Introduction.
Leadership is one of the most mysterious phenomena that occur in our
society. Leaders appeared in the ancient times and since then the
necessity in leadership has increased. Our society has become more
complicated. Today there are a lot of social units on different levels
that need leaders to function effectively. But it has been a difficult
task to understand how leadership occurs. Leaders are different, their
tasks vary, as well as the way they lead their teams. Being an effective
leader in one organisation does not presuppose the same success in other
organisation. There are many “but” in this field of study, leadership
raises lots of questions. No wonder that there are several approaches to
leadership.
The aim of this paper is to assess the applicability and value of
different approaches using a service organisation as an example. I have
chosen Quality Arcticus Hotel in Harstad and three of its leaders as a
field for my research. I work at this organisation, so I know the
personnel and I have observed the style of their work for some period.
Now I will use my knowledge and the method of interview to go deeper
into the question. Quality Arcticus Hotel is a typical service
organisation that offers lodging and catering. The restaurant and the
cafe belonging to the hotel are both very popular among the citizens of
Harstad. The hotel itself is the second best in the town, following
Rokenes Gjestegard (which takes the first place due to its
exclusiveness) Such success of Arcticus Hotel would be impossible
without effective leadership.
My work consists of theoretical and practical parts. In the theoretical
part I describe the approaches that we have been introduced to.
In the practical part I take a look at the structure of the Quality
Arcticus Hotel and try to apply different approaches to leadership to
understand the style of work of the three leaders that I have chosen as
the subject for my study. I describe what, in my opinion, helps these
three persons to be effective leaders (if they are so in reality)
2. Theory about leadership.
2.1 Definitions of leadership
Defining leadership has been a complex and elusive problem largely
because the nature of leadership itself is complex. A lot of studies
have emerged from every discipline “that has had some interest in the
subject of leadership: anthropology, business administration,
educational administration, history, military science, nursing
administration, organizational behaviour, philosophy, political science,
public administration, psychology, sociology, and theology.” (Rost, J.
C. Leadership for the Twenty-first Century, p. 45)
Joseph Rost — and many others, including James MacGregor Burns, Warren
Bennis, and Henry Mintzberg — goes on to argue that the entire history
of modern leadership studies has been seriously flawed. First, because
while everyone talks about leadership, no-one has satisfactorily defined
what it actually is. Like art, we seem to know it only when we see it. (
HYPERLINK “http://www.infinitefutures.com” www.infinitefutures.com )
We can see how definition of leadership changed:
1927: “…the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and
induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation.” (Steward, in
Moore, 1927)
1930’s: “…interaction between specific traits of one person and other
traits of the many, in such a way that the course of action of the many
is changed by the one.” (Bogardus, 1934)
“Leadership may be broadly defined as the relation between an individual
and a group built around some common interest and behaving in a manner
directed or determined by him.” (Schmidt, 1933, page 282, quoted in
Rost, page 48)
1940’s: “Leadership…is the art of influencing…people by persuasion or
example to follow a line of action. It must never be confused with
drivership…which is the art of compelling…people by intimidation or
force to follow a line of action.” (Copeland, 1942)
1950’s: “…the process (act) of influencing the activities of an
organized group in its efforts towards goal setting and goal
achievement.” (Stogdill, 1950/1958)
1960’s: “…acts by persons which influence other persons in a shared
direction.” (Seeman, 1960)
1970’s: “…a process in which an individual takes initiative to assist a
group to move towards the production goals that are acceptable to
maintain the group, and to dispose the needs of individuals within the
group that compelled them to join it.” (Boles and Davenport, 1975)
Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus in their book “Leaders” said that “Leaders
lead by pulling rather than pushing; by inspiring rather than ordering;
by creating achievable, though challenging, expectations and rewarding
progress toward them rather than by manipulating; by enabling people to
use their own initiative and experiences rather than by denying or
constraining their experiences and actions. (Bennis, W.,Nanus,
B.,1985:225)
In 1993 Joseph C. Rost defined leadership for the twenty-first century:
“Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who
intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” Four essential
elements must be present:
1. The relationship is based on influence.
The influence relationship is multidirectional;
the influence behaviours are no coercive.
