Source: E-mail dt. 7 December 2011
MANAGING LEADERSHIP IN IT
SECTORS
Dr. R. Karuppasamy
M.Com., MBA. M.Phil., Ph.D
Director, SNS
and
C. Arul Venkadesh MBA, PGDPM,
(Ph.D)
Assistant Professor, Coimbatore Institute of Engineering and
Technology, Coimbatore, 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.
Each of the articles titles above link into
the series.
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.
Even with the efforts of the
educational system to teach them to work in groups, the Millennials
will be more comfortable driving their own lives. They're more connected
through the Internet than they are through personal face-to-face interactions.
These workers will be considerably more self-confident, self-reliant, and self-
motivated than any predecessor back to the pioneering days.
Millennials will manifest significant
similarities to the pioneers who built new lives for themselves in the 18th and
early 19th centuries. They, too, will build for themselves and their
neighbors--using intellect, imagination, innovation, technology, and creativity
to create things we can't even envision today. They'll use computers instead of
axes and plowshares, coupled with the same dogged spirit that characterized the
early pioneers.
When we think of the early
pioneers, the terms of leadership and management don't immediately flash to
mind. Those trailblazers didn't need managers; they were independent and
self-driven. If they needed help from others, they asked for it--and got it--in
a spirit of cooperation and synergy. A similar attitude prevailed in the world
of business. Expect the same spirit to prevail in the first half of the 21st
century. The environment is much the same.
The cottage industries, which
served as a foundation for our developing economy as
The absence of leadership
should not be confused with the type of leadership that calls for 'no action'
to be taken. For example, when Gandhi went on hunger strike and called for
protests to stop, during the negotiations for
Also, what is often referred to
as "participative management" can be a very effective form of leadership. In this approach, a new direction may seem to
emerge from the group rather than the leader. However, the leader has
facilitated that new direction whilst also engendering ownership within the
group - i.e., it is an advanced form of leadership.
Sometimes, an individual may
act as a figure head for change and be viewed as a leader even though he/she
hasn't set any new direction. This can arise when a group sets a new direction
of its own accord, and needs to express that new direction in the form of a
symbolic leader. An example is Nelson Mandela whilst in prison:
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
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.
Seek risk
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