager is more on the transformational

side of leadership.

2.6 Vision Especially having a vision is the main difference between the segment manager and the manager

operations. The manager operations is the executor of the vision formulated by the segment manager.

The vision is the formulation of the road ahead, an idealized picture of where the organization has to go.

Through inspirational motivation and idealized influence this vision is communicated and depicted and

through contingent reward and management by exception it is executed. The vision is the bridge

between the segment manager and the manager operations and on this bridge it is where their different

views on reality meet each other. Through this vision the segment manager transforms a rough

indication of the future into a compelling image of challenging goals for the organization to be reached

(Rafferty & Griffin, 2004;Bass, 1985;Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Bass & Riggio, 2006)

2.7 Applied Motivation There is a difference in how the segment manager and the manager operations motivate subordinates.

Where the segment manager increases empowerment by inspirational goal setting, the manager

operations buys this motivation by setting rewards for certain task outcomes and goals. The segment

manager mainly focus on the skills of the people, the amount of effort they are willing to put in the tasks

and the level of understanding they have about the tasks. Based on this understanding he calculates the

possible success rate of the outcome and the reward needed to push this a little further. To make sure

the goals are accepted, the manager operations defines challenging goals which are specific enough to

be well understood. He even makes it possible to participate in the goal-setting process to increase

commitment to those goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006;Yukl, 2010;Vroom, 1995;Mullins;Locke, 1958)


12 | P a g e

The segment manager motivates people by formulating and communicating a challenging vision and

inspiring people to get aligned to this vision. He works mainly through relationships with people for

creating the needed change. By exemplary leadership this segment manager tries to model the way and

inspire his shared vision. He wants to encourage the heart and by doing so enables others to act. Instead

of telling followers what has to be done, the segment manager uses a more inspirational motivation to

bring his followers to the higher levels of the hierarchy of needs (Kotter, 1996;Kouze & Posner,

2007;Bass, 1985;Maslow, 1958).


13 | P a g e

3 Analysis of how two leaders perceive their roles

3.1 Comparison Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are good at formulating ideas and transform them to successful products. They are not afraid to take risks and learn from mistakes. Concerning management styles it can be said that Steve Jobs had an aggressive and demanding personality and he was known to be aggressive. Although Steve Jobs was an inspirational and in fact a transformational leader; he had an autocratic way of using his transformational talents. The aspiration of Jobs was to position Apple and its products at the forefront of the IT industry. Steve wanted to be a trend setter in terms of innovation and style (Akhtar, 2012).

3.1.1 Transactional vs. Transformational

Bill Gates has performed the role of both executive as well as management. Bill is known as verbally combative and can react quite aggressive when people place the company’s long term interests at risk. He is also known to sometimes react sarcastically. Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs aggressively contributed in their company’s broad range of products and they both achieved a dominant position for their companies. They did this through a broad vision and managerial competences. They varied out the processes of both leadership and management and therefor they belong to the active leaders, the do people with natural authority (Yukl, 2010;Barnard, 1948;Boak, 2011;Akhtar, 2012). Bill Gates can be called a transactional leader. He tells people what to do and gives them tasks. With this behavior he is on the left hand side of the model of Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958), where Bill tells and sells the things he wants the people to do. He makes the decisions and announces them (tell) or he makes the decision and sells them. Especially in the early days of Microsoft it was well known that people had to work very hard and that Bill was a constant threat looking over your shoulder. It was leadership by fear and a very autocratic way of directing his followers (Burns, 1978;Bennis & Nanus, 1985;Zaleznik, 1977). The style of leadership of Bill Gates slowly transformed to a more democratic, participative and transformational leadership style. Bill never was a true transformational leader because the autocratic elements stood firm till the end of his leadership period even though in the end he delegated responsibilities to different subordinates.

3.1.2 Leadership Traits

The leadership traits of Bill Gates are a mixture of authoritative, delegative and participative elements. Bill gave much freedom to his researchers and formed workgroups out of them for more product launches. At the same time he was careful in his judgment and control, although this control never was absent. Other traits and skills of Bill are persuasiveness and intellectual capacity. Bill was very persuasive in the things he wanted to achieve, like his strategic goal of “A computer on every desk in every house, running Microsoft software” and his intellectual capacity was never questioned and very much feared and respected (Akhtar, 2012;Barnard, 1948). When we look at Steve Jobs, it can be said that his leadership style was more on the right hand side of the model from Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958), where consultation and participation is more important than telling and selling. Steve could be called a transformational leader because of his


