Leadership Style Essay

The main focus of any organization is viability or productivity (Mastrangelo, Eddy and Lorenzet, 2004). This is further heightened by the increasing changes in product market activities (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), 2001). The fact that consumers now have a better and affordable access to market information has brought about an increase in their market power and the resultant effect is a more challenging and competitive market especially in the private sector. The public sector on the other hand is under increasing pressure for a more effective utilization of public funds. Consequently, the quest for a competitive advantage and increasingly better performance is becoming a major factor for consideration in virtually all organizations. In this light, the CIPD (2001) emphasized on the role of leadership as a major factor essential for an enhanced organizational performance. Taormina (2008) supported this in stating that in leadership is vested the ability to decide how organizations will be run and it plays a major role in influencing the organization to success. The CIPD (2001) further added that leadership (or people management) is the main element harnessing other success factors in an organization for effectiveness. A number of authors have also supported the foregoing discussions on the leader-success relationship (e. g Harris and Kuhnert 2008; Mastrangelo, Eddy and Lorenzet, 2004). Furthermore, research works have identified certain pointers to high performance leadership. A major one among these is leadership behavior or leadership style (Mastrangelo, Eddy and Lorenzet, 2004; Taormina, 2008). Leadership Style and Organizational Success: Drawing a Correlation Leadership style is one of the major traits that may be used to draw a line of difference between high performance and low performance organizations (Adeyemi-Bello, 2001). Since the management in an organization has a great impact on how it will be run, the style of leadership within the management cycle has a way of dictating the direction that such an organization will go. Taormina (2008) buttressed this point in his work. He established the fact that leadership behavior go along way in determining the culture or the prevailing atmosphere in an organization and this will in turn affect employees’ attitude towards performance and ultimate success of such an organization. A number of dichotomies on leadership behavior have been presented. However, leadership style can be broadly categorized into two – ‘People-Centered’ leadership and ‘Task-Centered’ leadership (Adeyemi-Bello, 2001 pg 150; Taormina, 2008 pg. 87). ‘People-Centered’ leadership Versus ‘Task-Centered’ leadership Various progressive attempts have been made at investigating leadership from the behavioral angle. However, a remarkable point was reached in the 1950s with the introduction of ‘Ohio State model’ which talked about ‘task-oriented’ and ‘people-oriented’ leadership (Taormina, 2008 pg. 87). These two categories seem to have been a perfect one that describes leadership behaviors because it is still being referred as at present. According to Adeyemi-Bello (2001), task-oriented style emphasizes on production and organizational goals. This leadership style is concerned about how the organizational goals may be implemented. People-oriented leaders on the other hand show great concern for the followers (Adeyemi-Bello, 2001). They create a warm environment within the organization and foster a strong positive relationship among members of the organization. While this style offers a system that respects the personality, feelings and opinions of the employees and gives them a feeling of empowerment (Taormina, 2008), task oriented approach is thirsty for achievements sometimes at all cost (Adeyemi-Bello, 2001). Subsequent studies after the initial presentation of these leadership models have made attempts at differentiating between them. The intention was to determine which one should be preferred above the other. However, Adeyemi-Bello (2001) explained that current researches have shown that preferences for any of the two styles depend on the current situation within the organization. There are cases where one style will fail to impact a good result, not because it is less effective but because the situation at hand does not create an environment conducive for its functionality (Mastrangelo, Eddy and Lorenzet, 2004). Furthermore, Jacques, Garger and Thomas (2008) remarked that the recent behavioral theory of leadership took the studies a step further by suggesting that the two behavioral approaches will be more effective when adequately blended under any given situation. Their paper revealed that graduates of project management performs better in leadership than those from another management related courses because of their ability to blend the two leadership styles; a training that the other group did not receive. Adeyemi-Bello (2001) had earlier presented this fact in her work. The result of her survey on 29 Baptist church leaders shows a better result when the two styles were combined in church leadership than when each one was singly adopted. She concluded for the extension of these results into leadership in other realms of human activities. The implications of these results are quite obvious. A paradigm shift in the content and delivery of leadership training programs has become very necessary. The current training inculcating strategic planning and tasks-focused practices should pave way for a more balanced approach in management training. People managers should also learn to engage in a better interpersonal relationship with those under them, create a warmer environment conducive for a healthy work relationship, and engage in strategies that will give employees a feeling of empowerment (Adeyemi-Bello, 2001; Monstarangelo, Eddy and Lorenzet, 2004; Taormina, 2008). The case of Kleine Plastics in the UK presented by Ludlow (1987) serves as a good example in driving home the points that has been raised so far (in Tyson and Kakabadse eds. ). The work contrasted between the leadership attributes of Joseph Kleine, the founder of Kleine Plastics and that of David, his son at a particular time during the early stages of the company’s development. It reviews Joseph Kleine’s attitude as ‘a charismatic leader with whom his managers and work force wish to identify’ (pg. 23). He engages a style that trusted and respected his employees and empathizes with their situations. To him, these people were his main assets. This, coupled with his result oriented tendencies, propelled the work force towards a high performance level. However, David Kleine could not maintain this approach when he had to stand in during his father’s absence. He wanted result at all cost without due regards for his team members. Objections to his propositions by his managers were downplayed no matter how genuine they may be. Though work was still progressing, enthusiasm and productivity level dwindled. The return of Joseph was welcomed with protests from every quarter. David style was found to be less effective because of its lack of ‘human face’. Conclusion Leadership style is an issue that will still continue to be a subject of interest among research workers. The world is ever changing and people are becoming increasingly dynamic in attitude and thinking. This calls for a leadership approach that will keep up with the pace of the changes. A dynamic leader is one that is better equipped to respond to changes and easily enlist the cooperation of people in managing them effectively towards a greater level of production performance.