Different Leadership Theories And Their Applicability In Organizations, Essay.

Leadership Theories

Contingency Theory

This is one of the few leadership styles that are applicable in most situations. This theory states that effective leadership revolves around striking the appropriate balance between the needs of the company, the behavior of the employees, as well as the context of the situation (Bake 2019). Therefore, even when a leader within an organization might not have the right kind of skills, they might undertake a real-time approach to assessing the context, behavior as well as needs of the organization to come to a common ground. Several researchers have revealed that this theory is mainly applicable when a company is faced with a crisis (Boehe 2016).

This is similar to the contingency leadership style and focuses more on the situational variables that influence a particular situation within the company rather than completely focusing on the skills and expertise of the organizational leaders. Several researchers have revealed that this situational leadership theory is based on an amalgamation of two factors, the style of leadership as well as the level of maturity of the employees or the subordinates that are directly working under them (Meier 2016).

The transformational leadership theories are based on various relationship theories that focus on the relationship that is shared between the leaders and the employees. This theory paints an ideal picture of the leader that is charismatic, inspirational, as well as encouraging towards their subordinates to enhance their motivation and skills to improve their performance within the organization (Galli 2019).

Under the Behavioural theory, the shift takes from the traits or the qualities of the leaders to the activities as well as the behaviors of the leaders. This theory makes certain considerations in terms of effective leadership to be a direct result of the acquired or the gained skills. This essentially emphasizes the fact that every individual can learn and gain skills and expertise to become a good leader and this is in sharp contrast to the theory that the skills and qualifications of a good leader are innate in the individuals (Phillips and Phillips 2016).

These theories are greatly based on the theories of management or the exchange of leadership theories that focus on the role of teamwork, organization as well as supervision within the organization. This leadership theory is focused on considering the importance of rewards as well as punishments based on the actions of leadership. As opined by various researchers, this Leadership style is focused on providing a direct incentive to motivate the employees to make them strive for being better within their teams (Khan 2017).

This theory is one of the earliest known theories of leadership which revolves around the fact that leaders are rather born within innate constructive qualities rather than they can become one in due course of time based on their experiences and acquired expertise as well as learning (Spector 2016). This theory focuses on the fact that an individual is only capable of becoming a leader when they have the personality traits of being one that includes intellect, charm, confidence, social aptitude as well as communication skills (Warrick 2017).

The Transformational Leadership Theory

This paper is focused on the global advertising corporation named The Agency. In this organization, the structure of the organization defines comprehensively the leadership structure within itself. The organizational structure comprises five functional areas that include Planning, Creative, Design, Accounts as well as Production. The management team that frames the basic leadership framework of the organization comprises the representatives of each of these functional departments within the company along with the Chief Executive Officer. The hierarchical structure is most pronounced within the Accounts department that has a typically tall hierarchical ladder including the General manager, Group director, Director, Account Manager, as well as Account Executive. However, on the other side, the Creatives work on a flat organizational structure. Both of these structures have high implications in terms of the span of control as well as the information flow. Additionally, several roles have multiple lines of reporting, for instance, the designers report to the Group Head of the creatives, the Creative services manager, and the Digital director.

