Literature review on Leadership vision styles and change

Introduction:

The following review is divided into three sections and investigates Leadership and Management literature to provide an insight into:-

Leadership and Vision.

Leadership Styles.

Leadership and Change.

The literature has been researched from various sources explained in Table No 1 shown on the following page.

SECTION 3.1

Leadership and Vision.

Introduction,

This section will show literature researched and reviewed to provide a discussion for:-

Section 3.1.1. What is a Vision?

Section 3.1.2. Why have a vision.

Section 3.1.1. What is a Vision?

Research has shown there considerable agreement that a vision is a projection of a future desired state. The dictionary states Vision is “Unusual competence in discernment or perception; intelligent foresight.”

Levin {, 2000, Vision Revisited: Telling the story of the future.} suggests that when you provide a vision you show an idea of what you would like to see happen in the future and show the possibilities of what could be achieved. Its effects should be inspiring, bold, future orientated but believable and achievable. It should be derived from what people desire i.e. to fore fill their own personal goals or to aim for what they value it is their ideals, goals, interest and desires. Also by defining a vision you answer the question of the stakeholders “What’s in it for me ” Levin (2000) {, 2000, Vision Revisited: Telling the story of the future.} also states that a vision lets heart feel what the head is told and should be able to show you where you are going.

Lewis (1997) {, 1997, Building a Shared Vision. A leader’s guide to aligning the organisation.} supports these views and that a vision is an expression of where an organisation wants to go and how it intends to get there.

Kotter cited by Hope, J. & Bunce, P. (2008) {, 2008, Beyond Budgeting: Change Management} argues that a vision should be inspirational and emotional rather than rational and that when developing it expect it to be messy, ambiguous and encounter setbacks. It should also be flexible enough to accommodate small initiatives and changes as it progresses.

Lewis (1997) {, 1997, Building a Shared Vision. A leader’s guide to aligning the organisation.} states that a vision should show the promised land and inspire and exit people when they come to work.

A note from Levin (2000) {, 2000, Vision Revisited: Telling the story of the future.} that visions if not deployed or understood correctly can become confused with other organisation terminology such as mission statements and strategies.

Collins & Parros (1996) {, 1996, Building Your Company’s Vision} suggest that a vision can be broken down into two major components 1. A core ideology which is the glue for holding the vision together. 2. An envisioned future. These are then broken down again into parts such as core values, core purpose’ they also suggest a vision should show the future for the next 10-30 years

Section 3.1.2. Why have a vision?

Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery “held the view that the leader must know what he himself wants. He must see his objective clearly and then strive to attain it; he must let everyone know what he wants and what are the basic fundamentals of his policies” and that “Every single soldier must know, before he goes into battle, how the little battle he is to fight fits into the larger picture, and how the success of his fighting will influence the battle as a whole. The whole army then goes into battle knowing what is wanted and how it is to be achieved”. (Information supplied from Lancaster University course work “Inspiring and Enthusing Others” ) http://msc.manufacturinginstitute.co.uk/index.html.

Lewis (1997) {, 1997, Building a Shared Vision. A leader’s guide to aligning the organisation.} states that having a shared vision promotes motivation, meaning a direction and that a vision is vital to any great organisation.

Research also found that a vision could help jumpstart and mobilise people to start progressing towards it and that it possess a potency adding a sense of purpose Nanus cited in Levin (2000) {, 2000, Vision Revisited: Telling the story of the future.}

Collins & Porras (1996) {, 1996, Building Your Company’s Vision} provides evidence that organisations that hold a strong vision out performed the stock market by a factor of 12. Evidence provided through surveys states that having a vision aides the organisation and those who use one to empower others are more likely to be successful at managing change. by Larwood et al (1995) {, 1995, STRUCTURE AND MEANING OF ORGANIZATIONAL VISION}

A vision also has a positive impact on employee’s performance and attitudes Kirkpatrick and Locke. (1996) to such an extent that it positively affected organisational-level performance measured by growth in sales, profit, employment and net worth. Baum, et al (1998). cited by Levin (2000) {, 2000, Vision Revisited: Telling the story of the future.}

Kotter (2007) {, 2007, Leading Change} Stated in his “eight steps to transforming your business” shown in the table No2 below that step No 3 developing a vision is a vital part that should be completed as part of any change process and that you need to take time to get the team to establish it.

