Source:
E-mail dt. 7 June 2012
Emerging Trends in Leadership Practices
Dr. R. Karuppasamy M.Com., MBA, M.Phil.,
Ph.D., PLME
Director, Management Studies, SNS College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India
and
C. Arul Venkadesh MBA, PGDPM (IRLL), (PhD)
Assistant
Professor – Department of Management Sciences, CIET College, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu,
India
Abstract
“Information technology and business
are becoming inextricably interwoven. I
don't think anybody can talk meaningfully about one without the talking about
the other.”
~ Bill Gates
Leadership is
something that can easily be explained, but it is very difficult to put into
practice. It’s important to understand
what it is and the various things that make up leadership. Know Yourself and Your Capabilities, In order to put the areas of
leadership into practice once you do have an understanding of it, you need to
look at yourself and your own capabilities so that you know what areas to
develop, use and avoid in your leadership style. The characteristics of your own personality
will also great impact your leadership and you should know how.
Skill Development, Any
leader is going to realize that they cannot be everything they want to be
without a lot of development of their skills.
No matter where you are in your leadership abilities, there are always
skills to learn, new ones to develop and refining to do on the ones you have,
Remember, It’s About People, Human nature is important to know, understand and
handle as a leader. Every step you take
as a leader will need to be done with one important fact in mind, it’s all
about people. Willingness to Take Risks, Leaders drive change and they inspire
others to follow them by challenging new things and persisting through it to a
point of success. That willingness to
take risks is a critical aspect of leadership to explore, Accepting Mistakes
Leaders are not better at things than others, they are not smarter, they are
not lucky and They are not born that way either. They are however able to learn and accept
their mistakes without mistakes holding them back from
continued leadership. Give Direction, Leaders can only lead if they give some
direction or example for others to follow, otherwise it’s not leading.
Humility, Finally, my final area to cover of
leadership is doing all this while staying humble. Great leaders are humble in their work, lives
and leadership and it enables them to be lasting leaders well beyond their time
and direct role of influence.
Introduction
Some significant changes will take place
in the leadership arena over the next few decades. We'll move from a group
leadership concept to one that places responsibility and accountability much
more in the hands of individuals. The work mode of the future will be much more
individual-centered than group-centered, with considerable self-determination
and high levels of shared-goal collaboration. Leadership teachings of most of
the twentieth century focused on directive, autocratic (or at least top-down)
management. The boss was expected to know the answers, or at least what to do. He, and it was usually a man for most of the period, would
tell people what to do . . . and they did what they were told. Strict rules were
in force and there were serious consequences for violating the social system.
In the spirit of McGregor's Theory X, it was assumed that most workers could
not think for themselves and, therefore, needed a superior to direct their
efforts. Sometimes the "leader" actually was superior in intellect,
experience, skill, understanding, or longevity, but often the power came from
the position itself.
"I'm boss, so you must do what I tell
you." As the nature of work evolved, expanding from manual labor and crafts
into white collar occupations, the directive system was decreasingly effective.
Some workers had the audacity to believe they could think for themselves, that
they could manage at least some of their own work. Suspecting that an opposite
style of management would be more appropriate, the concepts associated with
McGregor's Theory Y came into play. While old-liners warned that the tail would
be wagging the dog, new leaders adopted what became known as a democratic
leadership style. The movement went so far that whole companies tried to
operate practically by committee.
Participative Management
Discovering that neither extreme was
really satisfactory, managers moved to center ground. Enter: Participative
Management. Now managers made decisions again, but only after some consultation
with workers who would be affected by those decisions. People felt more
included, more listened-to, but the system still was not working optimally. In
those days, most managers had been trained to be directive managers, so it was
difficult for them to change their stripes.
The term "leadership" had been
used in most of the 20th century, in ways that were synonymous with
"management". Now great thinkers began to suggest that leadership and
management were different concepts. People followed managers because they were
supposed to, it was argued, but they followed leaders because they wanted to.
Why would someone want to follow someone
else? Someone that perhaps didn't have power over them? Rich discussions
explored all the wonderful characteristics of leaders and managers began to
think of themselves as exercising leadership as well as using the power of
their position.
The Rise of Teams
As people worked together to get things done, "teams" entered
our lexicon of work relationships.
The concepts of "team" and "leader" merged and team
leadership became the next stage in the progression from "just a
manager" to something on a higher plane. Indeed, terminology labeling
in-charge people on the front lines as "supervisors," their bosses as
"managers," and those at the top as "leaders" reinforced
the higher nature of this thing we called leadership. One had to move higher up
the organizational ladder to be considered a leader. Labeling work groups as
teams changed the balance. Teams had to have leaders, so leadership words,
concepts, and performance trickled down to the lower levels of hierarchical
organizations. Now anyone could be a leader. New vistas were opened as we
shifted from management to leadership . . . at least in the way we talked. Even
today, many workers are managed much more than they're led.
The light bulb of innovation flashed as we realized that maybe teams
could operate without a separate leader guiding their work. Welcome to the
world of self-directed work teams. This concept, alive and well in many
organizations, is a huge threat to the directive manager, still in place in
many companies. The two concepts are in conflict, causing some serious concern
about what to do with all those autocratic managers who resist change to more
effective modes of human interaction.
For a number of years, there was heavy
emphasis on team leadership being the top of the evolutionary cycle. It's a
nice concept, if teams are intact, focused, and honored above individuals. And
therein lies the problem.
