In our study of transformational leadership, we discovered the three acts of transformational leadership. Recognizing the need for change, developing a vision for change, and finally institutionalizing change (Tichy & Devanna, 1990). We then looked at three transformational leaders, Barak Obama, Ronald Reagan, and Jesus and learned lessons from what they did right and wrong. We learned that the institutionalization of change is where most transformational leaders either succeed of fail. To enjoy success, the transformational leader must internalize the need and vision for change in their followers. Transformational leaders fail when they attempt to force changes on individuals.
The greatest challenge an institutionalization of change is overcoming the natural resistance to change. Individuals resist change because
1) Reluctance to loose control
2) Cognitive rigidity
3) Psychological resilience
4) Intolerance to the adjustment period
5) Preference for low levels of stimulation and novelty
6) Reluctance to give up old habits
(Craine, 2007)
Transformational leaders also need to manage the cycle of change and lead their followers through the four cycles of the change cycle
1) The comfort zone
2) The no zone
3) The chasm
4) The go zone
(Oreg, 2003)
Now we are ready to begin the process of finding the ideal leader but first we must define what leadership is, who is a leader, what effective leadership is, how to identify when a leader is effective, the role of culture in leadership, and obstacles to effective leadership.
Leading is defined as “guiding and directing on a course” and as “serving as a channel”. A leader is someone with commanding authority or influence. The leader is the channel who guides and directs individuals down the desired course (Nahavandi, 2006).
Effectiveness in leadership can be defined in many different ways. Fiedler’s Contingency Model defines effectiveness in the terms of group performance. In other words, a leader is seen as effective when the group performs well. However, in contrast, House’s Path-Goal theory considers follower satisfaction. Other researchers who focus on transformational and visionary leadership define effectiveness as successful implementation of large-scale change in an organization (Nahavandi, 2006).
Culture also plays an important role in leadership. A leader may be seen as effective in one culture but not effective in another. According to Trompenaar’s model, cultures can be classified effectively into two dimensions (1) egalitarian-hierarchical, and (2) orientation to the person or to the task. According to this theory leaders, working in a culture leaning toward egalitarianism and people, will be more effective as they focus on removing obstacles and focusing on individual growth. In contrast, cultures that are hierarchical and task oriented, a leader who sets him or herself up as the undisputed boss focusing on rational performance will be seen as more effective (Nahavandi, 2006).
To be effective, leaders must develop an awareness of the culture they are operating in and develop a leadership style that will be effective in that culture. For example, in the United States where individual independence is important an incubator style oriented towards individuals where the leader removes obstacles, works to empower individuals, and focuses on individual growth will be seen as more effective. However, in Asian cultures such as Japan where hierarchy and task orientation are valuable, an Eiffel Tower or authoritarian leadership style focusing on performance will be viewed as more effective. The effective incubator leader will not be effective in Japan where as the Eiffel Tower leader will not be as effective in the United States (Nahavandi, 2006).
In conclusion, we have seen that there is no clear-cut definition of leadership or any tried and true way of determining what leadership style will be effective in any situation. To complicate matters, we have seen that the definition of effectiveness also differs. We have also seen how cultural differences also determine what leadership style will be effective (Nahavandi, 2006).
Looking ahead in our study on how to find the ideal leader, we will be looking at the history of leadership theory. We will also be looking at how the emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence (EI) affect leadership. We will also look at the big five personality dimensions, locus of control, and type A and type B personality types and leadership. We will conclude by introducing the type C personality type and look at its effectiveness as a leadership style. Next week a history lesson in leadership theory.
References
Craine, K. (2007). Managing the cycle of change. Information Management Journal, September/October2007, pp. 44-50. Retrieved Retrieved January 19, 2010, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=13&hid=5&sid=07a78323-a248-4b97-b957-3b989244fa21%40sessionmgr10
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc..
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, pp. 680-693. Retrieved REtrieved January 19, 2010, http://webebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=5&sid=07a78323-a248-4b97-b957-3b989244fa21%40sessionmgr10
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader: The key to global competitiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment