MGT 501 University of Business Technology Influence on Management Paper You will read the assigned management articles and critique them on issues surround

MGT 501 University of Business Technology Influence on Management Paper You will read the assigned management articles and critique them on issues surrounding organizational management and behaviors. The critique should include :

1- Your key takeaways from the article

2- Your reaction to the article, whether you agree or disagree with the article and why (please provide supporting data when appropriate)

3- How does this article influence your thinking about management

Note: dead line on: 16 April 11p.m. HBR
FROM THE HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW
OnPoint
ARTICLE
Don’t take a one-size-fitsall approach to leadership.
Choose the style that
Leadership That Gets
Results
by Daniel Goleman
maximizes your effectiveness in a given situation.
New sections to
guide you through
the article:
• The Idea in Brief
• The Idea at Work
• Exploring Further . . .
PRODUCT NUMBER 4487
T H E
I D E A
I N
B R I E F
M
? ? ? managers mistakenly assume that
leadership style is a function of personality
rather than strategic choice. Instead of choosing the one style that suits their temperament,
they should ask which style best addresses the
demands of a particular situation.
Research has shown that the most successful
leaders have strengths in the following emo-
T H E
I D E A
AT
Leadership That Gets Results
tional intelligence competencies: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy,
and social skill. There are six basic styles of
leadership; each makes use of the key components of emotional intelligence in different
combinations. The best leaders don’t know just
one style of leadership—they’re skilled at several, and have the flexibility to switch between
styles as the circumstances dictate.
W O R K
M
? ???? ? ? often fail to appreciate how
profoundly the organizational climate can
influence financial results. It can account for
nearly a third of financial performance. Organizational climate, in turn, is influenced by leadership style—by the way that managers motivate
direct reports, gather and use information,
make decisions, manage change initiatives, and
handle crises. There are six basic leadership
styles. Each derives from different emotional
intelligence competencies, works best in particular situations, and affects the organizational
climate in different ways.
1. The coercive style. This “Do what I say”
approach can be very effective in a turnaround situation, a natural disaster, or when
working with problem employees. But in
most situations, coercive leadership inhibits
the organization’s flexibility and dampens
employees’ motivation.
2. The authoritative style. An authoritative
leader takes a “Come with me” approach:
she states the overall goal but gives people
the freedom to choose their own means
of achieving it. This style works especially
well when a business is adrift. It is less
effective when the leader is working with a
team of experts who are more experienced
than he is.
3. The affiliative style. The hallmark of the
affiliative leader is a “People come first”
attitude. This style is particularly useful for
building team harmony or increasing
morale. But its exclusive focus on praise can
allow poor performance to go uncorrected.
Also, affiliative leaders rarely offer advice,
which often leaves employees in a quandary.
4. The democratic style. This style’s impact on
organizational climate is not as high as you
might imagine. By giving workers a voice in
decisions, democratic leaders build organizational flexibility and responsibility and
help generate fresh ideas. But sometimes
the price is endless meetings and confused
employees who feel leaderless.
5. The pacesetting style. A leader who sets
high performance standards and exemplifies them himself has a very positive impact
on employees who are self-motivated and
highly competent. But other employees tend
to feel overwhelmed by such a leader’s
demands for excellence—and to resent his
tendency to take over a situation.
6. The coaching style. This style focuses more
on personal development than on immediate work-related tasks. It works well when
employees are already aware of their weaknesses and want to improve, but not when
they are resistant to changing their ways.
The more styles a leader has mastered, the better. In particular, being able to switch among
the authoritative, affiliative, democratic, and
coaching styles as conditions dictate creates
the best organizational climate and optimizes
business performance.
HBR OnPoint © 2000 President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.
New research suggests
that the most effective executives
use a collection of distinct leadership styles –
each in the right measure, at just the right time.
Such flexibility is tough to put into action, but it pays
off in performance. And better yet,
it can be learned.
L
EADERSHIP
THAT GETS
ESULTS
A
R
sk any group of businesspeople
the question “What do effective
leaders do?” and you’ll hear a
sweep of answers. Leaders set strategy;
they motivate; they create a mission; they build a
culture. Then ask “What should leaders do?” If the
group is seasoned, you’ll likely hear one response:
the leader’s singular job is to get results.
But how? The mystery of what leaders can and
ought to do in order to spark the best performance
from their people is age-old. In recent years, that
mystery has spawned an entire cottage industry:
literally thousands of “leadership experts” have
made careers of testing and coaching executives, all
in pursuit of creating businesspeople who can turn
bold objectives – be they strategic, financial, organizational, or all three – into reality.
Still, effective leadership eludes many people and
organizations. One reason is that until recently, virtually no quantitative research has demonstrated
which precise leadership behaviors yield
positive results. Leadership experts proffer advice based on inference, experience,
and instinct. Sometimes that advice is
right on target; sometimes it’s not.
But new research by the consulting firm Hay/
McBer, which draws on a random sample of 3,871
executives selected from a database of more than
20,000 executives worldwide, takes much of the
mystery out of effective leadership. The research
found six distinct leadership styles, each springing
from different components of emotional intelligence. The styles, taken individually, appear to have
a direct and unique impact on the working atmosphere of a company, division, or team, and in turn,
on its financial performance. And perhaps most
important, the research indicates that leaders with
the best results do not rely on only one leadership
style; they use most of them in a given week –seamlessly and in different measure – depending on the
Copyright © 2000 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.
harvard business review
March–April 2000
ART WORK BY C. F. PAYNE
by Daniel Goleman
Le a d e r s h i p Th a t G e t s R e s u l t s
Emotional Intelligence: A Primer
Emotional intelligence – the ability to manage ourselves and our relationships effectively –
consists of four fundamental capabilities: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,
and social skill. Each capability, in turn, is composed of specific sets of competencies. Below
is a list of the capabilities and their corresponding traits.
Self-Awareness
”
Emotional self-awareness:
the ability to read and
understand your emotions as well as recognize
their impact on work
performance, relationships, and the like.
”
”
”
”
Accurate self-assessment:
a realistic evaluation
of your strengths and
limitations.
”
Self-Management
”
Trustworthiness: a
consistent display of
honesty and integrity.
Conscientiousness: the abili-
”
”
Adaptability: skill at adjust-
Achievement orientation:
the drive to meet an internal standard of excellence.
”
Empathy: skill at sensing
”
Service orientation: the
ability to recognize and
meet customers’ needs.
Initiative: a readiness to
seize opportunities.
business situation. Imagine the styles, then, as the
array of clubs in a golf pro’s bag. Over the course of a
game, the pro picks and chooses clubs based on the
demands of the shot. Sometimes he has to ponder
his selection, but usually it is automatic. The pro
senses the challenge ahead, swiftly pulls out the
right tool, and elegantly puts it to work. That’s how
high-impact leaders operate, too.
What are the six styles of leadership? None will
shock workplace veterans. Indeed, each style, by
name and brief description alone, will likely resonate with anyone who leads, is led, or as is the case
with most of us, does both. Coercive leaders demand immediate compliance. Authoritative leaders mobilize people toward a vision. Affiliative
leaders create emotional bonds and harmony. Democratic leaders build consensus through participation. Pacesetting leaders expect excellence and
self-direction. And coaching leaders develop people
for the future.
Close your eyes and you can surely imagine a colleague who uses any one of these styles. You most
likely use at least one yourself. What is new in this
research, then, is its implications for action. First, it
offers a fine-grained understanding of how different
leadership styles affect performance and results.
Second, it offers clear guidance on when a manager
80
”
Visionary leadership: the ability to take charge
”
Influence: the ability to wield a range of
and inspire with a compelling vision.
persuasive tactics.
”
Developing others: the propensity to bolster
the abilities of others through feedback
and guidance.
”
Communication: skill at listening and at sending
clear, convincing, and well-tuned messages.
”
Change catalyst: proficiency in initiating new
”
Conflict management: the ability to de-escalate
Organizational awareness:
the ability to read the
currents of organizational
life, build decision networks, and navigate
politics.
ing to changing situations
and overcoming obstacles.
”
Social Skill
other people’s emotions,
understanding their
perspective, and taking
an active interest in their
concerns.
ty to manage yourself and
your responsibilities.
Self-confidence: a strong
and positive sense of
self-worth.
Self-control: the ability to
keep disruptive emotions
and impulses under control.