The creative climate dimensions mentioned by Isaken, some of the leadership dimensions that support a transformative as well as creative environment Within the organization. The first dimension is the challenge or involvement dimension this defines the degree to which individuals are engaged in the regular operations divisions as well as the long-term goals and objectives of the organization. The leaders of an organization are responsible for ensuring a challenging and involvement-based environment that is responsible for enhancing the level of commitment, engagement as well as motivation. This dimension is not completely fulfilled by the leaders of the organization The Agency. This is because the leadership structure is not quite strong and the main responsibility of the operations lies in the hands of the Creatives. the next dimension is idea support which is the process in which the leaders treat the new ideas within the organization. They need to support the novel ideas the organization is set to have a high idea support situation in which everyone is attentive towards each other in the professional environment and generously listens to one another. this is absent Because of the lack of a concrete structure. In contrast to this, Amabile states that supervisory encouragement is highly important within an organization. As per dimension, upper management must have a clear vision, there must be encouragement as well as support from the upper management as well as from the immediate supervisor. However, the basic reporting structure is missing within the organization of The Agency. The matrix structure does not support a clear hierarchical or functional structure within the organization which is required to support innovation and change.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that there is no concrete leadership structure within the organization. The silos in the functions, the traditional structure of the organization as well as the inequalities in the status of various functional areas have contributed to strong resistance to creativity, change, and innovation within the organization. The conventional structure of the organization has created several creativity constraints in the company. Therefore, it is recommended that the company follows a functional organizational structure where each functional area is treated equally and has important implications within the company (Kerzner 2017). Equality in status can only be implemented if the leadership for each function is given equal status amongst each other and they have risen the position of departments. The functional structure is required to abide by the transformational leadership theory, the transactional leadership theory as well as behavioral leadership theory. These theories are estimated to provide a ground for the departments of the company to stand equal, functioning as per the needs of the clients, and to focus on the quality of work of the employees by keeping them motivated, focused on their work as well as improving their quality of work (Kuantan 2015).

The Behavioral Theory

Organizational culture can be defined as how the leadership of a particular organization takes care and/or cultivates their employees, stakeholders, and overall business (Warrick 2017). In brief, culture is the consistent behaviors of the leaders (rules and norms) and employees within the organizational context (Chatman and O’Reilly 2016). Typically organizations follow four types of culture. These culture types are often mixed in larger organizations and almost always there is one culture that dominates the others depending on their importance within the organizational context (Chernikova and Zvyagintseva 2017). The four types include:

Adhocracy culture: The organizations following this culture are often flexible and are not inhibited by bureaucratic policies and procedures (Driskill 2018). The emphasis is mostly given on constant improvements and innovation at an extremely fast pace and the status quo is also frequently challenged, even when it works (Aranki, Suifan and Sweis 2019). Some examples of companies that follow Adhocratic culture include Facebook, Apple, and Google.

Clan culture: The organization that follows Clan culture includes an interrelated and close-knit group of individuals who are focused on a robust common interest. Clan cultures are found in family-owned and small businesses that do not include a hierarchical structure. The focus is on making all employees feel equal by working collaboratively (Felipe, Roldán and Leal-Rodríguez 2017). Open and honest feedbacks are also provided in this corporate culture (Burns 2012). The culture also emphasizes apprenticeship and mentorship, in addition to teamwork. Examples may include Redmond and Tom’s of Maine.

Hierarchy culture: The hierarchical organization culture is mostly defined by its establishment processes, structures, and authority levels. The employees present within this culture are briefed precisely about the chain of command and they have a precise idea about where they fit in the chain and they are also well-adapted to the rules followed by the organization. The culture is prevalent in UK corporations and is highly important to do the right and the most ethical thing. The culture ensures that operations are stable and efficient and that risk management is conducted effectively (Ali Taha, Sirkova and Ferencova 2016). The culture is most common in financial institutions, oil and natural gas corporations, and so on.

Market culture: The organization that follows market culture is focused on staying in front of their competitions and maintaining their profit margins. The focus is mainly on external factors and results so that customers remain satisfied. The success of market culture is mainly driven by innovation which is why the demand is to become more creative and deliver improved or new products to the market before the competitors (Isaksen 2007). The culture can help to secure the longevity of business but often results in employee burnouts due to constant production demand and high expectations regarding performance. The other downside is the less importance given to employee satisfaction (Arditi, Nayak and Damci 2017).

