Power and Politics

The issue of power and politics is important to managers in both the private and the public sector. We are all players in this field whether we are in total denial or ignorant of our external context. Pfeffer (2011) argues that ‘consciously seeking power is related to both managerial performance and career success’ pp. 101- 103. Hardy and Clegg defined power (1996, p.623) ‘as the ability to get others to do what you want them to do’. Power is closely related to politics which Pfeffer (1992) compares with control over resources and formal authority.

 The field of power and politics has in the past been subject to criticism from Pfeffer’s (2011) recent mistrust of modern day leadership literature and its disregard for broader social theory as well Mintzberg’s (1983) misplaced assumptions about the legitimacy of organisational politics.  

 Pfeffer (2011) argues that most leaders are great at self preservation; telling people what they want to hear; and in coming cross as noble and good. He notes that what most leadership books fail to mention frequently is the path of power and the role power played in enabling these individuals to get to the top. Furthermore the tendency for leaders to overemphasise (Pfeffer, 2011) their positive attributes need to be taken with a pinch of salt. An example is seen in Jack Welch’s winning which describes the management wisdom that Welch built during his reign at GE and how he transformed it successfully into a $4 billion operation. But the book also overlooks Welch’s self quest for power and prestige through a strategy ofmergers and acquisitions that was sometimes not in the interest of GE shareholders.

 Mintzberg’s dislike for organisational politics is seen in the way he describes it as ‘illegitimate, sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise'. pp. 172. Mintzberg however seems to confuse personal behaviour with organisational politics as later studies by Ferris et al (1996) articulated that self serving behaviour was a common theme in the definition of organisational politics. It will therefore be reasonable to argue for the separation of ‘self -serving behaviour’ and its attendant negative connotations from organisational politics which takes place around questions of priorities, policies and practices (Blackler, 2011).

 Other authors note the necessity of organisational politics. Morgan (1997) explains the importance of politics in providing ‘a means of allowing individuals to reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation’, pp. 154.  Ammeter et al (2002) described political behaviour as activities designed to minimise the ambiguity that occurs in organisations and gives meanings to organisational life where uncertainty exists. In other words, politics enables one to navigate the complex corridors of organisational life which comes with a degree of messiness.

 Ultimately politics is power in action, Hardy (1996) cited in Hope (2010). Whilst it is tempting to jump on the politics bashing bandwagon, it is important to acknowledge the role of politics in influencing stakeholders and enabling managers to practice sensemaking (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). Without a political process in organisational life, it is highly probable that individuals will be unable to resolve conflicts.

References

 Pfeffer, J. (2011) ‘Power: why some people have it – and others don’t’, Rotman Magazine, spring 2011, pp. 101-103.

 Pfeffer, J. (1992) Managing with Power: politics and influence in organizations, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press

 Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. (1996). Some dare call it power. In C. Hardy, S. Clegg, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 622–641). London, UK: Sage

 Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 Ferris, G.R., D.D., Galang, M.C, Zhou, J., Kacmar, K.M and Howard, J.L. (1996) ‘Perceptions of organisational Politics: Prediction, Stress-Related Implications and Outcomes’, Human Relations, Vol 49, Issue 2, pp. 233-266.

 Blacker, F. (2011) ‘Power, politics, and intervention theory: Lessons from organization studies’, Theory and Psychology, October 2011, Vol 21, Issue 5, pp. 724-734

 Morgan, G. (1997), Images of organisations, Sage. London.

 Ammeter, A.P., Douglas, C., Gardner, W.L., Hochwarter, W.A and Ferris, G.R (2002), ‘Towards a political theory of leadership’, The Leadership quarterly, Vol 13, pp. 751-796

 Hope, O. (2010), ‘The politics of middle management sensemaking and sensegiving’, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 195-215

 Gioia, D.A and Chittipeddi, K. (1991), ‘Sensemaking and Sensegiving in strategic change initiation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 12, Issue 6, pp. 433-448.