2. Leaders and followers are the people in this relationship.
The followers are active;
there must be more than one follower, and there is typically more than
one leader in the relationship;
the relationship is inherently unequal because the influence patterns
are unequal
The definition given by Rost comprises all the previous attempts to
define leadership, as it includes the elements reflected in the other
definitions. However, most of the scholars considered some elements to
be more important than others, so we have a number of approaches to
leadership. We will describe the major ones in the next chapter.
2.2 Leadership evolution
Our world is changing and these changing surroundings need new leaders.
When the world used to be stable, the tasks of the leaders were to
control and predict. Further, as the world was getting more chaotic,
leaders faced new tasks. This model shows the evolution of leadership:
Figure 1. Source: Richard L. Daft: Leadership: theory and practice.
(1999, p
Different approaches to leadership concentrate on different eras or
types of leaders.
2.3 Trait approach to leadership.
Early efforts to understand leadership success focused on the leader’s
personal traits. In the 1990’s the “great man” theories appeared. They
tried to figure out who is born to lead. They studied the great leaders
of the past such as Caesar, Napoleon, and Richard III. Those days the
world was stable and predictable, the societies were not so complex, the
groups were few and small. The leaders acted on “macro” level and were
associated with heroes. Later researches (1940’s-1950’s) tried to find
the universal traits common to all leaders. There was a sense that some
critical leadership traits could be isolated. There was also a feeling
that people with such traits could then be recruited, selected, trained
and installed into leadership positions. In their studies some traits
did appear more frequently than others: technical skills, friendliness,
intelligence, general charisma, drive, task motivation, application to
task, social skills, emotional control, administrative skill, group-task
supportiveness.
The problem with the trait approach lies in the fact that almost as many
traits as studies undertaken were identified. Stogdill examined over 100
studies based on the trait approach. (Daft, R., 1999:65) He uncovered
that the importance of a particular trait was often relative to another
factor- the situation. Indeed, when we look at such leaders as Stalin,
Hitler, Churchill, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., John
Kennedy, Margareth Thatcher, do they have any traits in common all
together? Having failed to identify the leader’s traits, the researchers
understood that leadership is usually a more complicated process.
2.3 Behaviour approaches
The results of the trait studies were inconclusive. Researchers changed
the focus from the “great men” to small groups and their leaders.
Researchers turned to an examination of leader behaviours. Rather than
concentrating on what leaders are, as the trait approach urged, the
behavioural approach forced looking at what leaders do. This approach
(1950’s-60’s) says that anyone who adopts the appropriate behaviour can
be a good leader. (Daft, R., 1999:69) Behavioural patterns can be
learned in contrast with traits that must be possessed.
The studies of Iowa State University were a precursor to behaviour
approach. They recognised autocratic versus democratic leadership
styles.
The most prominent studies were those undertaken by the University of
Michigan and by Ohio State University. Interestingly, both studies
concluded that leadership behaviours could be classified into two
groups.
Ohio State University University of Michigan
– Initiating Structure – Production Centered
task-oriented
-Consideration – Employee Centered
people-oriented
Likert (the University of Michigan) found that employee-centered leader
behaviour generally tended to be more effective. Blake and Mouton of the
University of Texas went into the same direction and suggested the two
similar dimensions: concern for people and concern for results. But they
worked out the leadership grid and suggested five leadership styles:
Impoverishment Management (minimal degree of each concern). The less
effective leadership.
9.1 Authority-Compliance Management (maximal degree of concern for
results, minimal degree of concern for people)
5.5 Middle-of.the-Road- Management (average degree of both concerns)
1.9 Country Club Management (minimal degree of concern for results,
maximal degree of concern for people)
9.9 Team Management (maximal degree of each concern). This was
considered to be the most effective leadership style.
This approach goes further that trait approach by trying to group
leaders into several categories instead of finding something common to
all leaders. Still, leaders were supposed to have “either-or” style.
2.4. Situational (contingency) approach
Unable to determine which particular behaviour patterns consistently
resulted in effective leadership, researches then attempted to match
behaviour patterns that worked best in specific contexts or situations.
The previous researches studied two dimensions: leaders themselves and
their relationships with followers. The central focus of the new
research was situation in which leadership occurred. The most important
point is that the components of leadership style, subordinate
characteristics and situational elements impact one another. Fiedler’s
contingency model, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory, the
path-goal theory, and substitutes for leadership each describe that
different situations need different styles of leadership behaviour so
that it was an effective leadership.
