Leading in the Workplace

Proposition 70 Leading in the Workplace In a Word Theories of leadership are divided: some underscore the primacy of personal qualities; others stress that systems are all-important. Both interpretations are correct: a larger pool of leaders is desirable all the time (and superleaders are necessary on occasion) but its development must be part of systemic invigoration of leadership in organizations. Introduction Leadership is a complex and contested subject. But there is no doubt that the consequences of modernity throw up unprecedented challenges that beg better understanding of its nature in organizations. More and more, contemporary discussions of leadership in organizations run thus Leadership is the key that unlocks (or blocks) performance and change. It is a social process—something that moves people. It is not what leaders do: it is what springs from purposeful relationships. Leadership does not depend on one person but on how groups act together to make collective sense of the situations they confront. From this perspective, leadership in organizations is the process by which individual and team contributions to a shared cause increase (at least) on a par with job-related psychological well-being. Source Author © Asian Development Bank 2017 O. Serrat, Knowledge Solutions, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_70 633 634 70 Leading in the Workplace Early Models of Leadership Indeed. These days, leadership is more and more defined as the means of influence by which a person enlists the help of others to accomplish tasks of common interest. Of course, this definition has not always held and the literature continues to frustrate: until about 20 years ago, the images associated with leadership were rooted in conflict, that is, moments of crisis or decision when the actions of an individual are pivotal. Early models of leadership—usually Western and borrowed from the military— were wont to examine the circumstances in which leaders emerge, and then search for psychological traits. The definite, often heroic endowments they identified typically embraced vision, ideological orientation, charisma, physical vitality and stamina, courage and resolution, intelligence and action-oriented judgment, decisiveness, self-confidence, assertiveness, a need for achievement, eagerness to accept responsibility, task competence, capacity to motivate people, understanding of followers and their needs, skill in dealing with people, trustworthiness, and adaptability.1 No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings. —Peter Drucker The archetypal qualities desired from leaders are undoubtedly opportune in dire circumstances. However, “old paradigm” trait approaches2 and notions of 1 Only quite recently—that is, in the last 10 years—has attention been paid to social distance. What characterizes distant leaders, typically active in politics or the military, is usually quite different from what we identify in the nearby leaders we contact regularly. The latter are frequently perceived as intelligent, original, expert, dynamic, sociable, open, and considerate, for example. This distinction is crucial if we are to realize what is required in “normal” walks of life. 2 Thankfully, perhaps, the seemingly innumerable traits that leaders are thought to exhibit (admitting also differences by sector) have since been pared into five dispositions: (i) self-confidence, (ii) empathy, (iii) ambition, (iv) curiosity, and (v) self-control. Many organizations still find uses for psychometric assessments inspired by trait approaches, for instance, by means of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, even though critiques suggest that such tests construct rather than discover traits, and might encourage surreptitious subordination of individuals to the professed needs of an organization. Early Models of Leadership 635 situational,3 contingency,4 transactional,5 and even transformational6 leadership— all of which smack of command and control more or less overtly—cannot serve the miscellany of organizations that need leadership in the workplace in the twenty-first century. Certainly, all over the world, “ordinary” people work with remarkable success in extraordinarily challenging circumstances yet do not advertise superhuman characteristics in their leadership styles. The New Context for Leadership in the Public Sector The challenges that organizations face in their efforts to perform owe to the rapid spread and connectedness of production, communication, and technologies across the world, and attendant changes in perceptions, expectations, opportunities, requirements, and workforces. In response, from the early 1990s, public sector organizations worldwide launched reforms inspired by President Clinton’s National 3 Situational approaches underscore the context in which leadership is exercised and emphasize that what is needed differs from situation to situation. At one extreme, proponents argue that context determines everything. At the other, they suggest that leaders are able to work in different ways depending on the state of affairs, i.e., adapt their style and patterns of behavior to suit circumstances based on (i) their position power, (ii) the structure of the task, and (iii) their relationship with followers. At heart, both interpretations belittle somewhat the role of followers, who are shepherded into more or less learned subordinate acceptance through a decision process that can range from autocratic to democratic. Under the directive leadership style, leaders take decisions for others and expect instructions to be followed. Under the participative leadership style, leaders share decision making with others and may encourage them to “buy into” the task, emphasizing the achievement of concrete objectives. 4 Contingency approaches are skeptical that a leader can operate successfully in radically different situations. They suggest that leadership should change when the context changes or that the leader should change the context to ensure that his or her leadership style remains appropriate. 5 Transactional approaches involve trading. They recognize what employees seek from work. They design incentives to accomplish a predetermined goal, make promises, and exchange rewards for aligned efforts. Power is given to the leader to correct and train subordinates when outcomes are not those desired. Transactional leaders are more common than other types of leaders. 6 Transformational approaches are a variant of transactional approaches—some see them as a polar opposite—that aim to raise levels of awareness about the significance and value of designated outcomes and arrange ways to reach them, beyond self-interest, for the sake of the organization. Proponents claim that, unlike transactional approaches, transformational approaches are not based on “give and take” relationships but on the ability of leaders to redesign perceptions and values and change the expectations and aspirations of employees. The four elements of transformational leadership are (i) individual consideration (listening and attending to needs), (ii) intellectual stimulation (sharing cutting-edge information), (iii) inspirational motivation (framing a vision that appeals), and (iv) idealized influence (modeling the attitudes and behaviors one wants to see in others). 