Management Benchmark Study-Book Summary Chapter 12-Literature, Summaries of Benchmarking

Download Management Benchmark Study-Book Summary Chapter 12-Literature and more Summaries Benchmarking in PDF only on Docsity! Ch 12 Leadership 06.08.02.doc 06.08.02 Chapter 12. Leadership1 By Jon Olson and Patricia Bolton One of the dominant themes in the management literature today involves the role of leadership in assuring organizational effectiveness. While less significant in the sociological literature on organizations, the literature on organizational psychology, management, and particularly the popular literature, has elevated the leader/manager into one of the prime determinants of organizational success. This is no less true in the world of public science than in the world of commercial business. Given the pace of change in science these days, creating and maintaining effective organizational and management systems, motivated and creative staff, and strategically focused research is particularly important. Leadership in scientific organizations requires a challenging combination of technical, organizational, and political knowledge, managerial competence, political savvy, organizational vision, and communication and human relations skills. The organizational literature can help public science managers structure their thinking about the attributes of effective leadership in public science organizations, learn from the experiences of others who have held positions of leadership, and understand the strategies organizations have used to develop and capitalize on effective leaders. What is Leadership? The early literature on leadership was dominated by attempts to define its essential characteristics. This exercise has generated much debate and difference in perspective. According to Bass (1997:17), leadership has been conceived as the focus of group processes, as a matter of personality, as a matter of inducing compliance, as the exercise of influence, as particular behaviors, as a form of persuasion, as a power relation, as an instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of interaction, as a differentiated role, as an initiation of structure, and as many combinations of these definitions. One of the first steps in assessing the relevance of the literature on leadership for science management organizations, therefore, is to bring a little clarity to what is meant by leadership. Among the different definitions of leadership found in this literature are: ♦ Leadership as personality: this literature focuses on discovering the leadership personality and examining what it is about the character, underlying motivations, and basic behavioral styles that make an individual a leader. Writers were drawn to the obviously exceptional, and at times extreme, personalities of particular leaders (Alexander, Lincoln), and thus sought the explanation of leadership in the similarities among these personalities (Bogardus 1928). This line of inquiry has not been supported by the results of empirical research. 1 Related chapters include: Strategy; Change Management; Teams, and Project- and Program- Based Organizations; Organizational Culture; Organizational Communication Ch 12 Leadership 06.08.02.doc 2 06.08.02 ♦ Leadership as an outcome of group process: this line of research focuses on group dynamics and defines leadership as an outcome of this dynamic, rather than as a separable phenomenon in its own right (Cooley 1902). Research has confirmed that group dynamics are an important determinant of leader behavior, but that leadership also has a separable effect on groups (Bass 1981). ♦ Leadership as influence: in contrast to the group dynamics perspective, other writers have defined leadership as the process of exerting individual influence on followers’ behaviors. This literature defines leadership as the power to persuade (Stogdill 1950), both through the control over resources (rewards and punishments), and via the exercise of charisma and argument. In this literature, a distinction is frequently made between transactional and transformational leaders (Bass 1981). Transactional leaders are defined as those who achieve compliance through social exchange (e.g., rewards and punishments), while transformational leaders convince others to view the situation differently than they otherwise would, and to respond positively to the leader's alternative vision. Transformational leadership is thus similar to charismatic leadership. Heifetz (1994) provides a good discussion of the challenges and requirements of transformational leadership and its role at different levels in an organization. A parallel contrast is made in the organizational literature's description of organizational ideal types referred to by McGregor (1960, 1966) as Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X organizations are command and control with compliance achieved through rewards and punishments. Theory Y organizations are looser and freer, with control achieved by voluntary compliance gained through persuasion and affiliation. ♦ Leadership as a pattern of activities and focus of attention and effort: this research focuses on what leaders do when providing leadership. Kotter (1999), Laurie (2000), and Heifetz (1994) emphasize the set of responsibilities that leaders must meet and the type of focus and actions needed to accomplish them. Both Laurie and Heifetz emphasize leaders’ important role in stepping outside the day-to-day crises to provide a broader perspective on the challenges and opportunities facing the organization to improve their effectiveness in setting the context, framing the problems, and mobilizing the staff to work on those problems. A significant subset of this literature identifies the creation, management, and, when necessary, transformation of organizational culture as the essential function and key competency of leadership (Schein 1992, 1999). See Chapter 11 for a more detailed discussion of the intersection between leadership and organizational culture. In this literature a distinction is often made between leadership and management. A fairly recent example of this contrast is provided by Kotter (1997, 1999). Kotter defines the essence of leadership as “coping with change,” and management as “coping with complexity.” Management activities include planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and controlling and problem solving. In contrast, Kotter describes the key leadership activities as setting a direction, aligning people (with the direction), and motivating and inspiring. Thus, management is more administrative, leadership more interpersonal. The Model Leader Much energy has been expended in the literature attempting to discover or define the model leader. Early work looked for this model in the traits and skills of particular leaders. Studies of Ch 12 Leadership 06.08.02.doc 5 06.08.02 The Application of Leadership to Public Science Management Leadership is an important area of consideration for assuring excellence in the management of science. However, determining exactly what aspects of leadership to stress and how public science organizations can take concrete steps to assure positive leadership within its science establishment are daunting tasks. In applying the literature on leadership to the management of public science, the following considerations may be useful. Management: While some