I HAVE been reading with interest the scholarly articles on LEADERSHIP written by our friend Dr Anand Goolsarran. My understanding is that these are written in the context of Dr Goolsarran’s worthy ‘watch on accountability’. However, it appears that they went beyond that focus and in the process seem to have overlooked a few essential angles of leadership which are pertinent to our current situation

With full appreciation and respect for Dr Goolsarran’s work and in an attempt,vain perhaps,to complement same, I ask that you kindly add the following to the discourse on leadership which is based on my own study of this important subject:

“THERE IS NO ONE BEST STYLE OF LEADERSHIP”

The Contingency Theory approach

This theory suggests that there is no one, universally determined model for effective leadership; the situational variables should determine the best. For example, in an emergency situation an autocratic, dictatorial style becomes imperative; but in a normal or stable situation, a more democratic, participative style might be more effective.
The contingency theory emphasises the need for flexibility based on the “perspective which argues that leaders must adjust their style in a manner consistent with aspects of the context.” (Huczynski and Buchanan 2007: 710)  “The flexible style”  demands that the leader acts in consonance with situational dynamics; hence, ironically if there is one ‘best style’ it is the one that  is a non-constraining, non-bureaucratic, variable style which gives the leader carte blanche to change his approach, having regard to the extant  circumstances; and of course in accordance with the dictates of rational, legitimate leadership.

What is Leadership? What is Management? Are they synonymous?
A typical definition of management was provided by Mary Parker Follet, a pioneer in the management literature field as “the art of getting things done through people.” This is not to ignore the school that argues for a clear distinction on the grounds that their ‘roles’ are different as are indeed their ‘instrument’ in that leaders have followers while managers have subordinates. Huczynski and Buchanan (2007 : 697) quoted Bennis and Nanus (1985 : 21) who observed that “managers do things right while leaders do the right things”. And I am tempted to add that leaders are more ‘emotional’ while managers are more rational; these are complementary and can be most beneficial when embodied in one and the same person, regardless of their title.

Warren Bennis (1989) produced an interesting set of dichotomous relationships between leaders and managers including.
– leaders innovate, managers administer,
– leaders focus on people, managers focus on systems
– leaders develop, managers maintain.
– leaders have long-term perspectives, managers, short-term
– leaders challenge the status quo, managers accept the status quo
– leaders eye the horizon, managers eye the bottom line

Leadership Styles
It has been suggested that there are as many leadership styles as there are leaders. While this might be an exaggeration to underscore a point, it is perhaps true that as individuals, no two leaders are alike. Management writers have grouped tendencies and traits that allow for broad categorisation of many individual styles. The more common of these categorisations include the following which flow from the seminal work of Weber (1905), Lewin, Lippit, and White (1939), Burns (1978) et al;

(a) The Charismatic Leadership style reflecting the ‘personal’ qualities of the leader, his/her self-belief from which is projected flair, passion, enthusiasm and energy. The fortunes of the organisation are intimately tied to the presence of the leader so that the organisation can go down if the charismatic leader goes out.

(b) The Participative / Democratic / Consultative style

This style encourages full and continuing involvement of the entire “team” in the decision-making processes. Motivation is internally generated as team members feel empowered as opposed to the ‘dependency’ engendered by the charismatic leader.

(c) The Transformational style

This style is visionary, inspirational and highly motivational. The leader uses well developed communication skills to get people to “buy into” his/her vision and objectives, to exercise delegated authority and manage allocated resources effectively while the leader ‘develops and sells’ new value-adding initiatives as ‘the change agent extraordinaire’ of the organisation.

(d) The ‘Flexible’ or ‘Situational’ style

While the leadership styles mentioned above (and others not discussed herein) are anchored more in the traits and personal characteristics inherent in ‘the leader’, this objective style is based on the dynamics of the situation. It is anchored in the ‘Contingency Theory’ developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1988), who proposed that “successful leaders are those who can adapt their behaviour to meet the demands of their own unique situation”

Critique of the flexible /situational leadership style

(a) Positives:

The biggest plus factor of this style is its commonsensical, pragmatic, easily-understood appeal; the need for ‘flexibility’ in leadership and recognition of the contextual / situational imperatives cannot be discounted. This positive ‘feeling’ is also supported by objective, empirical studies. For example,  Daniel Coleman (2000) reports on Hay McBer’s research involving 4,000 executives in a worldwide sample. Coleman concluded that the most effective leaders were those “who are able to switch styles as the situation commands”.

(b) Negatives:

The effectiveness of this style depends on the leader’s ability to correctly diagnose “the situation” and respond timely and appropriately. The ability of the leader to do so is critically circumscribed by other significant “dimensions of context”, such as the organisational culture; working conditions; external economic factor;, organisational design and technology; the expectations of others above and below in the organisational hierarchy as well as their potential perception of a leader who changes his approach often might be interpreted as fickleness or even instability to which they cannot relate easily.

Are leaders necessary? Are Managers more relevant?
Until recently, the omnipresence and inevitability of ‘leaders’ were a sine qua non. But that is now being challenged especially in respect of the charismatic, transformational types whom some see as “dangerous”. For example, Rakesh Khurana (2002: 62) makes a scathing assessment of transformational leaders who burst on the scene like the God-given saviour of an organisation, even a country, in decline. Khurana’s criticism include their cavalier ‘above the law’ attitude, their exaggerated self-belief and their tendency to destabilise the organisation in pursuit of imprecise revitalisation. Their harmfulness has been exemplified in several corporate scandals of late,such as Enron. Even more so, with the disastrous failures in the global financial institutions the world is wary of charlatans in leaders’ clothing. Such views recall the distinction between leadership and management identified above.
There seems to be a crying need for a new paradigm of pragmatism and flexibility; for ethical leaders who can apply common sense to commonly recurring situations. The growing numbers of ‘gurus’ going down the drain and dragging down industry, commerce, country and the common man with them in the so-called “race to the bottom” cannot continue.