14 | P a g e

enthusiastic and passionate way of communicating his visions to his followers and the energy he injected into his team. He is an example of an inspirational leader. Steve helped showing people the big picture and helped them to see beyond a narrow focus and understand how their part fits into that big picture. He understood that a great leader must be a company evangelist and a great spokesman (Bennis & Nanus, 1997; Akhtar, 2012; Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958). Steve Jobs is sometimes called an autocratic transactional transformational leader. Transformational in the sense that he was passionate and enthusiastic about what he wanted to achieve and the vision he formulated, transactional because he often used motivation by reward and autocratic while he was sometimes unable to integrate the vision and opinion of other people into his own ideas. This can also be said concerning Bill Gates and by concluding this it must be said that although they both showed characteristics mostly on one side of the spectrum of transactional and transformational leadership, they also used elements of each of them in their leadership style. Practice show that being able to use elements of both these styles makes the chance of success more realistic (Burns, 1978;Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Kotter, 1990;Akhtar, 2012).

3.1.3 Transactional startups

When looking at both leaders and their companies, then it seems to be the case that both had a sort of transactional style of leadership during the startup phase of their companies. While Steve Jobs turned to a more transformational style soon after this startup phase of Apple, Bill Gates stuck to the task oriented style of leadership of telling his followers what to do, how to do it and when to do it. This transactional style is used among many startups and this is an interesting phenomenon (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958). Bill Gates was less interested in his followers in the early days of Microsoft. It was pure transactional with big rewards. If the software shipped, people were sure of a huge bonus and an increase in the stock exchange. There was a small part transformational in his way of leadership but only when it served the organization as a whole and especially the profits it could make and the amount of shipments of Microsoft products. It must be said though, that in the later days of Microsoft some servant leadership elements bubbled to the surface in the style of leadership of Bill Gates. The service to followers became more and more important and also the sustainability of the relationship with some of them. It would be unfair to only put that change on the account of his wife Melinda, which is the driving force behind the Gates foundation (Stone et al; 2004).


15 | P a g e

4 What can be taken from this assignment into own practice and

development as a leader

4.1 Characteristics Becoming a better leader is something I find interesting and quite a challenge. There are some strong

characteristics that I have which can help me to define some sort of transformational leadership for

myself that I can use in my daily management experiences. My strongest points of effective leadership

are being honest and consistent when resolving complex problems. Integrity is one of the characteristics

I try to apply in the way I encounter people and in my opinion building up a good relationship with your

followers is a key element in creating an effective and motivated team (Metcalfe et al, 2006;Higgs,

2003;Day et al, 2004).

4.2 Competencies To become a better leader several things are at my disposal to use. For example I can use a good coach

or mentor to get specific guidance or a model of good practice on which to base my behavior. Another

way to improve my capabilities as a leader is through action learning sets with other managers in similar

roles to learn from each other. This learning to be a better leader requires a lot of self-awareness,

emotional intelligence and the courage to make myself vulnerable. But first of all to become a better

leader I must believe that leadership applies to me and that I can make a difference by using it (Pardey,

2007;Kouze & Posner, 2007;Goleman, 2000).

To experiment with the new competencies it is important to have a good relation with colleagues and

the members of the team. It is important to be in a working environment which is safe and in which the

leader shows transformational leadership styles and characteristics of listening, showing interest in new

ideas, giving space to make mistakes and so on. To improve leadership competencies it is important to

learn from failures because it is this feedback from failure that is of high value for the improvement

process. What is learned from past experiences of failure can be helpful to develop a more effective

leadership style (Boyatzis, 1982;Carmeli & Scheaffer, 2008;Trucker & Edmondson, 2003;Weick &

Sutcliffe, 2001;Hirak et al, 2012).

4.3 Transactional vs. Transformational Often I play a role in the managerial layers of organizations; the layers of the low level leaders where

supervising subordinates is the primarily objective. It is about transactional leadership with the

exchange of good behavior for a good reward. My role is often rational and concerned with processes,

tactics and very much analytical. Most of the time I am the manager that brings about and do things

right about tasks given to me by the people who do the right things (Bennis & Nanus, 1997;Zaleznik,

1977;Burns, 1978)

Although I act on the level of transactional leadership, I want to transform myself to a transformational

leader through intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation. This is something else than dividing

tasks to people and controlling the triangle of resources, time and money alone. The transactional

leadership I use is about management by exception active and contingent rewards. Often I lack the


16 | P a g e

possibilities to be motivational and bringing people to higher levels of motivation in a transactional

setting can be quite difficult (Bass, 1985).

4.4 Change through relationships I want to make a change through relationships with people. I want to direct by motivation and inspire

people. That demands a different way of approaching leadership and it is more about influencing and

guiding people towards a certain direction without only being task oriented. I have a strong supportive

character towards subordinates and I want to find the deeper motivations behind the behavior of

people to get them on the higher levels of Maslows (1954) hierarchy of needs. The most important

support to become a better leader must come from within. I must create that real desire to change and

improve. External support will only be of value if I have the commitment to learn (Burns, 1978;Kotter,

1990;Bennis and Nanus, 1997;Pardey, 2007).