The Agency organization structure is made up of 5 functional areas comprising of Planning, Accounts, Creative, Design, and Production and each of these areas present their representatives who collaborate with the CEO to make up the management team. The primary problem of the Agency as analyzed from the case study mainly pertains to a lack of a proper and appropriate organizational culture which further leads to a lack of common goals, focus, and organizational values. The problem also pertains to giving more importance to the creative and design teams as opposed to the other functional areas of the enterprise which leads to other teams feeling less valued and more pressurized to collaborate everything with the design teams (Chernikova and Zvyagintseva 2017). The management also gives more benefits and flexibility of work to the creative teams as opposed to other teams having to conduct their tasks in structured and pre-mentioned ways. This culture that gives more importance to the creativity and design teams lays emphasis on the fact that other functional areas and employees are not required to be innovative and creative in conducting their works which is the opposite of an entrepreneurial mindset.

The Exchange Theory

Also, the team structure of different functional areas is decided based on need as only the accounts team has a hierarchical level but other teams mostly follow a flat or a matrix structure which requires reporting to other functional heads, and this, in turn, complicates the communication and follow up process.

The physical organizational culture is also reflective of bias towards the creative functional area as their work area is much more open and visually attractive compared to other functional areas. Other areas such as the suits work in closely positioned areas where there are fewer natural lights and windows as opposed to the creative teams who are surrounded by a pretty landscape. The work-in-progress (WIP) sessions also reflect an unequal organizational culture where others may be penalized for not paying attention but the creative employees who deliberately do not pay attention are excused as they are considered to be valuable to the company, which implies that other teams are not. This is another reason for which other employees of the enterprise may feel undervalued and demotivated and that may also affect their work and production (Ali Taha, Sirkova and Ferencova 2016). Although there is a lack of proper organizational culture that brings all the functional units together with common goals and values, they have trust in each other’s work which leads to good collaboration at the end of the entire process.

According to Isaken, One of the major cultural climates that support creativity and innovation is freedom. it is a level of independence as well as perceived autonomy that the individuals can perform as per their discretion. In the agency, freedom is only allowed to the creative and not to any other departments or functional areas. This is because they are considered to be the head of the creative output and the main reason for generating revenues for the company. Therefore, even if the creatives do not pay attention in the working progress sessions and the briefing meetings, they are not penalized or zoned out and the behavior is thoroughly tolerated. Therefore the creatives are given prime freedom in the organization however other departments half are prevailing functional silos. Another dimension includes trust and openness in which is the emotional safety within all relationships in the organization and respect where people share ideas frankly and with honesty. This is highly absent in the agency. There is no clarity in communication and even though the work in progress sessions are a direct mechanism for facilitating collaboration, the workflow is not correct fully constructed and therefore collaboration is not successfully implemented within the company. Amabile’s dimensions state that the culture of the workgroup support freedom, as well as challenging work, which is important to support creativity and innovation, and this is well aligned with the cultural dimensions stated by Isaken.

Conclusions and Recommendations 

The following recommendations will be suitable for the Agency:

• The agency management must incorporate an organizational culture that matches their values, missions, and goals as well as way of working, a universal organizational culture will ensure all functional units receive the same structures (Martela 2019).
• The management should make up by closing gaps between the teams by creating equal ways of performance and participation for everyone.
• Management should also maintain the same importance levels for all team members so that everyone feels valued and shares a common goal by collaborating on their work.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the management of The Agency should follow the above-mentioned recommendations so that they can implement an appropriate organizational culture to resolve the issues.

The Trait Theory

Organizational change can be defined as the procedure that focuses on the alterations that can be implemented in various aspects of the company like the organizational culture, procedures, technologies, and innovation as well as strategies. These change implementations can be done continuously or within a particular period to deal with a crisis, cope with the trends of the market, or innovate and improve the functionalities of the organization (D’Souza, Sigdyal and Struckell 2017). In an agency the terms redincess refers of the construct in the organsiational level. Also it enhances the members of the organsiation in resolving the implementation for the change. The degree to which organisational members value change and rate three major drivers of implementation competence favourably such as task demands, resource availability, and situational circumstances, determines organisational readiness for change. When an organization's preparedness for change is strong, people are more inclined to start change, put out more effort, persevere longer, and work together more effectively. As a result, deployment seems to be more effective. The preparedness of an organisation to change is seen to be a key factor in the effective implementation of complicated changes in healthcare settings (Turner, Swart and Maylor 2013). Indeed, some estimates show that one-half of all failed large-scale organisational transformation attempts are due to a lack of preparation. Change management experts have suggested numerous techniques to generate preparedness by 'unfreezing' current attitudes and fostering desire for change, based on Lewin's three-stage model of change. These techniques involve emphasising the gap between present and desired performance levels, instilling discontent with the status quo, imagining a desirable future state of affairs, and instilling confidence that this future state can be realized (Tracy 2020).

