Finding the Right Fit

Effective leaders must make certain that they utilize a leadership style that is a good fit with the motives at play in the organization. For instance, whether the leader engages an Authoritarian Style or Participative Style depends upon the motives observed. To help us, let’s look at Bruce Winston’s classifications of motive:
1) “Me” motives rest in the desire by the leader to see his/her image enhanced or his/her vision/goals achieved.
2) “We” motives focus the efforts of all for the good of the organization and drives the persuasive behavior of the leader to gain compliance from the follower.
3) “Thee” motives are concerned with the goals and needs of the follower. Here the pattern is sometimes reversed. The leader does not set out to persuade the follower to achieve the leader’s goals but rather the follower sets out to discover the leader’s goals and works to achieve them in an altruistic manner.
4) “It” motives show that sometimes the leader’s motive is not about relationship but about task only.
These can be divided into two categories. I will call them intrinsic motive and extrinsic motive. Intrinsic has to do with motives that are developed through an inward lens and are more “self” oriented. Extrinsic, on the other hand, deals with motives that are seen through an outward lens and are more “others” oriented. . “Me” and “It” motives are intrinsic while “Thee and “We” are extrinsic in nature. Once this is discerned, the leadership style needed becomes clearer. Using Lewin and White’s distinction of leadership styles we see the Authoritarian Style as foundationally autocratic and more classical in nature. This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. The Participative Style is foundationally democratic and is more delegative in nature. This style involves the leader including one or more followers in the decision making process. An intrinsic motive would call for an Authoritarian approach while an extrinsic motive would find the Participative Style a better fit.

References:

Winston, Bruce. Leadership Style as an Outcome of Motive: A Contingency ‘State’ Rather than ‘Trait’ Concept. Regent University School of Leadership Studies

Lewin, K., LIippit, R. and White, R.K. (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates." Journal of Social Psychology

Rajiv Mehta; Alan J Dubinsky; Rolph E Anderson. Leadership style, motivation and performance in international marketing. European Journal of Marketing; 2003; 37, 1/2; ABI/INFORM Global

Leadership Theory At Work

It is important that leaders work to function within the culture of the organization. Many leaders have failed because their leadership style was a poor fit for the organizational design in which they are engaged. One thing that will help the leader find the “right fit” is to make a distinction between Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theory at work in the organization. Transactional leadership is based on the assumption that people are motivated by reward and punishment and that systems work best with a clear chain of command. Transformational Leadership works on the assumption that people will follow a person who inspires them. Once this is considered, the leader will benefit by understanding the leadership style at play. Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. There are many but let’s consider the Authoritarian and the Participative Styles. The Authoritarian Style is foundationally autocratic and is a more classical in nature. This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. The Participative Style is foundationally democratic and is more delegative in nature. This style involves the leader including one or more followers in the decision making process; however, the leader maintains the final decision making authority. The leader may allow the followers to make the decisions while remaining responsible for the decisions that are made. Embracing the appropriate leadership style will help the leaders be productive within the confines of the Leadership Theory at work in the organization.

Organizational Values in Leadership

While in Ephesus, Timothy receives a letter from his mentor. Paul has chosen his closest spiritual child (1 Tim. 1:2) to set forth the organizational values and leadership expectations that would guide the church of Christ and cause it to grow. Timothy was, no doubt, chosen because of Paul’s confidence in him as a leader (Phil. 2:19-22). In verses 14 and 15 of 1 Timothy chapter three, we see the purpose of the passage. Paul wants to establish the organizational values and draw a picture of what a leader in this “church of the living God” is supposed to look like. Leadership selection in Paul’s day seems to indicate a new direction. The world surrounding Paul and Timothy was undergoing significant change. A shift in spiritual and Old Testament values began demanding change when Jesus developed His ministry on earth. The profound nature of this man attacked the ideals and beliefs of people throughout the Mediterranean. Paul, a Greek Jew and Roman citizen, became an apostle after the ascension of Jesus and the Pentecost event in Acts chapter two. Even Paul's selection was a radical departure from how the original twelve received their commission (Acts 22:6-10). Roman occupied Palestine became a breading ground for followers of a new faith in God through the teaching and preaching of apostles about a Jew named Jesus they came to believe was the Messiah, in Hebrew, or Christ, in Greek. Jewish lawgivers considered Jesus a threat to their law (Matthew 22:18, Mark 12:16, Luke 20:26), and these radical Jesus followers were equally threatening (Acts 8:1, 11:19). It was in this context that Paul establishes value based expectations for leaders in this newly formed church. His selection and ordination of Timothy follows this new pattern and sets a standard for subsequent leadership appointments.