The limits of transformational leadership

According to Bass (1990), transformational leaders are characterised by charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. These leaders influence their followers to go beyond their immediate goals and believe as if they are contributing to something greater than their individual goals and interests.

There are many examples of transformational leaders who have successfully influenced their followers via visions, dreams, constancy and through strong self awareness (Bennis, 1998).

Nelson Mandela became the president of South Africa after successfully fighting apartheid and despite the fact that he was incarcerated in an isolated island for more than twenty years. He went on to become the president of South Africa and unified the country. Mr Mandela strongly used symbolism and compelled his countrymen to follow him to a place where many thought was nonexistent. Today despite its structural problems of poverty and crime, South Africa is a thriving country when compared to other basket case examples like Zimbabwe. Mr Mandela’s dogged refusal to nationalise the economy and confiscate wealth from white South Africans laid the foundations for a stable economy and reassured international investors. Many may argue that this was a misguided policy that did not address the underlying issues of social injustice and poverty. This cynicism may even have some truth in it as there is always a risk of such high profile policy not working. But it will be hard to ignore the fact that South Africa will be a different country today were it not for the leadership of Mr Mandela and his believe in a rainbow nation.

Other examples of such leaders include Bill Clinton, MahatmaGandhi, Martin Luther King, Michael Collins and many more others. These were positive examples of transformational leaders who inspired their followers and changed policies, nations and borders.

But it must also be noted that there is a darker side to transformational leadership. Given that transformational leaders influence our emotional state and our idealised projection of the world around us, it is no wonder that history is littered with examples where followers were deliberately misguided. Kets de Vries (1997) describes how ‘the emotional legacy of the past pushes followers into displacing many of their historic hopes and fantasies onto the present leader’ (pp. 262). In this way, followers abandon their self direction and meaning and become emotionally and intellectually de-skilled. In the story of ‘the owl who was God’, Thurber (1965) describes how the animals’ inadequate investigations led to the Owl’s values not being accurately assessed. The author alerts us to the danger of taking too many things at face value without looking at the alternatives to our own peril. Needless to say the followers of David Koresh and Adolf Hitler were influenced by a dark side of transformational leadership.

So what does this mean for the concept of transformational leadership and how can it overcome these criticisms.

Transformational leadership has potential to promote organisational effectiveness. Meta analytic review of this subject by Judge and Piccolo (2004) shows that transformational leadership had an augmentation effect over transactional leadership and how this was related to performance at the team and organisational levels. Moreover, transformational leadership appeared to display stronger relationships with criteria that reflect follower satisfaction and motivation than with criteria that reflect performance (pp. 760-768).

Given the importance of this type of leadership, it is no wonder that some writers are proposing a continuation and perhaps a renewal of this type of leadership. Sanders, Hopkins and Geroy (2003) propose what they call ‘transcendental theory of leadership’. They argue for the integration of transactional and transformational leadership through the spiritual dimensions of consciousness, morality and faith. Whilst this theory is relatively new and not yet fully subjected to thorough reviews, it is wise to question how the concept of spiritually fits in with the dynamic and agile environment of the business world.

Despite its weaknesses and potential for abuse, transformational leadership appears to be well suited for dealing with complexity, ambiguity, uncertainty, tensions and risk. So long as it is subjected to adequate checks and balances, organisations and individuals will probably benefit from this type of leadership.

References

Bass, B.M. (1990) ‘From transactional to transformational leadership – learning to share the vision’, Organisational Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 19-31

Bennis, W. (1998) On becoming a Leader, Reading, Arrow

Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004), Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

Kets de Vries, M. (1994) Academy of Management Executive, 8(3), pp. 73-92 (Reprinted in Grint, 1997)

Sanders, J.E.(3^rd), Hopkins, W.E. & Geroy, G.D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), pp. 21-31.

Thurber, J. (1965) Vintage Thurber, London, Hamish Hamilton.