Kotter also advises that you should use a vision as a tool to give direction. He states it should show clear intent Kotter cited by Hope, J. & Bunce, P. (2008) {, 2008, Beyond Budgeting: Change Management} and

believes it helps peoples decision making and strategy development.

Lewis (1997) {, 1997, Building a Shared Vision. A leader’s guide to aligning the organisation.} prescribes following the six phase steps shown below where he uses the hard and soft sides of management to build and implement a shared

Levin (2000) {, 2000, Vision Revisited: Telling the story of the future.} also suggests that a vision can be used as a teaching tool as it gives direction and shows long term plans as well as being able to influence attitudes and behaviours.

One noticeable quote when planning your vision implementation is one stated by Collins & Parros. (1996) {, 1996, Building Your Company’s Vision} A vision is never completed and when you think you have achieved it you should you should re-plan and replace it with another one. This is also supported by Lewis (1997) {, 1997, Building a Shared Vision. A leader’s guide to aligning the organisation.} who states that a vision should always be just beyond reach and therefore requires continuously refined

The literature reviewed has provided strong evidence to why you should have a vision and communicate it. It is now the intention of the author to complete a review in the form of a questionnaire to see if his new department are aware of the organisation vision.

Checked for References, Quotes, et al etc up to here

Checked for References, Quotes, et al etc from here

SECTION 3.2 Literature Review for Leadership Styles

This section of the report researches the difference between a manager and a leader. The report then goes on to investigate the difference in transactional and transformational leadership styles. It does not consider democratic, autocratic, lassie faire or if you are an X or a Y on McGregor’s theory styles as the author believe through experience and past research understands that as a manager or leader you select the best style you can to suite the situation at hand.

The author also notes that if you can master this ability you will naturally move up the LMX Member. Leadership scale as you will have mastered some emotional intelligence.

This report supplies the foundation for understanding what style of manager / leaders are within the SMS dept.

3.2.1. Research regarding a manager or leader:-

Zaleznik et al (1997) {, 1977, Managers and leaders: Are they different?} suggests that manager and leaders are different. That they are different type of people and have different personalities, suggesting that a manager:

Maintain a balance of operations.

Managers rationally select goals to pursue to achieve outputs.

Is a problem solver.

Select goals and allocate resource.

Use their experiences to get what is required.

Relate to people by the role they play and power they hold.

Like to work with other and dislike working on their own.

and that to be a manager it takes persistence, tough mindedness, hard work, intelligence, analytical ability, tolerance and good will.

Kotter (2001) {, 2001, What Leaders Really Do} supports this and states that management is about coping with complexity and argues it brings order and consistency.

Zaleznik et al (1997) {, 1977, Managers and leaders: Are they different?} suggests leaders:-

Create new ways of completing task.

Explore more.

Need to use their inspirational skills to influence people.

Have the capability to motivate people in different ways.

Kotter (2001) {, 2001, What Leaders Really Do} suggests the same and quotes that leadership is about coping with change and aligning people with their goals and getting people to believe goals.

Kotter (1990) {, 1990, A force for change: how leadership differs from management} in his article “A Force for Change” developed the following table to explain what he believed were the comparison of leadership and management.

In short Kotter (2001) {, 2001, What Leaders Really Do} states that:-

Management controls people by pushing them in the right direction.

Leadership motivates them by satisfying basic human needs

A view note from Zaleznik et al (1997) {, 1977, Managers and leaders: Are they different?} is that leaders are more prominent than managers in time of stress such as financial decline or wars as they are more entrepreneurial.

Goleman, D. (2000) {, 2000, LEADERSHIP THAT GETS RESULTS} who also supports the view that leaders set strategy, motivate, create visions and build cultures. Also states that successful leaders have up to six styles shown in table No4 below and that they can use to complete their tasks and those leaders who perform best have mastered four of these styles namely: Authorities, Democratic, Affiliate, Coaching.

Goleman, D. (2000) {, 2000, LEADERSHIP THAT GETS RESULTS} states that good leaders can match the appropriate style within seconds for the situation and circumstances to get the best from the follower. He also believed that by developing emotional intelligence you could learn to instinctively select the appropriate leadership style to gain the best from the situation.

The author now intends to use a questionnaire for the team leaders in his new department to investigate to see which of the two styles they represent. From the results of the questionnaire the author should understand the team leader’s manager or leader style so he can best us of it during a programme of change.