Matthew 4:1-25: Jesus establishes Himself as an effective leader.

Mathew builds a progression in the text that shows a natural establishment of Jesus as a leader. First Jesus establishes credibility in verses 1-11 showing that a Christian leader is proven. Second, He strategically positions Himself in verses 12-17 presenting a Christian leader as relevant. Third, Jesus builds a coalition to fulfill God’s purpose in verses 18-25 proving that a Christian leader influences others to accomplish God’s plan. The influence progresses from one (Jesus develops credibility), to a few (Jesus builds His coalition) to many (Jesus influences the multitudes). Matthew presents Jesus as a servant leader that is transformational in His approach. Notice in Verse 19: “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” . Jesus' call to leave profession and family was radical, the sort of demand that only the most radical teacher would make. This text provides us several examples of servant-leadership and shows His transformational style. Jesus' seeking out disciples himself represents a serious breach of custom as Jesus is seen "coming down to their level" socially. This challenging of the “status quo” process is a quality of great leadership. Notice also that Jesus relates to his followers in terms they can understand. Jesus did not call professionally trained rabbis to be his followers. He called fishermen and encouraged them that the skills they already had were serviceable in the kingdom. These disciples leave their fishing nets, but they do not stop fishing. They are now, in the service of the kingdom of heaven, fishers for people. Their lives have been transformed by Jesus' call to follow. Jesus is an effective leader because He seeks to improve His followers (from fishing for fish to fishing for people). This is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders seek to improve and influence their followers.

Traditional vs Contemporary

Leaders must work to develop a leadership style that is a “fit” with the organizational style of our church or corporation. We must understand that there is no one size fits all theoretical approach to organizational structure; however, classifying our organization as traditional or contemporary will help us in this process. Traditional organizations tend to be more bureaucratic and are identified by characteristics such as autocratic authority, adherence to a legal code, expectation of uncompromising obedience, compartmental specialization among workers, and a clearly defined hierarchy of offices. Contemporary organizations are less formal. They tend to embrace the idea that the organization is best served by adapting to its environment. The value here is to strive for a fit between the organization's structure, its size, its technology, and the requirements of its environment. The dominate thinking in the contemporary type is that organizations whose structures are not fitted to the environment (which includes other organizations, communities, governments, etc.) will not perform well and will fail. Further clarification of this distinction can be gained by seeing traditional organizations as having a rigid structure with an expectation that the environment will adjust to it. Contemporary organizations are more fluid and place a value on adapting itself to the environment.

Leadership Adaptability

We are living in a day of multiple organizational structures and complex leadership styles and approaches. Gone are the days of the “one size fits all” approach to leadership. The evolution of society has broadened the organizational field to the extent that we are faced with a range from ultra traditional to hyper contemporary and everything in between. This is especially true in the church. This broad diversity has confronted today’s leader with a crucial question. What solutions are most effective in a particular organization? First, we must understand Organizational Type. In comparing organizational theories, a natural distinction appears between classical and more contemporary thought. According to Taylor, Fayol, Weber and other classical theorists, there is a single best way for organization to be structured. The problem is organizations vary considerably on structural attributes. Many theorists today believe that there is no one best way to organize. What is important is that there be a fit between the organization's structure, its size, its technology, and the requirements of its environment. This perspective is known as "Contingency Theory" and contrasts with the perspective of classical theorists who thought that there probably was one way to run organizations that was the best. We, as leaders, must develop the ability to adapt if we hope to be effective in this day of organizational diversity.

Reference:


Wren, Daniel A. (2005). The History of Management Thought. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Are Leaders Born or Made?

There are many theories of leadership that have been identified during the course of the formalization of leadership studies in the last fifty years. One such theory is the Great Man Theory. The basic assumption in this ideology is that leaders are born and not made. Great leaders will arise when there is a great need. Early research on leadership was based on the study of people who were already great leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few from lower classes had the opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do with breeding. The idea of the Great Man also strayed into the mythic domain, with notions that in times of need, a Great Man would arise, almost by magic. This was easy to verify, by pointing to people such as Eisenhower and Churchill, let alone those further back along the timeline, such as Jesus or Moses. Gender issues were not on the table when the 'Great Man' theory was proposed. Most leaders were male and the thought of a Great Woman was generally in areas other than leadership. Most researchers were also male, and concerns about bias were a long way from being realized. There have been great strides made in our understanding of leadership, but most all our progress finds its genesis in this construct. Looking at his theory does beg the fundamental question: Are leaders born or made?