Leadership and Change

 

Leaderships and Change

 

Introduction

 

Organizations today constantly facing milieu that require to adapt to new realities. This situation posed biggest challenges for the organization to cope and involves continuous shift for survivability. In reality, many organizations are still struggling and coping to accept new changes especially in short notice and has led to the resistance among employees. This resistance rooted   from the complacency of the organization that comfortable with the normal practices and reluctant to accept something new in their work routine. In different light, leadership has brought great impact and influence to direct people collectively in achieving organization change.  Leader’s visions and actions aligned people in the organization to be effective and efficient by embracing change process. Shortcomings which occur due to resistant of change greatly demand appropriate leadership style. In essence, leadership and change are corresponding to each other to ensure change can be implemented smooth and successfully without major resilient from the adversary members in the organization.

 

In nutshell, this essay attempts to examine various leadership styles and models in relation to how it contributes and effects to change in the organization. Few leadership styles including coercive, authoritarian, participative and democratic   be brought into spotlight in order to measure the outcome to change that it could bring in the organization. Further this   paper spells out some contemporary guiding leadership models mainly transformative, transactional, charismatic and visionary in order to find intersection points for optimum   change process in the organization. In the end part, conclusions are drawn to generalize all leadership styles and models in term of their conduciveness to change agendas.

 

Defining Leadership

 

Leadership has been the most popular and debated topic in last few decades and until recently abundant of researches attempted to derive to the precise meaning. Dawson (2014) stated that there is still remain no commonly accepted definition of leadership because it has been widely researched in light of different disciplines such as sociology, political science and psychology. In order to get into consensus, the generally accepted definition of leadership revolves around the element of influencing people and achievement of goals, objectives and vision (Dawson 2014 p. 34). House et al 1997 (cited in Dawson 2014) supported this generic understanding by define leadership as ability of an individual to influence, motivate and enables other to contribute towards success of organizations.

 

Even leadership has been associated with underlying ability to influence people, a leader at certain extends need to possess the consciousness of right skills and attitude in context of managing change. Leaders need to become the agent that sows the seed of change in the organization and set a role model that first to embrace the shift. 

 

 

 

 

Defining Change

 

Change is an obviously complex process and demands everyone participation at all level right from the top to the bottom line. The ability to change and adapt to new demanding realities provide pure advantages against other competitors in the uncertain future. Dawson (2014) clarified that it’s impossible to have a universal theory for change because organization always change with time and sometimes obscure to predict.  In broader sense, change is generally accepted as movement overtime from an ongoing present to emerging and uncertain future that is sometimes planned and manage and sometimes unplanned for an unforeseen (Dawson 2014 p. 11). Change normally refers to new ways of working that advocate the fundamental of innovation and creativity especially in the era of globalization and evolving technology.

 

Relation between Change and Leadership

 

From above elaboration, change is undoubtedly challenging and foreseeably impose positive effect to the organization wellbeing. It is also important that change need to be aligned to organization culture, value, people and behavior to promote the desirable outcome.  Therefore, leadership must act as agent and play key roles in the success of change process. It certainly would not be smooth and easy course because transformations will definitely result in resistance and discontent by some employees. This is due to social and psychology impact of fear and the lacking of technical capability in coping with new procedures. As David (2004) emphasized, leaders with their leadership are accountable for overcoming employee resistant by displaying strong management skill and adapting to change oriented leadership. This is choice that the leaders have to make and they must be free in making these decisions so be able to create shared mindset and synchronization of change culture (Cooper 2014 p.2). Only by the roles of sound leadership the resistant of change can be minimized and the change process will take place in more efficient way.

 

Leadership Style

 

Leadership has been never ending studies and until now scholars and even laymen still debating on its best approaches. In this particular study, we try to converge the concept of leadership in the light of promoting successful in the organizations. Generally, many literatures suggest that leadership should be aligned with global environment and few others promote that leaderships itself initiates change to the organizations.

 

Dawson (2014) supports that leadership is necessary for change, but what style, how its attributes may respond to change of different environments and how different types of leader maybe appropriate at different context are the pressing issues that worth to be researched. The point of elaborations will dwell on whether ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ leadership are highly celebrated in promoting change will be further discuss and enlighten.