Reflection and Learning

TMA02 requires a consideration of the learning that my proposed initiative is intended to give me. I have reviewed a number of theories including Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, Ramsey’s reflective learning and Johnson’s action learning framework.

Kolb’s cycle involves paying careful attention to a recollection of what happened, trying very hard not to rule out those parts of a situation that are uncomfortable to recall for whatever reason. The problem I have with this theory is that it assumes humans are rational and that thoughts can be rebuilt in a logical way that makes sense. Furthermore it tends to ignore the inherent human bias of projecting what we think people want (Covey, 1989) and in the process reinforcing our worldview through this mindset.

I found Ramsey’s reflective framework, cited in Pedlar et al (2001) interesting as it brings in the important dimension of our feelings and asks us to reconsider why we acted as we did in particular circumstances. This also requires adopting a long term ‘journaling’ technique with individuals being encouraged to use learning logs and journals. I must say this is a preferred way of learning for me as it gives me the opportunity to reflect on my experiences by taking time out from everything rather than the impulsive Kolb’s cycle. The feelings dimension also recognises the importance of tacit learning and forces one to question deeply held assumptions without shouting from the top of the tree. It makes me appreciate why I react in a certain way and enables me to control or redirect disruptive impulse and think before acting (Goleman, 1998).

An important critique of both these models is that they assume learning is an individualistic endeavour and ignore the tendency of human beings to cling to a particular way of viewing the world and not necessarily tolerating the ambiguity of holding multiple and sometimes conflicting perspectives of a situation. What is required to nature a true learning experiencing is a Janusian way of looking at situations and being comfortable with uncertainty.

It was for these reasons that I embarked on further research and came across the action learning model cited by Johnson (1998) in the Journal of workplace learning. Johnson argues that the critical aspect of this model is the action learning set where between four and six learners come together by talking through their problems and personally taking action. Johnson also emphasises that each problem may have a number of different answers due to the individual’s value systems and past achievements.

 I strongly relate to this notion of talking through problems as I am currently engaged with a group of fellow students where we discuss issues on a weekly basis. We use social media and internet telephony to connect virtually. I also find that this arrangement replicates the Open University environment and in a way resembles the tutor group forum but in a rather active way. Each participant reflects on his or her past actions and the group provides an opportunity for the individual to unravel their problems. The individuals then take action to change and learn from experience. For me this has enabled me to gain new perspectives on making sense of some difficult theories. Talking to these colleagues has also given me the opportunity to bounce off ideas in a relatively safe environment without being subjected to criticism by my some of my managers. It has also enabled me to structure my thoughts in a more disciplined way by spending more time on my reflections.

Undoubtedly the action learning model has some shortfalls in terms of disagreements between the participants due to their cultural and organisational contexts. There may also be issues around group dynamics and how some members may not ‘fit’ in with others. Despite these potential flaws, the model works as it is meant to challenge assumptions and push individuals to come up with solutions to their own problems.

References

Covey, S.R (1989) ‘The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People’ Simon and Schuster, London, p. 252.

Goleman, D. (1998), ‘How to become a leader’ in Henry (2001)

Johnson, C (1998), ‘The essential principles of action learning’, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 10, issue 6, pp. 296-300

Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall

Ramsey, C. (2006) ‘Introducing Reflective Learning, Open University, Thanet Press, Kent

The future is bright !

Today, I met with a significant organisational actor and really pleased with the support and offer of assistance in pushing forward my EBI. Whist there are some powerful elements who are committed to the status quo, it is encouraging to see commitment coming from such a high level corner within the organisation. This was an important hurdle to cross and reminds of the article on tipping point leadership where Bill Bratton reformed the New York Police department. Whilst the circumstances and the context is clearly different, my organisation is similar to the NYPD in that it is financed by the public and has also vested interests committed to maintaining the status quo.

