The compatibility between organisational state and leadership style is seen as essential
for successful leadership. Where the organisation is required to face new challenges
and develop new ways of adapting to these for the sake of survival, then a purely
transactional approach would be counter-productive – the phrase ‘fiddling while
Rome burns’ springs to mind. However, transformational leadership is just as likely
to be counter-productive during periods where maintenance of the current opera-
tional systems would be most appropriate.
Since its publication in 1978, Burns’ work has been taken up and cited by a wide
range of organisation theorists who subscribe to the view that managers need to, and
Management and leadership
511
can, match or adapt their style and approach to the circumstances of the organisation
in which they operate (Arnold et al, 1998; Bass, 1985, 1995; Beatty and Lee, 1992;
Burnes and James, 1995; French and Bell, 1995; Gibbons, 1992; Yukl, 1994). As
argued in Chapter 3, however, the late 1970s and early 1980s, the period when Burns’
book was published, was a time of crisis for many Western organisations. It was a
period when organisations and entire industries and sectors were going through mas-
sive changes. Not surprisingly, therefore, there was a tendency for those in the
leadership field to focus on Transformational leadership, and downplay or even deni-
grate Transactional management (Yukl, 2002). However, Bass (1985, 1995), whilst
seeking to develop the concept of the Transformational leader, argued that
Transformational leadership and Transactional management are distinct but not mutu-
ally exclusive processes. Transformational leaders may be more effective at motivating
their followers but, Bass maintains, effective leaders need to have both transforma-
tional and transactional tools in their armouries. In situations where radical change is
required, however, as Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2000: 27) found when
studying leadership in the UK National Health Service (NHS), ‘… the transactional
competencies of managers, while crucial, are simply not sufficient on their own.’ The
argument from Bass (1985, 1995) and Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2000) is
that someone with purely transactional skills would struggle to deal effectively with
the many changes that are an ever-present part of organisational life. On the other
hand, someone with purely transformational skills would not be able to cope with the
day-to-day, routine activities that need to be accomplished even where radical change
is taking place. The key issue, therefore, is to identify the optimum balance of transac-
tional-transformational skills in any given circumstances.
Kanter (1989) offers a different perspective on the balance issue by maintaining
that good leaders need to incorporate both transactional and transformational char-
acteristics. She argues that archetypal images of managers tend to derive from two
basic models: the ‘corpocrat’ (i.e. the transactional manager) and the ‘cowboy’ (i.e.
the transformational leader). The former is the corporate bureaucrat, the conservative
resource-preserver who lives by, and controls the organisation through, established
and detailed rules. The latter, the ‘cowboy’, is a maverick who challenges the estab-
lished order, who wants to seize every opportunity, question every rule and who
motivates and controls through personal loyalty. However, instead of seeking to relate
the balance of these two sets of characteristics to their appropriate organisational set-
ting, Kanter (1989: 361) argues that, in future, organisations will require managers
who combine the best of both the corpocrat and cowboy:
Without the bold impulses of the take-action entrepreneurs and their constant questioning
of the rules, we would miss one of the most potent sources of business revitalization and
development. But without the discipline and coordination of conventional management, we
could find waste instead of growth, unnecessary risk instead of revitalization. … Our new
heroic model [of leadership] should be the athlete who can manage the amazing feat of
doing more with less, who can juggle the need to both conserve resources and pursue
growth opportunities. This new kind of business hero avoids the excesses of both the corpo-
crat and the cowboy. … the business athlete has the strength to balance somewhere in the
middle, taking the best of the corpocrat’s discipline and the cowboy’s entrepreneurial zeal.
512
Chapter 16 • Management – roles and responsibilities
Exhibit 16.3
Characteristics of the business hero
Skills and sensibilities of the business athlete
1. Learn to operate without the might of the hierarchy.
2. Compete in a way that enhances rather than undercuts cooperation.
3. Operate with the highest ethical standards.
4. Have a dose of humility.
5. Develop a process focus.
6. Be multifaceted and ambidextrous.
7. Gain satisfaction from results.
Source: Kanter 1989: 361–4
As Exhibit 16.3 shows, Kanter maintains that there are seven skills and sensibilities
that this ‘new heroic’ type of leader needs to possess. Kanter’s model avoids the issue
of how to determine the optimum balance of transactional and transformational skills
in a given set of circumstances. Instead, she argues that there is a basic set of transac-
tional and transformational skills or characteristics that all effective leaders need to
possess and which can be applied successfully in any situation. In effect, she is
attempting to turn the leadership debate full circle and make the case for a universal –
one best way – approach to leadership. Her argument, as mentioned in Chapter 3, is
basically that all organisations operate in the same turbulent context, face the same
challenges and, consequently, require the same style of management.
Though there are different perspectives on the contextual approach to leadership,
taken as a whole, the approach does not seek to invalidate either the characteristics or
situational approaches; rather it tries to incorporate them within and link them to the
wider organisational context. It explicitly recognises that a manager’s personal charac-
teristics are an important component of leadership style, and consequently,
effectiveness. In addition, it acknowledges the crucial importance not just of the rela-
tionship between leaders and followers, but also of the overall context within which
this takes place (Yukl, 2002). In particular, as Gibbons (1992: 5) remarked, ‘organiza-
tional survival and success are dependent on the ability of leader–follower relations to
resolve the problems of internal integration and external adaptation’. Many writers
argue, however, that (despite its attractiveness) there is little evidence to support the
case for the contextual approach to leadership or to show that is a more suitable
approach to running organisations than either the personal characteristics or leader–fol-
lower models (Arnold et al, 1998; Hinkin and Tracey, 1999; Yukl, 2002).
Just as a review of the role of managers produced a confusing and conflicting pic-
ture, so too does an examination of the three approaches to leadership. Nevertheless,
the idea of considering context and style together does fit in, partly at least, with the
argument developed in the previous parts of this book: namely that there is a need to
match the approach to change to the context of the organisation. That argument was
developed further to include the possibility that managers could reverse this process
and match the organisation’s context to their preferred style of working. However,
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..