of the literature attempts to separate the concepts of management and leadership for analytical purposes, organizations – and individuals – should be concerned with both. Much in the enterprise of science is basically administrative (e.g., budgeting, procurement, personnel administration, information dissemination). First and foremost, public science organizations must have the systems and procedures in place to support the process of science. However, simply having the systems in place does not ensure that they will be used. Thus, the staffing of positions that have significant administrative responsibilities with leaders/managers who have the aptitude, skills, and motivation for administrative work is relevant to the goal of maintaining effective leadership. Visionary Leadership: The pace of scientific and technological change is incredible. No longer can the advancement of science be viewed as the process of incremental additions to knowledge resulting from the research agendas of individual scientists (although these additions still can have a major impact). Instead, science is increasingly advanced by organizations and consortia of organizations mobilizing to develop programmatic approaches to a particular research area, supported by strategically defined facilities and research staff. While the basic research agenda may be framed by policy makers and research funders, visionary leaders are required to help shape that agenda, give it substance, and align the organization’s resources in a way that leads to progress on the agenda. While the need for visionary leadership may be evident, it is less clear how public science organizations that are part of the governmental bureaucracy can promote or support visionary leadership within their laboratories, or even among their own staff. Technical Leadership: The role of the technical leader in the advancement of science will always be a significant one. Technical leadership, however, refers to more than simply being the smartest scientist about a particular topic. It also refers to such attributes as being an effective project administrator and team builder, with the ability to define and build research programs. So, along with the requisite technical knowledge and mastery of method must be considered the administrative and people skills that make knowledge leadership an organizational asset. And while the pervasiveness of the pattern requires clarification, it is often noted that those staff with the greatest technical mastery are often those who lack the administrative and people skills to fully capitalize on technical knowledge and insight. To the extent that science organizations are able to find technical leaders who combine all of these strengths (or effectively compensate for their weaknesses), they can reasonably be expected to increase their effectiveness in the management of science. A thorough understanding of the current practice of technical leadership will help the organizations determine whether, and what, interventions are required. Team Leadership: As described earlier, one of the dominant, recent additions to the literature on leadership focuses on team leadership. Most science advances through projects. Increasingly, those projects are comprised of interdisciplinary teams, and very often have project staff who are assembled specifically for the project in question. The ability of project managers (and others) to work effectively in this fluid organizational environment may thus become an essential Ch 12 Leadership 06.08.02.doc 6 06.08.02 leadership-related attribute of effective science organizations. Public science organizations should consider evaluating the need for team leadership skills and assessing the extent to which those skills are evident in current practice. References Bass, Bernard M. 1997. Concepts of Leadership. In Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Influence in Organizations. Robert P. Vecchio (ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Bass, Bernard M. 1981. Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New York: The Free Press. Bennis, W., and B. Nanus. 1985. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: HarperCollins. Bogardus, E.S. 1928. World Leadership Types. Sociology and Social Research 12:573-599. Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York: HarperCollins. Cooley, C.H. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribners. Covey, Stephen. 1996. Three Roles of the Leader in the New Paradigm. In The Leader of the Future: New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the Next Era. Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard (eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fiedler, Fred E. 1996. Research on Leadership Selection and Training: One View of the Future. Administrative Science Quarterly 41:241-250. Fiedler, Fred E., and J.E. Garcia. 1987. New Approaches to Effective Leadership. New York: Wiley. Galbraith, J.R. 1994. Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Heifetz, Ronald A. 1994. Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press. Hesselbein, Frances, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard. 1996. The Leader of the Future: New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the Next Era. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Hitt, William D. 1993. The Model Leader: A Fully Functioning Person. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute. Jonash, Ronald S., and Tom Sommerlatte. 1999. The Innovation Premium: How Next- Generation Companies are Achieving Peak Performance and Profitability. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kotter, John P. 1999. John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do. Boston: Harvard Business Review Books. Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 1995. The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ch 12 Leadership 06.08.02.doc 7 06.08.02 Laurie, Donald L. 2000. The Real Work of Leaders. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Lawrence, Paul R., and Jay W. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston, MA: Harvard University. McGregor, D. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. McGregor, D. 1966. Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Manz, Charles C., David T. Bastien, Todd J. Hostager, and George L. Shapiro. 1989. Leadership and Innovation: A Longitudinal Process View. In Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. Andrew H. Van de Ven, Harold L. Angle, and Marshall Scott Poole (eds.). New York: Harper & Row. Pp. 613-636. Miller, William, and Langdon Morris. 1999. Fourth Generation R&D: Managing Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation. New York: John Wiley. Mohrman, S.A., S.G. Cohen, and A.M. Mohrman, Jr. 1995. Designing Team-Based Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, Edgar H. 1992 (copyright 1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schein, Edgar H. 1999. The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense about Cultural Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Stogdill, R.M. 1950. Leadership, Membership and Organization. Psychological Bulletin 47:1- 14. Weber, Max. 1946. The Sociology of Charismatic Authority. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H.H. Mills and C.W. Mills (eds. and trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.