4.5 Forum and module The forum, the feedback and the essential and preferred readings taught me to think more as the leader

who guides and establish new directions for parts of the organization or the organization as a whole. It

taught me to make a shift from transactional management to transformational leadership where

motivating and inspiring subordinates is more important than numbers, graphs and analytics. It is about

creating change instead of following the change and make it happen on an operational level (Bennis &

Nanus, 1997;Kotter, 1990;Burns, 1978).

Finally, this module helped me to make a change in the way I approach workgroups and teams. It is not

about only telling and selling what has to be done but also and even more about consultation,

negotiating and delegating. I want to develop myself more to a people focused manager and eventually

to a transformational, relational and servant leader to make a difference for organizations in the field of

collaborative changes through virtual teams these organizations are going through. I want to become a

9.9 leader on the scale of Blake and Mouton (1964) and be called a participative and effective leader

who can bring about the collaborative change needed in the near future of globalization (Tannenbaum

& Schmidt, 1958;Kotter, 1990).


17 | P a g e

5 Bibliography Adair, J., 2007. Leadership for Innovation : how to organize team creativity and harvest ideas. Second ed.

London: Kogan age.

Akhtar, R., 2012. Comparative Study of Business Leaders. [Online]

Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/rehan20784/comparative-study-of-2-business-leader

[Accessed 4 2012].

Alderfer, C., 1972. Existence, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Settings. 1 ed.

New York: The Free Press.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, J., 2006. More (good) leaders for the public sector. International

Journal for Public Sector Management, Volume 19/4.

Aronoff, J. & Litwin, G. H., 1971. Achievement motivation training and executive advancement. Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(2), pp. 215-229.

Barnard, C., 1948. Organization and Management. s.l.:Harvard University Press.

Bass, B., 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. First ed. New York: The Free Press.

Belbin, 2012. Belbin Team Roles. [Online]

Available at: http://www.belbin.com

[Accessed 2012].

Bennis, W., 2009. On Becoming a Leader. Second ed. New York: Basic Books.

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B., 1997. Leaders; Strategies for taking charge. Second ed. New York: First

HarperBusiness.

Bertocci, D. I., 2009. Leadership in Organizations. First ed. Plymouth: University Press of America.

Bilhuber, E. & Stewens, G. M., 2012. How to build social capital with leadership development: lessons

from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm. Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 176-201.

Boak, G., 2011. Introducing Leadership, York: Robert Kennedy College.

Boyacigiller, N. & Adler, N., 1991. The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context.

Academy of Management Review, Volume 16, pp. 262-290.

Boyatzis, R. E., 1982. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. s.l.:John Wiley and

Sons Ltd.


18 | P a g e

Buchanan, D. & Storey, J., 1997. Role taking and role switching in organizational change: the four

pluralities. s.l.:s.n.

Burns, J. M., 1978. Transformational Leadership. First ed. New York: Harper Perennial.

Carmeli, A. & Sheaffer, Z., 2008. How learning leadership and organizational learning from failures

enhance perceived organizational capacity to adapt to the task environment. The Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, Volume 44, pp. 468-489.

Carmeli, A. & Zisu, M., 2009. The relational underpinnings of quality internal auditing in mediacl clinics in

Israel. Social Science & Medicine, Volume 68, pp. 894-902.

Conger, J. A. & Riggio, R. E., 2007. The Practice of Leadership. First ed. San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Daily, C., 2002. Governance and strategic leadership in entrepeneurial firms. Journal of Management,

28(3), pp. 387-412.

Day, D., 2000. Leadership Development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), p. 581.

Dorfman, P., 1996. International and cross-cultural research. Handbook for International managament

research, pp. 267-349.

Drucker, P. F., 2007. The Practice of Management. 2 ed. s.l.:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Drucker, P. F., 2008. Concept of the Corporation. 7 ed. New Jersey: John Day Company.

E Rafferty, A. & A Griffin, M., 2004. Dimensions of transformational leadership. The Leadership quarterly,

Issue 15, pp. 329-354.

Edmondson, A., 1996. Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational

influences on the detection and correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

Volume 32, pp. 5-28.

Edmondson, A., 1999. Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science

Quarterly, Volume 44, pp. 350-383.

Gill, R., 2011. Theory and Practice of Leadership. Second ed. London: CPI Group.

Goleman, D., 2000. Working with Emotional Intelligence. First ed. s.l.:The Bantam Dell Publishing Group.

Greenleaf, R., 1977. Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness.

New York: Paulist Press.

Hackman, R. J. & Oldham, G. R., 1980. Work Redesign. 1 ed. s.l.:Addison Wesley.