Strategic transformational change can be defined as a large-scale change that is focused on completely redefining the company from various aspects. This might include the company changing its product lines or types of services, updating the core values or vision and mission statements, or implementation of modern machinery and technologies within the company (Horst and Järventie-Thesleff 2016).

Most of the change processes that occur within a company affect its people, especially the human resources of the company. However, people-centric organizational change has a direct impact on the employees of the company. Some of these changes might include hiring new employees, modifying the policies of the workplace as well as altering the job descriptions, and many more (Pasmore and Woodman 2017).

At frequent times, companies find it necessary to shift the operations as well as tasks that particular employees, teams, or departments are responsible for accomplishing. This emphasizes the fact that alternations under this type of change focus on team structure reorganization or reorganization of the hierarchy of the management (Park and Kim 2015).

The remedial organizational change is undertaken when an organization identifies issues and conflicts that are required to be reorganized or altercated on an urgent basis. This is a reactionary change as it requires immediate action based on the problem identified. Some instances may include addressing the issues of certain customers or employees that they are facing with their company or employer respectively (Woods et al. 2017).

Leadership Structure within The Agency

On conducting a situational analysis of the company, it has been revealed that various aspects require change. It can also be revealed that various changes are even demanded by the internal stakeholders of the company. The leadership structure of the company is highly faulty that requires immediate reorganization. The company lacks a strong organizational structure that hampers status equality within the various components of the company. This is further enhanced by the absence of a concrete reporting structure as well as the absence of the status of departments for the various functional areas of The Agency. The unequal status of the functional areas is highlighted by the importance given to the Creatives, which is absent for the other functional areas. Similarly, these components of the organization are termed as functional areas of the organization and not departments. This further highlights the unequal status of the functional areas within the organization. The physical demarcation between the Creatives as well as the rest of the organization is a major limitation that needs change. Even though the office has a large open plan, there is a major difference in the workspace that is available for the Creatives when compared with that of the other functional areas. The Suits or the Accounts teamwork in a smaller area with desks placed close to each other. However, on the other hand, the Creative team or the Creatives are encompassed by windows on three sides with extensive views of the urban landscape. This affects the rest of the company as they do not get the larger space to do their work within the office premises. Importance is also solely given to the Creatives in terms of winning awards which are simply attributed back to the ideas generated by the Creatives. Therefore, since the Creatives are directly linked to framing ideas for the company, they are considered as the productive employees of the organization and therefore are awarded most of the rewards and recognitions. This is also evident through the Work In Progress meeting in which the client briefs are provided to the employees of the organization. In this meeting, the Creative team zones out and start thinking about ideas within the briefing meeting. However, they are not penalized for not paying attention and that their behavior is tolerated. There exists no formal monitoring or scheduling of the meetings of the Creatives that hamper the workflow within the organization to a great extent.