Focus on the Individual
The
workforce has changed, and with those changes come new problems and
opportunities. We're moving away from team-ness into
a new environment focused on the individual performer. Much work will still be
accomplished in team relationships, but those teams will be comprised more of
unique individuals deliberately collaborating to get things done. The energy
will come from the individuals and their connections with each other, rather
from an external leader.
Worker attitudes are shifting. People in
their twenties and early thirties, a cohort often called Generation X, are much
more independent and self-motivated than their predecessors. They have a
tendency to want more control, more autonomy, more
power, centered in self-leadership. Their highest productivity comes when they
understand the desired results, have the resources to get the job done, and are
left alone to get results. Heavy supervision irritates them, motivating them to
leave companies that limit their freedom to perform.
Today's hot economy has created so many
jobs--far more than can be filled with available workers, that there are
abundant opportunities for people to easily move from job to job. Society has
accepted, almost blessed, this movement; job-hopping is now practically
encouraged. Many people will change jobs every two to four years, making
long-life cohesive teams unusual or impossible. There's too much churning for
the teams to be intact with the same membership for very long.
Facilitative Leadership
In response to these changing
circumstances, leadership will evolve to be focused on the individual instead
of the team. Leaders will not direct or guide, they will facilitate. The next
phase in the cycle is the "facilitative leader."
Facilitative leaders will concentrate on
making possible the high performance of each of their direct reports. Roles
will include assuring an understanding of objectives, providing resources,
coaching, teaching, encouraging, measuring, and giving objective feedback.
(While this description may sound like that of a good supervisor, this style of
leadership is not currently in wide practice.)
While receiving this coaching, the individuals will choose to form their own teams, internally motivated, to collaborate for results. The job of the leader will be to prepare people to perform independently, then help them to grow and achieve capitalizing on their individual strengths.
Over the next ten years, the facilitative
leadership model will become much more prevalent--in all occupations. Some
workers in some environments will require closer support, but will still want
to be more responsible for their own performance. Initial impetus for this
model will be a rise in telecommuting, forcing managers to become less enamored
with management principles and more engaged with the principles and techniques
of results-oriented leadership.
By 2010, directive leadership will be
practically obsolete. Participative leadership, with leaders making decisions
after increasingly strong involvement from workers, will continue until about
2020, responding to the needs of older workers who still want, and hence need,
some direction. Note that the design will be participative leadership, rather than the
earlier style of participative management.
The term "management" will apply
to managing processes, product lines, and other inanimate aspects of economic
life. Anything relating to people will be described as leadership, support, or
facilitation, more accurately reflecting the actual work associated with the
role. To describe someone as a "manager of people" will be tantamount
to an insult or a reference to the leader not doing the job that is desired.
Leaders will become more invested in
training during the first two decades of the 21st century, helping workers
adapt to using new technologies to accomplish work and build productivity.
Older workers, in their late sixties, seventies, and eighties will have more
need for close support and training.
Self-Leadership
Generation
X workers will become gradually more independent and self-driven as later-borns of this cohort enter the world of work. Right behind
them are the workers from the Millennium Generation, who will be even more
fiercely independent. They will respond to--demand--a much different style of
leadership.
During the period when Nelson Mandela was
imprisoned (when his ability to provide personal, direct leadership was
limited) he continued to grow in power and influence as the symbolic leader for
the anti-apartheid movement.
Following his release from prison, he
demonstrated actual leadership by leading South Africa into a process of
reconciliation rather than retribution. Leaders do not have subordinates - at
least not when they are leading. Many organizational leaders do have
subordinates, but only because they are also managers. But when they want to
lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to
have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.
Charismatic
transformational style
Telling people what to do does not inspire
them to follow you. You have to appeal to them, showing how following them will
lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you enough to stop what
they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they would not
normally consider risking.
Leaders with a stronger charisma find it
easier to attract people to their cause. As a part of their persuasion they
typically promise transformational benefits, such that their followers will not
just receive extrinsic rewards but will somehow become better people.
People
focus
Although many leaders have a charismatic style to some extent, this does
not require a loud personality. They are always good with people, and quiet styles that give credit to others (and takes blame on
themselves) are very effective at creating the loyalty that great leaders
engender.
Although leaders are good with people, this does not mean they are
friendly with them. In order to keep the mystique of leadership, they often
retain a degree of separation and aloofness.
This does not mean that leaders do not pay
attention to tasks - in fact they are often very achievement-focused. What they
do realize, however, is the importance of enthusing others to work towards
their vision.
In the same study that showed managers as
risk-averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking, although they are not blind
thrill-seekers. When pursuing their vision, they consider it natural to
encounter problems and hurdles that must be overcome along the way. They are
thus comfortable with risk and will see routes that others avoid as potential
opportunities for advantage and will happily break rules in order to get things
done. A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their
lives which they had to overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had
problems such as dyslexia, others were shorter than average. This perhaps
taught them the independence of mind that is needed to go out on a limb and not
worry about what others are thinking about you.
Conclusion
Leadership development is a
journey Leadership and the Leadership Development Model to support leaders
through this journey. to get more collaborative
approach to leadership, including team-based decisions. Leadership needs to continue to evolve this
approach to manage and to engage the hearts and minds of every individual in
working together to achieve exemplary care, innovation and academic
excellence. The Shared Responsibility
Leadership Model is an approach to leadership intended as a consistent standard
of practice throughout the organization.
In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted
group leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to
the group as a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of
increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the
traditional leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance.
Leaders who demonstrate persistence, tenacity, determination and synergistic
communication skills will bring out the same qualities in their groups. Good
leaders use their own inner mentors to energize their team and organizations
and lead a team to achieve success.
References