3.2.2. Transactional or Transformational Leaders:-

To commence this section lets firstly look select a definition of leadership as written by Tannenbaurm, Weschief, & Massarik, (1961) cited by Wofford & Goodwin (1998) {, 1998, A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and transactional}

Leadership is – “Interpersonal influence exercised in situations and directed, through the communication process, towards the attainment of a specific goal or goals” then research what style of leadership could achieve this.

We could look at research stating:-

McGregors Theory X – Theory Y.

Blake and Moton’s country club, Team Leader, Impoverish, Authoritarian leadership styles.

Autocratic, Democratic, Lassie Faire styles

Facilitating, Coaching, Delegating, Directing styles.

But literature produced by B. Bass has captured the author’s interest by suggesting that the transformational leader has the most effective style of leadership. cited by Wofford & Goodwin (1998) {, 1998, A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and transactional}

B. Bass discusses the difference between a transactional and transformational leader Cited in Transactional revisited by Whittington (2009) {, 2009, Transactional Leadership Revisited: Self-Other Agreement and Its Consequences} stating that the transformational leader can become the most appropriate style of leaderships as this type of leader has the knowledge and emotional intelligence to adapt and react to the situation or circumstances. This view is supported by Graem & Uhl-Bien (1995) {, 1995 Summer, Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective} who suggest that the transformational leader provides the most effective type of Leader-Member Exchange.

Suggesting that if performed correctly this can become a very influential and productive way of managing the role and managing the follower.

Bernard Bass (1990) {, 1990, FROM TRANSACTIONAL TO TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP – LEARNING TO SHARE THE VISION} defined the benefits provided from the two types of leadership styles as:-

Transformational Leader.

Gets his followers to look beyond their own self interest for the good of the group.

Pay close attention to individual followers not just the group.

Provides vision.

Gains respect and trust.

Uplift morale of their followers.

Suggest new ways of solving problems.

Can instil pride and commitment into his employees

Show more maturity and better results on the leader member exchange (LMX ) surveys.

Transactional Leader.

Satisfies the self interest of a follower.

Provides promises of recognition.

Uses pay increases as reward.

Uses personal advancement as reward.

Penalises employees for not doing well.

Disciplines employees for not doing well.

Monitors deviation from standards.

Bass (1990) {, 1990, FROM TRANSACTIONAL TO TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP – LEARNING TO SHARE THE VISION} also states that the transformational leaders can make massive differences to an organisation effecting its health, well-being and performance.

Wofford & Goodwin (1994) cited in by Whittington (2009) {, 2009, Transactional Leadership Revisited: Self-Other Agreement and Its Consequences} provide more benefits stating that there is a predictable result of behaviours and outcomes between leadership styles and that transformational leader have consistently shown the highest levels of good results.

Graen and Uhl-Biens cited by Howell (1999) {, 1999, The ties that bind: The impact of Leader-Membership Exchange`, Transformational and Transactional Leadership`, and Distance on Predicting Followers Performance.} state that there is a higher positive leader-follower relationship and better performance from followers from the transformational leader.

Mumford (2000) {, 2000, LEADERSHIP SKILLS: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS} endorses these benefits and also adds that because of the present day climate industries need to be more flexible as transformational leader have better capabilities to aide the organisation in adapting quickly in environments of change.

Literature continues and states that these two differing styles of leadership work differently and relate differently with their followers. Whittington (2009) {, 2009, Transactional Leadership Revisited: Self-Other Agreement and Its Consequences} states that transactional leaders need to have clear roles and responsibilities where transformational leader and followers don’t.

Whittington (2009) {, 2009, Transactional Leadership Revisited: Self-Other Agreement and Its Consequences} developed the understanding that there is a distance relationship between the success of the transactional or transformational leader. This research suggests that a transformational leader needs to be closer to his followers to influence them and get the best from their potential and that this is not required from the transactional leader. He states it is due to the transformational leader needing to develop a feeling of trust with the followers and interact more directly when he guides them. He suggests this leader needs this closeness to provide the environment for close personal communication’s when inspiring, empowering, stimulating and motivating his followers

So if there are such benefits to the transformational style of management then we should look for them or look to develop them.

Bruce J. Avalio et al (1999) {, 1999, Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire} state that the best questionnaire to use for this research is the Multifunctional Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).

