3.2 INSTITUTIONAL LEADERSHIP
3.2.5 Leadership power
According to Cole (2002), leadership is an essential aspect of the social interactions of groups at work. Leaders need followers and groups need leaders. Leadership interactions are often based on power and authority; those who have power can dominate and bring consequences to the behaviour of others. Power is the ability to influence the behaviour and attitudes of people in the needed direction. According to French and Raven (1959), the five types of power that leaders have are 1) referent power (personal power, based on followers’ liking, admiration and recognition for the leader where the leader’s personality attracts followers); 2) coercive power (position power, derived from having the capacity to punish or penalise others); 3) legitimate power (position power, stemming from status, rule or formal job authority); 4) reward power (position power, derived from having the capacity to provide rewards to followers); and 5) expert power (personal power, based on followers’ perceptions of the leader’s competence). Such classification was later extended to include informational power (position power, derived from possessing knowledge that others want or need) and ecological power (position power, derived from controlling the technology, physical environment, and organisation of the work gives an opportunity for indirect influence over other people). “Personal power is the influence capacity a leader derives from being seen by followers as likable and knowledgeable” (Northouse, 2016:12).
To accomplish a particular action, leaders apply a variety of power tactics to enforce the action. Powerful leaders can influence followers to fulfil their interests. However, their use of power can be with good or bad intentions. Good leaders do not use their power through manipulation or force but rather by examining the external realities and the internal aspirations of others. Good and ethical leadership needs trust and the ability to work together: a personal and mental discipline that not all leaders are strong enough to maintain (Kooskora & Isok, 2014). Therefore, it is crucial for effective leaders to exercise their sources of power positively in order to make a difference in their organisation.
39 3.2.6 Leadership styles
In the contemporary world, organisations are challenged by global economic developments, legal conditions, information and technological advancement, and high competition among nations (Pinnow, 2011). Therefore, to deal with these challenges, leaders need to adopt the best style/s (Zabolotniaia, Cheng & Dacko-Pikiewicz, 2019).
Leadership style is the methodology or approach leaders apply in exercising leadership during interaction with their followers or team members (Robbins & Coulter, 2012; Goleman, 2000). To comprehend the practice of leadership, it is essential to analyse the styles that leaders can adopt and to categorise the various types of leaders who employ those styles. Leaders can be visionary, charismatic, transactional, authentic or transformational, autocratic and democratic. However, distinctive leaders may demonstrate any or even all of these characters either continually or in response to any demanding circumstances (Zabolotniaia et al., 2019; Armstrong, 2012).
Different leaders adopt different styles of leadership and the approaches to leadership styles vary according to the personality of the leader, the characteristics of the leader’s followers and the situation (Armstrong, 2009). There are several leadership styles and no single style is better than the other in any condition (Armstrong, 2012). The most effective leaders apply a set of distinct styles of leadership, each at the right moment and time (Goleman, 2000). To lesser or greater degrees, leaders can be enabling or controlling, autocratic or democratic, people-centred, or task-orientated (Armstrong, 2012).
There are various leadership styles that affect the working condition of an organization such as supportive leadership, collective leadership, task-orientated leadership, servant leadership, transformational, etc. Goleman (2000), however, identifies six leadership styles that affect the working environment. A summary of the styles, their origin when they work best, and their impact on an organisation’s climate and performance, is illustrated in Table 3.1 below. The findings suggest that effective leaders use all of these styles, like an “array of clubs in a golf pro’s bag” (Buchanan &
Huczynski, 2017:616). Each style relies on an aspect of emotional intelligence which concerns the capacity to manage own emotions and the emotions of others.
40
Table 3.1: Leadership styles and their characteristics Leadership
styles Coercive Authori-
tative Affiliative Democratic Pacesetting Coaching The
leader’s modus operandi
Demands
compliance Mobilises people towards vision
Creates
harmony Forges
consensus Sets high standards for performance
Develops people for the future The style in
a phrase “Do what I
tell you” “Come with
me” “People
come first” “What do
you think?” “Do as I do
now” “Try this”
Understand -ing emotional intelligence compe- tencies
Derive to achieve, self-control
Self- confidence, change catalyst
Empathy, building relation- ships, communi- cation
Collaborat- ing, team- building
Conscientious -ness, drive to achieve, initiative
Develop- ing others, self-
awareness
When the style works best
In crisis, to kick start a turnaround
When new vision and clear direction is needed
To heal wounds, to motivate people during stress
To build consensus, or to get input from valuable employees
To get fast results from a motivated and competent team
To improve perfor- mance or develop strengths Overall
impact on organis- ation’s climate
Negative Most strongly positive
Positive Positive Negative Positive
Source: Adapted from Goleman (2000:82-83)
Contingency and situational theories argue that any one style may not be precise in any conditions. There is no ideal leadership style; it all depends on a given circumstance. The degree of appropriateness of a style depends on the type of organisation structures, the characteristics of the individuals in the team and of the group as a whole; the nature of the task, and, importantly, the personal character of the leader (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2017; Armstrong, 2012). According to Goleman (2000), the most effective leaders are those who have mastered four or more styles, particularly the positive styles, and who are able to adjust their styles to fit the circumstances they face and meet the demands of the situation. Snowden and Boone (2007) and Northouse (2016) also argue that wise leaders adjust their styles to suit the context and complexity of the situations they face. Effective leaders have the capability of flexing their style to meet the demands of a situation. Skilful leaders know how to
41
identify their working context and how to adjust their behaviour to a given situation (Snowden & Boone, 2007).
There is, however, plenty of research suggesting that a democratic or participative leadership style is generally more effective than the autocratic style because it gives the opportunity of exploring ideas from experienced and knowledgeable followers by involving them in a decision-making process (Tang, 2019; Buchanan & Huczynski, 2017). The notion of the democratic leadership style is that everyone should play a part in the group’s decision irrespective of their status (Tang, 2019). Autocratic leaders apply their position to enforce their decisions and compel people to do as they are told, whereas democratic leaders encourage people to take part in the decision-making process. This approach also increases the commitment of followers and develops the confidence of “ownership” of such decisions. Autocratic leadership style suppresses creativity, ignores expertise knowledge, and stifles commitment and motivation.
However, it can be effective when time is short in making a decision, when the leader is the most knowledgeable, and when participants do not agree with each other, but a decision must be made (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2017; Armstrong, 2012). Normally democratic leaders might shift to a more directive style of leadership when faced with a disaster, but they inform followers about the situation and explain why they are doing so, whereas inefficient leaders confuse their team members by changing their style randomly (Armstrong, 2012).