As stated by Isaken, to support a creative organizational change environment, Organization must support the idea time with the state the time that is used by employees to elaborate and work on new ideas. This type of environment is not completely supported by the agency and the lack of a structured hierarchy is also one of the major disadvantages that create an environment where organizational change in terms of innovation is not highly encouraged. This is because there is no upper management or medium-level management to support and motivate the change process. Another dimension is the debate which is the support and the occurrence of open these agreements in terms of opinions and viewpoints within the organization. this Supports a brainstorming environment where ideas and pitches add exchanged as well as encouraged. This is prevalent in the agency as the creative team brainstorms and also consults with the other functional areas of the organization to frame and finalize their ideas. risk taking is also a dimension in which the organization tolerates uncertainty as well as ambiguity. the author states that the more the organization takes risks the more they can put their ideas forward and remain competitive. This is supported by the proposal of interesting and creative ideas, exchanging of suggestions as well as provisional feedback among the internal reviewers of the organization. as stated by Amabile, organizational encouragement plays the main role in supporting creativity and innovation through organizational change. This includes trust, rewards and recognitions, acceptance of failures, shared vision, mentoring of creative people by creative people, and many more aspects. In the agency, the employees lack the identification of the need for change and this further reduces the level of readiness amongst them for accepting change. The absence of formal monitoring as well as scheduling of meetings especially of the creative team only organization is a clear indication of the fact that there is no common order, shared vision, structure as well as encouragement and motivation by higher management in the organization. This is also comparable to the dimensions stated by Isaken and both their Dimensions indicate one thing that the company is not ready for change.

Leadership Dimensions and Implications within The Agency

Here the concept of Jabri could be applied as organizational change refers to steps taken by a firm or business to modify a key aspect of its operations, such as its culture, underlying technology or infrastructure, or internal processes (Jabri 2017). Organizational change management is the process of leveraging change to achieve a successful outcome, and it usually consists of three stages: planning, execution, and follow-up. Here according to the concerned scenario this dilemma, in its political aspect, is the result of decades of dominance by forces whose representatives (Caliphs and subsequently Sultans, "kings of the human city") had purportedly supplanted God ("king of the cosmic city") on earth, thereby sanctifying their own despotic and repressive rule. This scenario, which was exacerbated later by western colonialism and twentieth-century dictatorships, resulted in Arab-Islamic civilizations' political immobility and stagnation (Birkinshaw and Gupta 2013). According to Al-Jabri, democracy is the only way out of this deadlock, and the author finds its fundamental underpinnings in the Qur'an as well as the hadith, the Prophet's instructions and actions. Al-Jabri appears to believe that the Arab-Islamic school of thought's current difficulties in maintaining a harmonious and balanced relationship with the demands of the modern world are due to the progressive decline of a rational and scientific dimension.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that there is no concrete organizational structure, not only in terms of leadership or culture but also when considering the change. Therefore, this builds the need for the change along with the readiness for change within the organization. Therefore, several recommendations can be made as per these considerations. Given the change theories mentioned above, it can be said that the structural organizational change, as well as the remedial organizational change, will be implemented within the organization. In terms of structural organizational change, significant changes are required to be made within the organization (Andriopoulos and Dawson 2021). The teams have to be reorganized completely to give equal status to all the functional areas of the organization. A thorough reporting structure for each department has to be created. The remedial change will be undertaken when the organization will establish a common value as well as the direction that will be followed by the entire organization that will direct the employees towards a particular direction. They must have a common workflow and workplace that will be divided equally among all the teams of the organization (Olson et al. 2019). This will also help the departments to be upgraded to equal status within the organization. They must also have a strong leadership structure that will promote a functional and hierarchical workflow within the company.

References

Ali Taha, V., Sirkova, M. and Ferencova, M., 2016. The impact of organizational culture on creativity and innovation. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 14.

Amabile, T.M. and Pratt, M.G., 2016. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in organizational behavior, 36, pp.157-183.

Andriopoulos, C. and Dawson, P., 2021. Managing change, creativity and innovation. Managing Change, Creativity and Innovation, pp.1-100.

Aranki, D.H., Suifan, T.S. and Sweis, R.J., 2019. The relationship between organizational culture and organizational commitment. Modern Applied Science, 13(4), pp.137-154.

Arditi, D., Nayak, S. and Damci, A., 2017. Effect of organizational culture on delay in construction. International journal of project management, 35(2), pp.136-147.