 

‘Hard’ Leadership:  Coercive and Authoritarian

 

Coercive simply defined as using force or threat to compel someone to obey or do something   for achievement of objective. Contextually, in organizations this style espouses hard approach to change that may result both and positive and negative outcomes. Goleman (2010) categorized this type of leaders expect an immediate compliance from the employee. Normally leaders with coercive approach are highly competent, strong character, dominant in self-control, and great initiative in achieving the desired result. Commonly, coercive leadership pay high intention that change can be achieved without allowing too much resistant from employees. The detrimental of this approach that it can affect the feelings and morale. In some turn, it also may down grade the motivations levels of employee to outstandingly perform. Majority of cases, coercive leadership style denoted as quick fix and only reliable for short term sighted where it doesn’t really remedy the root and bottom line of the resistant problem. Therefore, this approach can be labelled as the least effective due to potential of negative impacts that it could bring to organization climate in long term. 

 

In different context, coercive style can be fairly useful method and work best in respond to crisis situation where rapid change immediately required. It also a best way to overcome some problematic figures knowingly as hard-core resistance of change. In this light coercive style may help to recover organizational imbalance to change and provide the bottom line remedy in shorter time.

 

As for authoritative leadership style, it almost similar to coercive but more considered as a leader that directing people in the organization to move towards achieving the vision by ensure people are following strictly the implemented strategy. Goleman (2010) advocates that it can be seen as coercive but rather more flexible in the approach because people are permitted to be creative and apply innovation. This leadership style may best suits for organization that in need of new visions and directions. Pressing issue that may derive from this approach is the more experienced people in the organization will faced difficulty to accept this style of leadership. It raises a preconceive mind among the ‘older’ employee that they were being dominated by younger leader in the organization. In this sense, the leaders always accuse as being excessive using their power to get people under him to obey.

 

Another opinion came from Northouse   which center on same perspective style of authoritative leadership approach. Northouse (2009) stated that the authoritarian leadership constantly give direction and design the best work structure to be implemented by the people in the organization. In the bright light, people in the organization simply have to follow the way and modus operand on how they should move in the organizations. In darker light, this leadership approach will instill dependence to the leader shoulder, grievingly may result interest downturn and potential of discontent among employee of their work and responsibility.

 

In all viewpoint given above, we may generalize that authoritative and coercive leadership style are alternative for addressing difficult contextual situation in the organization. In this context, people in the organization in relation change equate to Mc Gregor Theory X which stated that people work due to forcing element, they avoid responsibility, lack of ambition and always resort for work security. In this sense, people need to be constantly directed, pushed or even rewarded to make them work effectively. In some reason prolong resistant of change without any counteraction may jeopardized the organization wellbeing in particular time and situation. This believe based on that authoritarian leader compels to be in charge and provide the direction to the people and always need to put them under control most at all time.  CEO Bill Gates once considered as an authoritative leader when he dictated change within entire Microsoft management array to direction where the industry is currently growing (Authoritative Leaders, 2017). Conclusively the hard leadership style that based on coercive and authoritative bring reasonable outcome to manage change catered for short pressing time. It would be most suited during organizations need proper direction and require a leader that take the responsible to create vision in managing change.

 

‘Soft’ Leadership: Affiliative and Democratic

 

In contrast with previous leadership postures, affiliative leadership style provides softer approach and people oriented. The leaders with affiliative leadership always make effort to make the people feel satisfy by create strong emotional bond and positive communications in managing change. In certain occasion, people in the organization were given freedom to conduct their work as they think most effective. The positive impacts of this leadership style made it ‘all-weather’ and effective posture to be implemented particularly when leader trying to build synergy, boasting morale and rejuvenate trust among each other. Kotter (1999) further supports that communication of ideas seen as demanding need in the organization change. Therefore, the affiliative leadership style can be considered as conducive approach in promoting change because is communicate the logic and the importance in every people mindset. Goleman (2010) in another aspect look in to the drawbacks of affiliative and denoted that using this style constantly leading to poor performance and distort focus due to over praise of employees.