Reference

W. Chan Kim, Renee A. Mauborgne
Source: Harvard Business Review
14 pages. Publication date: Apr 01, 2003. Prod. #: R0304D-PDF-ENG

        

Creative Leadership

I have been distracted by last week’s exam for a module on creativity, innovation and change! I am so glad to have written that exam.

To top off the theories of leadership, I feel that it will be appropriate to look at this important issue from the viewpoint of creativity and in particular what it means to be a creative leader. B822 is full of examples of creative leaders that have contributed so much to their organisations from the reclusive Darwin Smith of Kimberley Clark to the extraverted Steve Jobs. One thing is for sure, these leaders shared determination and drive to make enduring changes in their organisations and industry.

 A number of authors have commented on the special status of creative leaders and how they manage differently from other leaders. Kanter (1991) argues that these individuals’ posses what she calls a ‘kaleidoscope view’. She compares this to their ability to possess a number of viewpoints, question assumptions, rearrange their thinking and most importantly be comfortable with holding conflicting perspectives.

 Ross (2005) articulates the concept of ‘distributed leadership. This is in stark contrast to the traditional command and control supervision with its emphasis on control and monitoring of staff. The author underlines the relevance of this type of leadership in today’s knowledge economy where the work of professionals is not amenable to traditional supervision. Barry (1991) further cautions against what he calls ‘person centred approaches’ of leadership and how they can undermine knowledge workers by injecting group dynamics and politics into the workplace.

 Creative leaders are however not without critics. Reich (1989) disparages what he calls ‘heroic individual’ as the typical stereotype of creative leadership. He calls for a different mode of leadership in this circumstances; one based on a state of collective entrepreneurship and multi -professional teams relying upon the talent and creativity of all employees in the organisation. Collins and Porras (2001) caution against what they refer to as ‘great leaders making great stories'. These authors however compare leadership using a number of levels with the best leaders achieving a ‘level 5 leadership'. They argue that level 5 leaders combine’ intense personal humility with extreme professional will’. For example they use the example of how Darwin Smith turned around the fortunes of Kimberly Clark whilst staying away from the limelight. This was in contrast to the publicity seeking Lee Iacoca who became too important to leave his post at Chrysler but eventually ignored the company whilst he pursued personal fame.

 Ultimately these authors underline the importance of vision, charisma and drive in leadership but they also offer a simplified view to the complexity of what makes a creative person provide leadership in a successful organisation. More research is required in how this type of leadership is different from the hard nosed notion of managing business performance and whether this is simply a type of fad that disguises the difficult leadership style of entrepreneurs.

References

Barry, D. (1991) ‘Managing the Bossless Team: Lessons in distributed Leadership’, Organisational Dynamics, Vol.20, No. 1.  

 Collins, J.C (2001) ‘Level 5 Leadership’, Harvard Business Review, 79, 1 (January)

 Kanter, R.M (1991) ‘Change-master skills: what it takes to be creative’ in Henry, J. and Walker, D (1991)

 Reich, R.B. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship reconsidered: the team as hero’, Harvard Business Review, May-June.

 Ross, L., Rix, M and Gold, J (2005) ‘Learning Distributed Leadership: Part 1, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37, No. 3.

Leadership

As part of TMA02, I have been researching theories of leadership and surprised to discover that Fielder's (1976) contingency theory of leadership is still relevant in the present day. This theory posits that the relationship between a leadership style and leadership is contingent upon the situation. The deficiency of this theory is however in its assumption that the situation determines who will emerge as a leader. Furthermore Fielder's theory uses the LPC measure and it is unclear what how this really measures the aspects of leadership. Whilst this theory has significantly contributed to the development of leadership as a subject, more research is required to understand how attitudes and behaviours affect leadership.

Reference

Fiedler, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Meeting with important stakeholders

I have had a number of productive meetings with a number of influential actors over the last few days. Due to the sensitive nature of my initiative, I am unable to say a lot about what happened but it looks extremely promising.