Bake, M., 2019. The importance of leadership and employee retention. Radiologic technology, 90(3), pp.279-281.

Birkinshaw, J. and Gupta, K., 2013. Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), pp.287-298.

Boehe, D.M., 2016. Supervisory styles: A contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), pp.399-414.

Burns, P., 2012. Corporate entrepreneurship: innovation and strategy in large organizations. Macmillan International Higher Education.

Chatman, J.A. and O’Reilly, C.A., 2016. Paradigm lost: Reinvigorating the study of organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, pp.199-224.

Chernikova, L. and Zvyagintseva, O., 2017. The role of organizational culture in personnel management. ????????????? ???????????? ? ??????????, (4), pp.143-148.

D’Souza, D.E., Sigdyal, P. and Struckell, E., 2017. Relative ambidexterity: A measure and a versatile framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(2), pp.124-136.

Driskill, G.W., 2018. Organizational culture in action: A cultural analysis workbook. Routledge.

Felipe, C.M., Roldán, J.L. and Leal-Rodríguez, A.L., 2017. Impact of organizational culture values on organizational agility. Sustainability, 9(12), p.2354.

Galli, B.J., 2019. A shared leadership approach to transformational leadership theory: Analysis of research methods and philosophies. In Scholarly Ethics and Publishing: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 751-790). IGI Global.

Horst, S.O. and Järventie-Thesleff, R., 2016. Finding an emergent way through transformational change: A narrative approach to strategy. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(1), pp.3-21.

Isaksen, S.G., 2007. The climate for transformation: Lessons for leaders. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), pp.3-15.

Jabri, M., 2017. Managing organizational change: Process, social construction and dialogue. Palgrave.

Kerzner, H., 2017. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Khan, N., 2017. Adaptive or transactional leadership in current higher education: A brief comparison. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), pp.178-183.

Kuantan, P., 2015. Transactional or transformational leadership: which works best for now?.

Martela, F., 2019. What makes self-managing organizations novel? Comparing how Weberian bureaucracy, Mintzberg’s adhocracy, and self-organizing solve six fundamental problems of organizing. Journal of Organization Design, 8(1), pp.1-23.

Meier, D., 2016. Situational Leadership Theory as a Foundation for a Blended Learning Framework. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(10), pp.25-30.

Meuser, J.D., Gardner, W.L., Dinh, J.E., Hu, J., Liden, R.C. and Lord, R.G., 2016. A network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management, 42(5), pp.1374-1403.

Olson, K., Marchalik, D., Farley, H., Dean, S.M., Lawrence, E.C., Hamidi, M.S., Rowe, S., McCool, J.M., O'Donovan, C.A., Micek, M.A. and Stewart, M.T., 2019. Organizational strategies to reduce physician burnout and improve professional fulfillment. Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care, 49(12), p.100664.

Park, S. and Kim, E.J., 2015. Revisiting knowledge sharing from the organizational change perspective. European Journal of Training and Development.

Pasmore, W.A. and Woodman, R.W., 2017. The future of research and practice in organizational change and development. In Research in organizational change and development. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Phillips, A.S. and Phillips, C.R., 2016. Behavioral styles of path-goal theory: An exercise for developing leadership skills. Management Teaching Review, 1(3), pp.148-154.

Spector, B.A., 2016. Carlyle, Freud, and the great man theory more fully considered. Leadership, 12(2), pp.250-260.

Tracy, J.A., 2020. Be a champion for change by using Lewin’s 3-stage Model of Change. RDH, 40(2), pp.18-20.

Turner, N., Swart, J. and Maylor, H., 2013. Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), pp.317-332.

Warrick, D.D., 2017. What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business Horizons, 60(3), pp.395-404.

Woods, C.S., Richard, K., Park, T., Tandberg, D., Hu, S. and Jones, T.B., 2017. Academic advising, remedial courses, and legislative mandates: An exploration of academic advising in Florida community colleges with optional developmental education. Innovative Higher Education, 42(4), pp.289-303.