 

Another different of ‘soft’ approach is democratic leadership style that focus mainly on getting the involvement and participation of employee in giving their opinion for change. Goleman (2010) emphasized that leaders welcoming employee voice and their concerns in order to maintain the morale of the employee at the highest level.  While Northouse (2009) similarly clarifies that democratic leadership impeccably treat the employee equal and concentrate on the people voices to obtain their support. Deductively the best application of democratic leadership style as related to the McGregor Theory Y assumptions where people are keen to work, self-motivated and positively seek responsibility. They are less to be controlled and this leadership approach in no doubt optimized the change process in the organizations. 

 

Some weaknesses bearing this leadership approach are it may impair the change process when the leader receive enormous influx of ideas and opinions resulting difficulty in making rightful decision. Leaders sometimes intend to put off in making crucial decision by allowing other people to take charge which slip employees to feel leaderless. In that case, even though participation and involvement help overcome resistance to change, but it must be carefully place in order not to trap into those drawbacks. On the account with the right organizational context, democratic approach could be considered as a good style of leadership to manage change.

 

Contemporary Leadership for Change.

 

Today’s change faced by organization is greater and wider ever underpinning by globalization and evolving of technology. In these challenging scenarios, leadership is necessary for change and how different type of leaders may be appropriate are all contentious issues (Dawson 2014 p. 306). To put change in ideal picture, theorists have applied and developed contemporary leadership approach that advocates common and compatible ground. Few contemporary leadership models will be further discussed in this part including transformational and transactional leadership, charismatic leadership and visionary leadership and how these models reflect to the outcome of change in the organization.

 

Transformational and Transactional Leadership.

 

Models that emerged and deliberately expound on the effectiveness of leadership are two prominent transformational and transactional leadership. This concept originally focusses on political leader but modifications have been made and gradually develop by theorist Bass in 1985 and 1996 (Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013 p.2). Generally transformational leader stimulates and inspire employee to achieve outstanding and extraordinary outcome (Robbin cited in Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013 p.3). They arouse and inspire others to give more effort to gain high level of achievement. This leadership approach intricately creates positive change in the organizations in order to channel group interest for change. In another hand, Eisenbach & Watson (1999) states that transformational leadership behaviors go beyond ordinary leadership by motivate employee to identify leader’s ultimate vision and sacrifice their self-interest for the sake of organization. Transformational leaders usually enact change by instill core organizational values to employee.

 

In contrast, the transactional leadership pay attention on the role of supervision, organizing and group performance that intend to promote compliance of employee through both reward and punishment (Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013 p. 4). This leadership style not intentionally to promote change but just keep up with the routine process in the organization. In some cases, this style of leadership rather make change to individual employees by imply immediate correction either by contingent reward or contingent punishment (Odumeru and Ogbonna 2013 p.4) The leaders normally want to overcome escalation of conflict by fixing any prompting resistant of change. It applies to low level need of change and being more managerial in style.

 

Comparatively both transformational and transactional leadership offer strength and weaknesses in cultivating change in the organization. It applies subjectively whether to sustain short or long-term change culture and both can address different context of employees as explain in Mc Gregor Theory X and Y.  Further, the transactional style works quite well within the existed organization culture for change while transformational fits for   implementing new ideas or innovations.

 

Charismatic Leadership

 

Leadership studies become very critical especially involving change of value. Nadler and Tushmen (1990) stated that the emerging of Charismatic Leadership has exclusively refer to special ability to mobilize and sustain activity within organizations through specific personal action mixed with perceived personal characteristic. Charismatic leadership recently consider type of leadership that successful bring about change in organizational values and goals.

 

Initially Charismatic Leadership exist with 3 main components of envisioning, energizing and enabling (Nadler and Tushmen 1990 p.6) These components generate meaningful purpose, energizing through motivation and help employee psychology in the face of challenging change situations. Some instance of Charismatic leadership is portraying by Paul O’Neill at ALCOA where he has espoused clear vision underpinned by quality, safety and innovations. He made the vision compelling, provide ongoing support and energized his vision through his extensive personal contact (Nadler & Tushmen 1990 p. 7). From these evidences, thus clearly see how changes are conducive to be implemented and supported in organization by charismatic leadership. It built personal bond between leader, employee and organization as whole and become the source of sustained energy for change.