According to Fiedler, leaders can determine if the situation is
favourable to their leadership style. Task-oriented leaders tend to do
better in very easy or very difficult situations, while person-oriented
leaders do best in situations of intermediate favourability. Hersey and
Blanchard say that leaders can adjust their task or relationship style
to accommodate the readiness level of their subordinates. The path-goal
theory states that leaders can use a style that either clarifies the
path to desired rewards or increases the rewards so that the followers
would display increased effort and motivation. (Daft, R., 1999:114) We
will have a closer look at two of these theories in our practical part.
The limits of this paper do not allow us to analyse other theories as
dyadic theory, integrate and alternative approaches. But all these
theories took into consideration the fact that leadership is a complex
phenomenon and its effectiveness depends on many factors.
3. Implementation of the theory in practice.
3.1 Presentation of Quality Arcticus Hotel
Quality Arcticus Hotel is a typical service organisation. It is an
equivalent of a four-star hotel, and a member of a hotel chain Choice
Hotels. Here is an organisation plan of the hotel.
As an action company, it has a committee, consisting of 5 persons who
were chosen by the personnel. In the hotel we can see a vertical power
structure. One can observe three levels of leaders here:
Strategic level – the hotel manager (administrative director)
Middle level – the economy chief
Operative level – the restaurant chief, the bar chief, the chief-cook,
the reception chief, and the selling manager.
I have chosen three leaders for my research: the hotel manager, the
economy chief and the restaurant chief. I work at this restaurant, so I
know the restaurant chief’s work best out of the operative leaders.
In connection with this paper I am interested in what kind of leader
styles these three persons practice. I consider their work as very
effective. To this point, the hotel has not had serious economical
problems or conflicts with the personnel. I should mention that it is a
small hotel, and it can be considered a family organisation. Moreover,
all the three were not elected to their positions and in reality can
take their leader positions as long as they wish to. Such relations give
more power to the leaders. However, their relationship to the personnel
is very good. Their subordinates call them democratic bosses. I would
like to find out what helps these leaders work effectively and keep such
a good reputation. I am going to use the leader theories that I have
talked about in this paper. I want to find out whether those theories
are relevant when explaining the success of these three leaders.
Now I want to look closer at the tasks of these three leaders. The hotel
manager works with daily leadership and strategic planning. Since it is
a little hotel with few departments, most of the leaders have additional
responsibility. Quality Arcticus Hotel does not have a marketing
department and the hotel leader has marketing as an additional task to
his main tasks. This leader has a number of tasks which he handles
alone, e.g. problems outside the hotel: the marked, competition,
promotion. He can take decisions alone, having consulted the economy
chief if it is possible to put his ideas into reality. In my opinion,
this fact that he can solve some problems by himself helps him to avoid
possible conflicts with the subordinates. Actually there are fields
where he does not need to lead a team.
The economy chief takes charge of economy and budget, this is her main
responsibility. Her additional responsibility is the personnel. Her
tasks are more management tasks than leadership, as she works mostly
with calculating and controlling, and this is the work that she handles
alone. Still, she also works with the personnel, deciding who and how
much is going to work in different situations.
The restaurant chief takes responsibility for the personnel in the
restaurant and for the budget. She also takes charge of the arranging,
marketing and selling of all the products that the restaurant can offer.
3.2 Trait approach in practice
First, I want to find out if these three leaders have some traits that
explain their success. I have interviewed the leaders and asked what
particular traits help them in their work, in their opinion. I have
asked their subordinates as well to describe these persons as chiefs. At
last I have tested the three leaders, using the questionnaire from the
book “Leadership” , to find out if these persons have potential
leadership qualities. The test showed that all the three of them may
have such qualities, especially the restaurant chief. On my question, if
they could be leaders of a big concern/company, the economy chief
answered “no”, the restaurant chief answered “yes” and the hotel chief
was not sure. The restaurant chief was very excited of the thought to
lead a big company, which, to my mind, means that she has qualities and
abilities necessary for a leader.
Among the qualities the hotel chief possesses his subordinates
mentioned: democratic, flexible, not so demanding, motivating, honest,
social, result-oriented, fair, friendly, well-organised, purposeful. He
himself means that what helps him in work is an ability to listen to
other people and to foresee the situation.