Social Awareness
ideas and leading people in a new direction.
disagreements and orchestrate resolutions.
”
Building bonds: proficiency at cultivating and
maintaining a web of relationships.
”
Teamwork and collaboration: competence at
promoting cooperation and building teams.
should switch between them. It also strongly suggests that switching flexibly is well advised. New,
too, is the research’s finding that each leadership
style springs from different components of emotional intelligence.
Measuring Leadership’s Impact
It has been more than a decade since research first
linked aspects of emotional intelligence to business
results. The late David McClelland, a noted Harvard University psychologist, found that leaders
with strengths in a critical mass of six or more emotional intelligence competencies were far more effective than peers who lacked such strengths. For
Daniel Goleman is the author of Emotional Intelligence
(Bantam, 1995) and Working with Emotional Intelligence (Bantam, 1998). He is cochairman of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, which is based at Rutgers University’s
Graduate School of Applied Psychology in Piscataway,
New Jersey. His article “What Makes a Leader?” appeared in the November–December 1998 issue of HBR.
He can be reached at goleman@javanet.com.
harvard business review
March–April 2000
Le a d e r s h i p Th a t G e t s R e s u l t s
instance, when he analyzed the performance of division heads at a global food and beverage company,
he found that among leaders with this critical mass
of competence, 87% placed in the top third for annual salary bonuses based on their business performance. More telling, their divisions on average outperformed yearly revenue targets by 15% to 20%.
Those executives who lacked emotional intelligence
were rarely rated as outstanding in their annual
performance reviews, and their divisions underperformed by an average of almost 20%.
Our research set out to gain a more molecular
view of the links among leadership and emotional
intelligence, and climate and performance. A team
of McClelland’s colleagues headed by Mary Fontaine
and Ruth Jacobs from Hay/McBer studied data
about or observed thousands of executives, noting
specific behaviors and their impact on climate.1
How did each individual motivate direct reports?
Manage change initiatives? Handle crises? It was
in a later phase of the research that we identified
which emotional intelligence capabilities drive the
six leadership styles. How does he rate in terms of
self-control and social skill? Does a leader show
high or low levels of empathy?
The team tested each executive’s immediate
sphere of influence for its climate. “Climate” is not
an amorphous term. First defined by psychologists
George Litwin and Richard Stringer and later refined by McClelland and his colleagues, it refers to
six key factors that influence an organization’s
working environment: its flexibility – that is, how
free employees feel to innovate unencumbered by
red tape; their sense of responsibility to the organization; the level of standards that people set; the
sense of accuracy about performance feedback and
aptness of rewards; the clarity people have about
mission and values; and finally, the level of commitment to a common purpose.
We found that all six leadership styles have a
measurable effect on each aspect of climate. (For
details, see the exhibit “Getting Molecular: The Impact of Leadership Styles on
Drivers of Climate.”) Further,
when we looked at the impact
Getting Molecular: The Impact of Leadership
of climate on financial results – such as return on sales,
Styles on Drivers of Climate
revenue growth, efficiency,
Our research investigated how each leadership
strongly positive– and a .21 correlation with
and profitability – we found a
style affected the six drivers of climate, or workresponsibility– positive, but not as strong. In
direct correlation between the
ing atmosphere. The figures below show the
other words, the style’s correlation with rewards
two. Leaders who used styles
correlation between each leadership style and
was more than twice that with responsibility.
that positively affected the
each aspect of climate. So, for instance, if we
According to the data, the authoritative
climate had decidedly better
look at the climate driver of flexibility, we see
leadership style has the most positive effect
financial results than those
that the coercive style has a -.28 correlation
on climate, but three others – affiliative,
who did not. That is not to say
while the democratic style has a .28 correlation,
democratic, and coaching – follow close
that organizational climate
equally strong in the opposite direction. Focusing behind. That said, the research indicates that
is the only driver of perforon the authoritative leadership style, we find
no style should be relied on exclusively, and
mance. Economic conditions
that it has a .54 correlation with rewards–
all have at least short-term uses.