636 70 Leading in the Workplace Partnership for Reinventing Government, introduced in 1993.7 They continue unabated to this day. Leading Change in the Public Sector, released by the Chartered Management Institute (Charlesworth et al. 2003), gave a reality check on the pressures from public reform agendas in the United Kingdom that is quite suggestive of what is still being experienced there as elsewhere.8 Importantly, the research project also presented a sober assessment of what attributes and skills survey respondents desired from their leaders and saw demonstrated. It revealed a clear perceived cultural shift in terms of the (then) new focus on delivery and working through partnerships. But, it made clear that resources and manpower levels were the greatest hindrance on reform. Clarity of vision was placed firmly at the top of the list of desired leadership attributes, followed by integrity and sound judgment. Yet, the survey respondents reported that the top three qualities their most senior management team demonstrated instead were those of being knowledgeable, strategic, and committed to people. The three top desired public leadership skills were communication, engaging employees with a vision of the organization, and creating an enabling culture. That said, the gap was considerable in all three instances, notably regarding the third. Where to from There? Recent developments in theory and practice have emphasized the growing complexity of leadership. Organizations are not machines and should not be treated as such. Since they are communities (of communities), we should want them to share the flexible, resilient, and adaptive attributes that characterize living systems. Learning organizations,9 much as living systems, are able to self-organize, sustain themselves, and move toward greater complexity and order when needed. They can respond intelligently to the imperatives of change without awaiting directives from the outside. Despite the abundance of trust, however, the learning organization is not necessarily a comfortable place for conventional leaders: much of the power resides at 7 The mission was to create a government that “works better, costs less, and gets results Americans care about”. 8 The research project surveyed almost 1,900 public sector managers—mostly at middle and junior level—in central government, local government, health, education, the armed forces, the fire service, and the police. 9 Learning for Change in ADB (2009) broadly defines a learning organization as a collective undertaking, rooted in action, that builds and improves its own practice by consciously and continually devising and developing the means to draw learning from its own (and others’) experience. Where to from There? 637 the edges of these organizations, and imposed authority (even when subtly disguised) no longer really works—rather, it must be earned. A learning culture is born of beliefs, values, and principles that are shared by people who are committed to one another and to a common goal.10 Therefore, running it requires a powerful theory: many suggest that this should be founded on questions, ideas, tests, and reflections in a wheel of learning. The leader is best when people are hardly aware of his existence, not so good when people praise his government, less good when people stand in fear, worst when people are contemptuous. Fail to honor people and they will fail to honor you. But of a good leader who speaks little when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, the people say: “We did it ourselves”. —Lao Tzu Still, keeping the wheel of learning in motion—without it stalling for too long in one quadrant—is no easy matter. In twenty-first century organizations, certainly in the public sector, that and not much else may then be considered to be the primary task of a leader and his community of servant-leaders.11 Each will find different ways of carrying it out, based on the mission of the organization, the distinctive context in which it operates, and the leadership attributes and skills that these demand—preferably to foster vision, give constant encouragement, and put on view personal examples. But all will ensure as they do so that the constituent members of the organization become and remain “change agile”. In an uncertain world, high-performance organizations will be those that continuously renew, reinvent, and reinvigorate themselves.12 To these intents, they will wisely identify, engage, and develop individuals who possess the “learning habit” and delight in the unknown. They will invest immensely in them and trust them in equal proportions. Leadership will be collective, irrespective of hierarchical position or authority: true leaders will be those who build the organization and its capabilities. 10 Such organizations might more appropriately be envisioned as communities of commitment, and certainly not as organizations of command and control. 11 Servant-leaders are seen as humble stewards of their organization’s resources. Servant leadership is a philosophy and practice of leadership, coined and defined by Robert Greenleaf. The general concept is ancient, with roots in China (Lao Tzu) and India (Chanakya). Servant-leaders, said Greenleaf, constantly inquire whether the highest priority needs of others are being served. Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants? 12 Inevitably, heeding Peter Drucker, each will recurrently ask itself: What is our mission? Who are our clients? What do our clients value? What are our results? What is our plan? These five simple —yet complex and compelling—questions are as essential and relevant today as they were yesterday and will be tomorrow. 638 70 Leading in the Workplace Table. Toward systemic invigoration of leadership From Command and control Individual leaders Inherited traits and acquired skills One-dimensional man Private interest Reductionism Rules Self-isolating individual leaders Win–lose arguments Source Author To Cultural coherence Leadership institutions Developed will Diversity Public service Complexity Principles Self-supporting leadership teams Win–win conversations References ADB (2009) Learning for change in ADB. Manila Charlesworth K, Cook P Crozier G (2003) Leading change in the public sector: making the difference. Chartered Management Institute Further Reading Greenleaf R (1977) Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Asian Development Bank, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 IGO license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo/) which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the Asian Development Bank, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. Any dispute related to the use of the works of the Asian Development Bank that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL rules. The use of the Asian Development Bank’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the Asian Development Bank’s logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the Asian Development Bank and the user and is not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.