The economy chief was characterised as fair, polite, well-organised,
nice, understanding, with sense of humour, flexible, democratic,
precise, consequent, hardworking, and motivating. She herself considers
the most important for her success is being social, friendly and
co-operative.
The restaurant chief got a variety of characteristics from her
subordinates: flexible, understanding, drive, motivating, demanding,
obliging, stressful, funny, purposeful, open, helpful, optimistic,
active, with a sense of humour, charismatic, absent-minded, messy,
enthusiastic, precise, co-operative, concerned about quality. She
herself pointed out such traits as open, helpful, purposeful, tough, and
a bit autocratic.
As we can see all the three leaders possess a number of qualities that
many researchers consider having great value for leaders, such as drive,
honesty, friendliness, and motivating. Still, all the three possess
different qualities, what does not prevent their success. Such traits as
messy and stressful, for example, can be an obstacle in handling
situations that demand responsibility and self-confidence. To my mind,
this approach does not go deep enough to explain the success of the
leaders.
3.3 Behaviour approach in practice
Further, I have tried to find out what kind of behaviour these three
leaders practise. I have tested all of them, using two questionnaires
from the book “Leadership” . I have also interviewed both the leaders
and their subordinates.
One of the approaches, which I have described above, recognises
autocratic versus democratic leadership styles. The hotel chief is a
democratic leader. All his subordinates pointed it out. The
characteristics he got from the personnel, such as flexible, fair,
friendly, not so demanding, indicate his democratic relations with the
subordinates. In the interview the hotel chief explained that although
the organisation has a hierarchic structure, in practice he and his
subordinates is one team, working together. When there is a problem to
lose, he is on one line with the other leaders. Everyone has the right
to say what they mean.
One of the tests I have used was designed to assess aggressive, passive
and assertive behaviour. According to the test, the hotel chief’s
behaviour is assertive. This behaviour is considered to be the most
effective for leadership. Assertive people ask for what they believe,
and stand up for their rights in a way that others can accept. The
quality of assertiveness means being straightforward yet open to the
needs of others. Assertiveness strikes the correct balance between being
too dominant and too “soft”, which are not effective ways to influence
others.
Another test shows if a person is people-oriented or task-oriented. The
hotel chief is task-oriented according to the test, but only with a one
point’s difference.
The economy chief is also rather democratic than autocratic. All her
subordinates named her social characteristics. She delegates authority
to others, encourages participation and relies on her subordinates.
However, the test showed that she practises passive behaviour, which is
not effective for leadership. She prefers conflict avoidance,
suppressing her own needs, being inhibited and submissive.
She is also more people-oriented than task-oriented. She trusts her
colleagues and asks their opinion. For example, is there are too many
rooms to clean, she never insists on cleaning all of them the same day.
Satisfied room-maids are more important for her than 100% done work.
The restaurant chief is both democratic and autocratic. Her subordinates
mentioned her social qualities as well as her concern for work, e.g.
demanding, drive etc. She is a person who always helps her subordinates,
asks for their opinion, in some cases fully delegates authority to the
team of waiters and lets them decide how to complete the tasks. But in
some cases, especially demanding to represent the restaurant at its
best, she becomes autocratic and tells how to do the work. In such cases
perfectly-done work is more important for her than satisfied
subordinates. When a new waiter/waitress is being trained up, she pays
much attention to every detail in doing the everyday tasks, such as
laying up the table, talking to the guests and so on. When she lets her
subordinates do the job without her supervision, every worker knows how
to do the tasks so that the chief would like it. It is obvious that she
is more task-oriented than people-oriented. She characterises her
relationship with the subordinates as good, but she is aware of the fact
that some persons are discontent with her pressure and a great deal of
work which she expects to be done.
Another test showed her assertive behaviour, which is considered the
most effective for leadership. (Daft..)
3.4 Situational approach in practice
All the three leaders behave in different ways. It is interesting that
the hotel chief, having serious tasks, allows higher degree of democracy
than the restaurant chief. To my mind the difference is the situations
they work in. Both the hotel chief and the economy chief have a number
of tasks they can handle alone and the number of their subordinates they
work with on the other tasks is little. The restaurant chief has around
20 waiters under her charge. And there is almost no task she can do
alone without any help. Moreover, she needs to co-operate with the
kitchen. Her working surroundings are more conflictable and she needs to
be firm. I think it is incorrect to say that some behaviour is more
effective than other, without taking into consideration in what
situation the leader work. The leader effectiveness is in other words
contingent on the situation.