 

There are still inherent limitations to only based change in charismatic leadership. Many underpinning form of risks associate with the leadership style revolve around individuality supremacy.  Some identified pitfalls of this style are about unrealistic expectations in creating visions that straining employee in getting energized and potential feeling of betrayal when the process of change went to failure. In considering these shortcomings, the approach always being denoted as necessary component of change but not sufficient.

 

Visionary Leadership

 

From the term vision, we can fairly define this leadership style are working on with imagination, insight and boldness. This leader constantly promotes organized learning, creativity and develop strong innovation culture within organizations. Robbins & Coulter (2002) signify that visionary leadership articulate and create a realistic, credible and attractive vision of the future that improves the present situation. The term ‘credible’ implies as the leader who walk the talk, ability to explain vision to the employee and apply vision to different context.

 

From the comprehensive study by Lowe (cited in Groves 2006) can be conclude that visionary leadership is strongly related with employee job satisfaction. Other results also found that visionary leadership have contributed in change process in organization and change in leaders’ style itself.  In contrary, this leaders’ behavior alone may be inadequate for generating commitment in organization change. Leader must be aware of employee emotions when initiating organizational change agendas. With recent study new finding suggests that visionary leadership skills and attributes allow to establish an emotional connection with the employee that may overcome resistance of change (Conger 1998).

 

Innovation also as vital element in visionary leadership, allows organization to grow, improve and find new way to achieve goals. It also strives on creativity to change, this leader allows creative thinking and enhancing problem solving skills in employee. A visionary leader sees the use of new ideas in culturing better way in manage change in the organizations.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Few leadership style models are discussed to look in to the issues and to provide lights to new leaders in meticulously applying the mix of these leadership styles.  It is concisely clear that each leader style offers its own strong and weak points contextually. In more definite, leadership style must respond appropriately to organizational climates that may be vary, in term the state of employee motivations, level of conflicts, the tense of change resistant and adaptation elasticity to change. Timing factors and the urgency of change will also decide the style need to be opted in the organization, whether long or short-term change agenda. Dulewicz and Higgs (2005) furtherance that effective leadership for change is increasingly enclose combination of personal characteristics, skills, style and behavior.

 

 

Conclusively, leadership provides prerogative catalyst for change, but change is not simple as it may sound and done. Leadership styles solely will lead to astray without understanding the right mechanism of change that need to be meticulously knitted. Both fields leadership and change even they are mutually dependent but it stands exclusively with their own right of complexities.  As saying from Heraclitus nothing is permanent but change, bespeak that there will be no ending for leadership styles for change as to managing change agendas.

 

(3100 Words)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

'Authoritative Leaders' 2017, in Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation Inc., viewed 10 July 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritative leaders

 

 

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N., 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage Publications.

 

 

Cooper, L. 2014. Dilemmas: Leadership in Public Services: Bridging the Management Gap. In 17th International Research Conference, Dilemmas for Human Services 2014

 

 

David, H, 2004, January. Shared leadership and group interaction styles in problem-solving virtual teams. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.

 

 

Dawson, P. and Andriopoulos, C., 2014. Managing Change, Creativity and Innovation.  2 edn. Sage.

 

 

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M., 2005. Assessing leadership styles and organisational context. journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), pp.105-123.

 

 

Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R., 1999. Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of organizational change management, 12(2), pp.80-89.

 

 

Goleman, D. and Lueneburger, C., 2010. The change leadership sustainability demands. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(4), p.49.

 

Groves, K.S., 2006. Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership, and organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(7), pp.566-583.

 

 

Kotter, J., 1999. Change leadership. Executive Excellence, 16(4), pp.16-17.

 

 

Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L., 1990. Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California management review, 32(2), pp.77-97.

 

 

Northouse, P.G., 2009. Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.

 

 

Odumeru, J.A. and Ogbonna, I.G., 2013. Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories: Evidence in literature. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2), p.355.

 

Robbins, S. and Coulter, M., 2002. Organizational Structure and Design. Management. New York: Prentice Hall.