Herzberg, F., 1966. Work and The Nature of Man. First ed. New York: Staples Press.


19 | P a g e

Higgs, M., 2003. How can we make sense of Leadership in the 21st century. Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, Volume 24/5.

Hirak, R., Chunyan, A., Carmeli, A. & Shaubroeck, J. M., 2012. Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit

performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The Leadership

Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 94-106.

House, R., 1995. Leadership in the 21st century. The Changing Nature of Work, pp. 411-450.

Hunt, J. G., 1991. Leadership: A new Synthesis. 1 ed. s.l.:Sage Publications.

Ilgen, D., 1999. Teams Embedded in Organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, Volume

54, pp. 129-139.

Irving, J., 1983. Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. 2 ed. Boston:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Joss, J., 2012. Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs. [Online]

Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/jerryjose/bill-gates-vs-steve-jobs

[Accessed 4 2012].

Kotter, J., 1988. The Leadership Factor. First ed. New York: Free Press.

Kotter, J. P., 1990. A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. 1 ed. New York: The

Free Press.

Kozlowski, S. & Bell, B., 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of psychology, Volume

12, pp. 333-375.

Lowe, K. & Gardner, W., 2000. Then years of the leadership quarterly: Contributions and challanges for

the future. The Leadership Quarterly, Issue 11, pp. 459-514.

M. Bass, B. & E. Riggio, R., 2006. Transformational Leadership. Second ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

M. Kouzes, J. & Z. Posner, B., 2007. The Leadership Challenge. Four ed. San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.

Maslow, A., 1954. Motivation and Personality. First ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mayo, E., 1975. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilazation. 6 ed. London: Routledge & Kegan.

McGregor, D. & Gerschenfeld, J. C., 2006. The Human Side of the Enterprise. s.l.:McGraw-Hill.

Mintzberg, H., 1980. The Nature of Managerial Work. First ed. s.l.:Prentice Hall.

Miron, D. & McClelland, D., 1979. The impact of Achievement Motivation Training on Small Business.

California Management Review, 21(4), pp. 13-28.


20 | P a g e

Mullins, J. L., 2005. Management and Organizational Behaviour. 7 ed. Harlow: Pearson Education

Limited.

Nembhard, I. & Edmondson, A., 2006. Making it Safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and

professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, Volume 27, pp. 941-966.

Palrecha, R., Spangler, W. D. & Yammarino, F. J., 2012. A comparative study of three leadership

approaches in India. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 146-162.

Pardey, D., 2007. Introducing Leadership. First ed. Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. & Boydell, T., 2010. A Manager's Guide to Leadership. 2 ed. Berkshire: McGraw-

Hill.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2008. Key trends in human capital - A global perspective 2008, s.l.:

PriceWaterhouseCoopers Saratoga.

Rafferty, A. E. & Griffin, M. A., 2004. Dimensions of Transformational Leadership: Conceptual and

Emperical Extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, Issue 15, pp. 329-354.

Rost, J., 1991. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. First ed. Westport: Praeger Publishers.

Sells, H., 2012. What Are Transformational Leaders & Transactional Leaders. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ehow.com/info_8319803_transformational-leaders-transactional-leaders.html

[Accessed 2012].

Sherwin, L., 2009. Consultancy & Training for the Publix Sector. [Online]

Available at: http://www.lindsay-sherwin.co.uk/

[Accessed 2012].

Smith, R. I., 2012. Leaders effects in Small Business. [Online]

Available at: http://www.sourceecommerce.com/leadership/leadership-effects-in-small-business.html

[Accessed 2012].

Stogdill, R. & Bass, B. M., 1990. Handbook of Leadership. Third ed. New York: The Free Press.

Stone, G. A., Russel, R. F. & Patterson, K., 2004. Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference

in leader focus. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), pp. 349-361.

Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958. Tannenbaum & Schmidt Continuum. s.l.:s.n.

Tucker, A. & Edmondson, A., 2003. Why hospitals don't learn from failure: Organizational and

psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, Volume 45, pp. 55-

72.

Tuckman, B., 2008. Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), pp. 384-99.


21 | P a g e

Vroom, V. H., 1995. Work and Motivation. 1 ed. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wadell III, D. E., 1994. A Situational Leadership Model for Military Leaders, s.l.: Airpower.

Weick, K. & Sutcliffe, K., 2001. Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of

complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Winslow Taylor, F., 2003. Scientific Management. 3 ed. New York: Routledge.

Yukl, G., 2010. Leadership in Organizations. Seven ed. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Zaleznik, A., 1977. Managers and Leadsr: Are They Different?. harvard Business review, May/june.

the essence of leadership –final · pdf file1.1 leadership ... 3.1.1 transactional vs....

Documents