The situational theory of Hersey and Blanchard focuses on the
characteristics of followers. According to this theory I can say that
the restaurant chief has telling style, as she gives explicit directions
about how tasks should be accomplished. And this is an appropriate style
in her situation if we take into consideration the fact that 50% of the
subordinates are not professional waiters. Half of the waters started to
work without any knowledge about the specificity of the job, many of
them work part-time. So, not all the waiters show high degree of
readiness. Letting them decide and giving them responsibility is not the
right thing to do.
On the opposite, the hotel chief and the economy chief work with a team
that has high readiness and shares the goals of the organisation. The
department chiefs can take responsibility for their own task behaviour.
The hotel chief prefers delegating and participating styles of work. The
economy chief has delegating style.
Fiedler takes more factors into consideration than just the
characteristics of the followers. He also means that task structure and
the degree of leader power are important. Here is the table showing
different situations the leaders can work at.
Figure 2.
Source: Richard L. Daft: Leadership: theory and practice. (1999: 97)
Knowing the situation we can say what is more effective for a leader:
being people-oriented or task-oriented.
The leader-member relations are good with all the three leaders in our
case. The task structure is high. There are little ill-defined tasks or
researches, the hotel chief and the economy chief handle such tasks
alone. At the restaurant it can be a challenge to work with new
unexpected tasks, here we have work that sometimes needs creativeness.
The task structure at the restaurant is lower. I would place the
restaurant chief in the situation with unstructured tasks.
The formal position power is strong with all the three leaders. Although
the hotel chief and the economy chief prefer to work on one line with
their subordinates, formally they have power to evaluate, reward or
punish.
I can conclude that the hotel and economy chiefs work in a favourable
situation, while the restaurant chief- in an intermediate. In both cases
task-oriented leaders perform better. As I have found out before, the
hotel chief and the restaurant chief are task-oriented leaders, while
the economy chief is more people-oriented. But as she is as popular as a
chief and does her work successfully, I presume she can allow being
people-oriented in her situation as well. The tasks for her subordinates
are so clear and routine, and the relations with her team are so
favourable that she does not need focus on tasks.
Conclusion
In this paper we have tried to analyse different approaches to
leadership and implement them in practice using Quality Arcticus Hotel
as a model. I think that all the three approaches are relevant to some
extent. All the three leaders possess traits that are necessary to
succeed in a leading position. The leaders in my analysis possess
different behaviour styles but it is understandable. If a leader has to
handle with tasks demanding high degree of responsibility from the
subordinates he is more task-oriented. To be a hotel chief is a
responsible work, the leader should be more task-oriented than
people-oriented. On the operative level as well there are a lot of daily
tasks which need to be performed with high quality. All the goals that
the leaders on the upper levels set up for the organisations shall be
realised on the operative level. We can judge the work of the hotel by
the work of the departments on the operative level (reception, kitchen,
restaurant, bar, selling department). That is why it is more natural, to
my mind, for these leaders to focus more on the tasks than on their
subordinates.
Situational approach takes more factors into consideration and that is
why I think it is a more applicable theory to find out the best style of
leadership. Leadership is a complex phenomenon and it can not been
explained with simple concepts. I do not mean to say that contingency
approaches are the best in explaining success in leadership. There are
many theories about this phenomenon. But out of the three approaches
analysed it gives more concrete answers on the question, why exactly
this leader performs well in exactly these surroundings.
Literature
Yukl, Gary Leadership in organisations, fifth edition, 2002
Daft, Richard L. Leadership: theory and practice, 1999
The hotell manager is married to the economy chief and one of the
operative leaders is their son-in-law.
The hotel chief normally handles problems with the economy chief and
the five operative leaders. The economy chief has two persons working
with economy under her supervision. Besides she takes charge of the 8
room-maids.
PAGE
PAGE 16
Executive Committee
Hotell
Manager
Economy
Manager
Chief-cook
restaurant chief
Barchief
Reception
chief
Selling
Manager
Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter
