Analysis and Synthesis prior to research

Leadership and Power: Where have we come from and how should this look conceptually?

Nadia Delanoy

MGMT 8410

Student ID- A00558400

June 4, 2016

Introduction

Leadership including followership as constructs has evolved throughout centuries of entrenched political, economic, and social systems which reflected such practices as feudalism, monarchism, which manifested into immense divisions within the social echelons of these systems (Agho, 2009; Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010). As a result, power and leadership were crafted out of the want for control, geopolitical advancement as well as social distinction (Agho, 2009; Delanoy, 2016). One could argue that the latter has not changed significantly but has merely supplanted itself in a new face of corporate hierarchies, para-military groups, and seemingly, the dissolution of the middle class in developed nations (Hamel, 2014; Delanoy, 2016). Regardless of these potential realities, leadership whether within a political or business landscape still necessitates that individuals work with a broad array of people and build capacity with and for their partners in the leadership framework (Judge & Bono, 2000; Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Hamel, 2014). (i.e. middle management) Moreover, leadership in the broader sense which includes the middles and uppers should be equipped with the competencies to be visionary, facilitate change, and ensure institutional resources are being leveraged in a way that results in sustainable fiscal and social advancement (Oshry, 2007; Meadows, 2008; Avolio et al., 2009). Followership then is a composite of leadership and management in that within the greater systems context, everyone has an opportunity at varying stages to lead from the back, middle or front, depending on the circumstance, need, or goals that are delineated (Senge, 2006; Oshry, 2007; Meadows, 2008; Agho, 2009).

Enigmatically, the evolution globally has influenced the leadership structures of organizations, such as the technological advancements, availability of knowledge and information, the development of asynchronous team approaches (i.e. face to face or virtual) and work, and an increased awareness of the gaps pertaining to gender and culture have precipitated scholars and practitioners alike to reflect on their realities and in some ways, their practices (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010). Although the research and practitioner orientation is relatively infant in some of these areas, it is clear that theoretical constancies in leadership and patterns of power structures still exist (Balthazard et al., 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010). As such, the latter denotes the necessity for scholars and practitioners, to understand what leadership, power, and the current circumstances in these realms are and are not (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010). For example, studies show that while charisma as a typology for leadership is important, in some cultures and virtual environments, the latter may not translate in the same way as it has been noted in the past (Judge & Bono, 2000; Balthazard et al., 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010).

Leadership and Power- Frameworks and Theoretical Discussion

Leadership can be analyzed and subsequently defined through many a lens from disciplines such as social sciences, psychology, business, and political science (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994; Kotter, 2001). The frameworks of transformational and transactional leadership can be aptly utilized to illuminate the elements of leadership and the constructs that exist within them as well as consider other elements such as authority, dyadic and group methods as well as the role culture or gender may play (Vicchio, 1979; Ayman, Korabik, & Morris, 2009; Conger & Lawler, 2009; Azman, Mohamad, Rafiuddin & Zhen, 2010).

It is important to note that throughout this paper, transactional and transformational leadership which includes process and product orientation is evident from hierarchical traditional practices to more emergent frameworks (Ayman et al., 2009; Conger & Lawler, 2009; Azman, et al., 2010). Additionally, to allay the misconceptions that leadership and management are inherently different, consideration that both dimensions intersect depending on scale of influence and organizational structure is important in this context (Avolio et al, 2009; Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). Moreover, the argument that the upper echelons of leadership are solely responsible to shareholders and in a fiscal context is misguided as in the fallout of the 2008 subprime mortgage debacle and currently within the oil and gas industry in Alberta, Canada, corporations reactions directly impact those that hold positions designated as managerial in nature (Morgan, 2006; Bolman & Deal, 2013; Delanoy, 2016).

In consideration of this discussion, the idea of power must be fleshed out in order to contextualize the position and purpose of this paper. Even though the medium of this paper is persuasive in nature, the dominant theme will be the continual interrelationship of leadership constructs as well as a continuum based argument which emphasizes the relative importance of context (i.e. institutional, societal, cultural etc…) (Tangirala, Green & Ramanujam, 2007; Avolio et al., 2009). This does not preclude but rather underscores the necessity for emergent leadership in the context of the current institutional practices that are slowly adjusting; the more pseudo traditional aspects of hierarchical leadership (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge & Bono, 200; Avolio et al., 2009) As such, the concept of power refers to the ability to invoke positive or negative influence organizationally, within teams, and individuals (Lam, Huang, Snape, 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009 ). The latter includes elements such as decision making, incentivization, relational differentials, as well as legitimacy due to positional standing or expertise (Morgan, 2009; Agho, 2009; Bolman & Deal, 2013).

Therefore, depending on the context, if power is not solely top down or relational in nature, concepts such as distributive and procedural justice have their place within the greater context of leadership and followership (Azman, Mohamad, Rafiuddin, & Zhen, 2010). For example, in the context of a municipal government, laws (i.e. by-laws) are written with the expectation of limited variation in its interpretation. One of the reasons for this is to ensure that the government looks after the interests of the whole, that being the community (Scarpino, 2016). Citizens see power being used in ways that support the common good and as the parameters are narrowed, the perception of equality and stability is supplanted (Azman, et al., 2010). This collectivist view can be at times diametrically opposed in a corporate setting whereby monetary gain can result in greater applications of distributive justice in that leadership may leverage cognitive-behavioral mechanisms to incentivize performance (i.e. days in lieu, bonuses etc…) (Azman et al., 2010). The latter is not wholly individualist but equity is clearly more prevalent in these applications and normative in nature as this model of leadership and followship is more akin to an economic as well as relational framework that optimizes competition, individual efficacy, behavioral aspects of reward that materializes as a collective goal (Azman et al., 2010).

Comprehensively, if these elements are taken into account, transformative leadership which consists of developing relationships with teams, facilitating and harnessing a common vision, as well as conveying a level of expertise and legitimacy are essential for success (Agho, 2009; Ayman et al., 2009; Azman et al., 2010). Furthermore, transactional leadership, has a role to play as well in advancement through task completion, competency and process orientation, as well as an underlying rewards framework (Agho, 2009; Ayman et al., 2009; Azman et al., 2010). With these mediums of leadership being leveraged, emergent leadership which by nature reflects a high level of adaptability will be more suitable in an economic environment that is ever changing and potentially wrought with a level of volatility and uncertainty inherent in contemporary time (Bennett & Lemoine, 2010). The latter theoretical and pragmatic framework dynamically engages relational, procedural, and contextual leadership applications as the situation deems (Judge & Bono, 2000; Azman et al., 2010). This is not to say that the acknowledgement of most industries being framed in a traditional bureaucratic sense is not recognized but a hybrid framework that strikes a balance between interpersonal and knowledge or skill based competencies as well as what teams and/or individuals can bring to the table so to speak are necessary for the current state of economic and political affairs (Judge & Bono, 2000; Azman et al., 2010).

Within a highly aligned system (i.e. vision, mission, subsystems), dynamism and multidirectional approaches to leadership such as dyadic interactions actively engage and empower followers (Bolman & Deal, 2013). These facets foster adaptability and sustainability through positive redundancy, supporting a top down/bottom up inclusive leadership framework and a means that champion’s individual competencies towards collective goals (Oshry, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2013). Additionally, an emergent leadership framework posits that traditional barriers to success which may include gender and culture could be mitigated as traditional leader-member exchange (LMX) is not skewed by the biases and is inherently multifaceted (Judge & Bono, 2000; Ayman & Korabik, 2010). Moreover, the negative perceptions of leaders may be less of an impediment because dynamic and multidimensional interactions allow subsystems and self-organizing groups to thrive as active and moving parts of the transformational and transactional realms. (Hogan et al., 1994; Morgan, 2006; Markham, Markham & Smith, 2015).

Conclusion

The overlapping themes in the studies of leadership reaffirms that the traditional hierarchical and subsequent bureaucratic approaches while still apparent in industry, are being outgrown by contemporary and global elements such as subsidiary offices, virtual teams, and the necessity of deconstructing the glass ceiling in leadership (i.e. openness and entry regardless of gender and ethnicity) (Balthazard et al., 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010). Additionally, the evolutionary nature of the human condition in the workplace reflects increased empowerment, efficacy, and a shift that encompasses both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge & Bono, 2000; Tangirala et al., 2007; Avolio et al., 2009). By virtue of the latter, emergent leaders need to convey a level of resilience, business, cultural and emotional acumen, and relational competencies such as integrity, trustworthiness, supportiveness, openness and extraversion in order to positively engage all levels of the system (Hogan et al., 1994; Judge & Bono, 2000; Tangirala et al., 2007; Avolio et al., 2009; Hamel, 2014).

Within this context, leadership development should mirror real time workplace opportunities for capacity building through self-organizing groups, followership competency development in a leadership frame (i.e. growing leaders), and a continual iterative process that harnesses feedback loops within and throughout the various subsystems that are in place in organizations (Lam et al., 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009). This theoretical and pragmatic approach exists contemporarily in organizations that have harnessed what worked from the past and innovated to encompass elements that optimize human and structural resources in a dynamic way (Lam et al., 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009; Hamel, 2014). For example, Google’s innovation time that is built into the work day, Blackberry’s six month product introduction cycle regardless of its’ current stock standing, as well as HCL Industry’s inverted pyramid that focuses on innovation, collaboration, and systems feedback loops (i.e. me to we approach) all have a level of emergent leadership (Lam et al., 2007; Hamel, 2014).

In summation, strong leadership encompasses the ability to harness followers through various cognitive, behavioral, and psychological methods to increase contribution, efficacy, and performance of teams (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008). At times, the dynamic nature of the latter engages individuals, teams, managers and leaders alike in a common purpose and direction (Hogan et al., 1994; Kotter, 2001; Wilson, Sin & Conlon, 2010). To reiterate, this necessitates competencies that are personal, relational, and actionable of and from leaders. Furthermore, structures such as dyadic interchanges, knowing when to lead from the front, middle or back situationally, and having a level of wisdom that supports a, “me to we” dynamism is integral contemporarily (Vicchio, 1979; Balthazard et al., 2009; Conger & Lawler, 2009; Markham et al., 2015).

References

Abu Bakar, H., & McCann, R. M. (2016). The Mediating Effect of Leader–Member Dyadic Communication Style Agreement on the Relationship Between Servant Leadership and Group-Level Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 32-58. doi:10.1177/0893318915601162

Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(2), 159-166. Retrieved from the SAGE Premier database.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157–170.

Ayman, R., Korabik, K., & Morris, S. (2009). Is transformational leadership always perceived as effective? Male subordinates’ devaluation of female transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4), 852–879.

Azman, I., Mohamad, M. H., Rafiuddin, N. M., & Zhen, K. W. P. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership styles as a predictor of individual outcomes. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 17(6), 89–104.

Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 651–663.