If it is found that we only have transactional leaders then we know from the research completed by Bass (1990) that through training these can be developed into transformational leaders. Avolio et al (1999) {, 1999, Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire} suggests this could actually be more beneficial as he recognised that it is an actual part of the evolution of the transformational leader to have gone through a transactional leader stage.

Whittington (2009) {, 2009, Transactional Leadership Revisited: Self-Other Agreement and Its Consequences} supports this and argues that armed with the capabilities of both styles of leadership, the best leader is the one who can understand when to use the appropriate style to match the situation or circumstance. Checked for References, Quotes, et al etc to here

Checked for References, Quotes, et al etc from here

3.2. 3. Leadership Model for change:-

The final Section of the literature review is it to develop an understanding of a model for change. The author has not research tools used to implement change i.e. stakeholder analysis, Force Fields analysis, Readiness analysis and planning tools used to plan progress along a change implementation i.e. Master schedules, Project management tools etc. Although the author appreciates that these are part of the process and are used to aide change implementation. He has instead looked to define a model for change which he can use when venturing into and through any change programme he executes.

This literature review found that there are a considerable number of models available to aid implement change. One of which is Kotter ( 2007) {, 2007, Leading Change} “Eight Steps to Transform Your Organisation” shown below. According to Kotter (2007) {, 2007, Leading Change if you fail to complete and plan these eight steps you will cause the change to fail.

Steps:-

Increase urgency

Build the guiding team

Get the vision right

Communicate for buy-in

Empowers action

Create short-term wins

Don’t let up

Make change stick

He recommends keeping the steps simple and plan them before you execute them then you will have more chance of achieving your goal.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter cited by Hope, J & Bunce, P. in Beyond budgeting “Change Management” (2008) {, 2008, Beyond Budgeting: Change Management} however described a five step process:-

Communicating a compelling vision.

Building a coalition.

Transferring ownership to a working team.

Learning to preserve.

Making everyone a hero.

From Kotter’s studies he argues that change fails because people are inexperienced and do not appreciating the process of change. According to Kotter (2007) {, 2007, Leading Change} he has viewed many organisations who have failed at implementing change due to this even though they have been attempted under different named initiatives. This view is supported by Bernard Burnes (2003) {, 2003, Managing change and changing managers from ABC TO XYZ} who argues that we need to consider developing the people that execute the change as well as the steps of the change. This is also supported by Kanter who cited by Hope, J & Bunce, P. in Beyond Budgeting: Change Management (2008) {, 2008, Beyond Budgeting: Change Management} suggests that people need to change their behaviours to allow a change to happen.

Kotter (2007) {, 2007, Leading Change} emphasises that change goes through phases and should be seen as a long term challenge and not a short term fix.

Kanter cited by Hope, J & Bunce, P. in Beyond Budgeting: Change Management (2008) {, 2008, Beyond Budgeting: Change Management} states that change should not be regarded as bold strokes but long marches.

Zhongjun et al (2004) {, Dec 2004, An innovation process model for identifying manufacturing paradigms.} suggests that by identifying and challenging paradigms is a way of modelling your change. He argues that you can use this similar to using Lean Manufacturing techniques to identify your changes. Lean Manufacturing techniques are again another way to model you changes.

Another view of modelling the change process is by gaining an understanding of what people go through when they are involved in change. Here suggested by William Bridges cited by Hope, J & Bunce, P. in Beyond budgeting “Change Management” (2008) {, 2008, Beyond Budgeting: Change Management} where he describe that people go through a three step process:-

Ending – When people let go of their old identity

Neutral zone – When old behaviour’s die out and people go dormant for a while.

Beginning – When people get a new out look and a new sense of purpose.

Lewin cited by Bamford, D. & Forrester, P. (2003) {, 2003, Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment.} suggests that people go through three stages of learning when within a change programme

Freezing – Clinging to what you know.

Unfreezing – Exploring ideas.

Refreezing – Identifying new skills and attitude with previously held ones.

It is also noted that people go through other such effects when involved in change such as effects on their self esteem transitions of change, they resist change and they can become blockers or inhibit change which can to be used to model the change progress and progress.

By completing this research the author has noted many different ways you can model change and different ways you can use these models to aide change.

The author now intends to conduct a survey on the team leaders within the SMS dept to show how effective a model for change had been during a recent change programme in the dept.

Checked for References, Quotes, et al etc to here