Coercive
Authoritative
Affiliative
Democratic
Pacesetting
Coaching
Flexibility
-. 28
. 32
. 27
. 28
-. 07
. 17
Responsibility
-. 37
. 21
. 16
. 23
. 04
. 08
. 02
. 38
. 31
. 22
-. 27
. 39
Rewards
-. 18
. 54
. 48
. 42
-. 29
. 43
Clarity
-. 11
. 44
. 37
. 35
-. 28
. 38
Commitment
-. 13
. 35
. 34
. 26
-. 20
. 27
Overall impact
on climate
-. 26
.54
.46
.43
-. 25
.42
Standards
harvard business review
March–April 2000
81
Le a d e r s h i p Th a t G e t s R e s u l t s
The Six Leadership Styles at a Glance
Our research found
that leaders use six
styles, each springing
from different components of emotional
intelligence.Here is a
summary of the styles,
their origin, when they
work best, and their
impact on an organization’s climate and thus
its performance.
12
Coercive
Authoritative
The leader’s modus operandi
Demands immediate
compliance
Mobilizes people
toward a vision
The style in a phrase
“Do what I tell you.”
“Come with me.”
Drive to achieve, initiative,
self-control
Self-confidence, empathy,
change catalyst
In a crisis, to kick start a
turnaround, or with problem
employees
When changes require a
new vision, or when a clear
direction is needed
Negative
Most strongly positive
Underlying emotional
intelligence competencies
When the style works best
Overall impact on climate
and competitive dynamics matter enormously. But
our analysis strongly suggests that climate accounts
for nearly a third of results. And that’s simply too
much of an impact to ignore.
The Styles in Detail
Executives use six leadership styles, but only four
of the six consistently have a positive effect on climate and results. Let’s look then at each style of
leadership in detail. (For a summary of the material
that follows, see the chart “The Six Leadership
Styles at a Glance.”)
The Coercive Style. The computer company was
in crisis mode – its sales and profits were falling, its
stock was losing value precipitously, and its shareholders were in an uproar. The board brought in a
new CEO with a reputation as a turnaround artist.
He set to work chopping jobs, selling off divisions,
and making the tough decisions that should have
been executed years before. The company was
saved, at least in the short-term.
From the start, though, the CEO created a reign
of terror, bullying and demeaning his executives,
roaring his displeasure at the slightest misstep. The
company’s top echelons were decimated not just by
his erratic firings but also by defections. The CEO’s
direct reports, frightened by his tendency to blame
the bearer of bad news, stopped bringing him any
news at all. Morale was at an all-time low –a fact reflected in another downturn in the business after
the short-term recovery. The CEO was eventually
fired by the board of directors.
It’s easy to understand why of all the leadership
styles, the coercive one is the least effective in most
82
situations. Consider what the style does to an organization’s climate. Flexibility is the hardest hit. The
leader’s extreme top-down decision making kills
new ideas on the vine. People feel so disrespected
that they think, “I won’t even bring my ideas up –
they’ll only be shot down.” Likewise, people’s sense
of responsibility evaporates: unable to act on their
own initiative, they lose their sense of ownership
and feel little accountability for their performance.
Some become so resentful they adopt the attitude,
“I’m not going to help this bastard.”
Coercive leadership also has a damaging effect on
the rewards system. Most high-performing workers
are motivated by more than money – they seek the
satisfaction of work well done. The coercive style
erodes such pride. And finally, the style undermines
one of the leader’s prime tools – motivating people
by showing them how their job fits into a grand,
shared mission. Such a loss, measured in terms of
diminished clarity and commitment, leaves people
alienated from their own jobs, wondering, “How
does any of this matter?”
Given the impact of the coercive style, you might
assume it should never be applied. Our research,
however, uncovered a few occasions when it worked
masterfully. Take the case of a division president
who was brought in to change the direction of a
food company that was losing money. His first act
was to have the executive conference room demolished. To him, the room – with its long marble table
that looked like “the deck of the Starship Enterprise” – symbolized the tradition-bound formality
that was paralyzing the company. The destruction
of the room, and the subsequent move to a smaller,
more informal setting, sent a message no one could
harvard business review
March–April 2000
Le a d e r s h i p Th a t G e t s R e s u l t s
3 456
Affiliative
Democratic
Pacesetting
Coaching
Creates harmony and builds
emotional bonds
Forges consensus through
participation
Sets high standards for
performance
Develops people for the
future
“People come…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment