Sample assignment by: SNPRVA Research and Writing solutions
Sample assignment by: SNPRVA Research and Writing solutions
LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWERSHIP
Student name
MNGT320 Rethinking Leadership
Professor David Collinson
Lancaster University Management School
The City and State where it is located
Date
Leadership and Followership
Leadership is a dynamic process by which a person influences a group of people to achieve a common goal, making the organization more cohesive and coherent (Sharma & Joain 2013). It entails all the leader’s activities that affect the well-being of the followers and the organization at large. Through the aid of leadership skills, traits, style, and theories, the leader is able to achieve the set goals and objectives. The commonly used leadership theories include; situational theory, great-man theory, skills theory, trait theory, contingency theory, participative theory, transformational theory, management theory, and behavioral theory (Amanchukwu, Stanley & Ololube 2015). Leaders achieve the organizational goals through capturing commitment of their followers, attention, energy, expressing and representing the values, needs, and aspirations for the followers, deciding upon objectives and coming up with ways of attaining them, and making others think and act in a desired manner. This paper in details discusses two leadership dynamics; authentic leadership and leadership identity in relation to leadership theories involved in each of the leadership dynamics while giving personal examples.
Authentic Leadership
When I joined high school, I made several friends among them was a lady who was a real basketball player. With time, she became my best friend, and by the time we were approaching the end of the first year, she was named to be the best basketball player, ladies category in school. While in the second year, she was a star in school and as a result, her circle of friends increased. Her behavior and her performance both in class and in the pitch deteriorated. Many people spotted the changes though only one of the senior student representatives approached her and offered to help her out of the situation. He was a student leader who was known to be student friendly and one, who was strict with the values, believes, and convictions he had. After a while, there was a significant improvement in my friend’s overall performance.
According to Dimovski et al. (2013), authenticity is a quality to be genuine; it is faithful to the origin, truthfulness, purpose, commitment, and source. It contrasts being counterfeit or imitation, and it is a root construct that incorporates transformational and ethical leadership. Authentic leaders do not fake their leadership. They neither pretend to be leaders just because of their leadership position nor do they try to create a leader’s persona (Shamir & Eilam 2005). Authentic leaders are deeply aware of their behaviour and thinking about their strengths, knowledge, and their own and foreign values (Dimovski et al. 2013). Authentic leaders have the following characteristic; they take on leadership from conviction, they do not accept leadership positions for rewards, status, or honours instead, they take over the leadership because of their want to accomplish the value-based mission (Christy & Duraisamy 2015). Besides, authentic leaders are of high moral character, hopeful, optimistic, flexible, and confident. The conceptualization of the authentic leadership is multidimensional; it contains elements from a different context, domains, behaviours, traits, and attributions (Dimovski et al. 2013). This type of leadership functions at the individual, team, and organization level.
According to Bishop (2013), authentic leadership has four main elements; self-awareness, self-regulation, positive modelling, and positive psychological capital. Introspectively, authentic leaders observe and analyze their mental state; feelings, thoughts, and intentions. Authentic leaders know and accept their identity, values, motives, and emotions (Dimovski et al. 2013). Through this, the leaders can know themselves through understanding their preferences, beliefs, talents, and desires. A leader's self-awareness marks the beginning of authentic leadership development.
Self-regulation is the control of one's behaviours with his or her personality without interfering with the open attitude towards co-workers and followers (Dimovski et al. 2013). Self-regulation is based on four key pillars; balanced information processing, authentic behaviour, transparent relationships, and internalized processes of control. According to Dimovski et al. (2013), open relationships and stable information processing are the most important for the development of authentic leadership. This is because they result in a balanced evaluation and perception of oneself. In comparison to others, the self-regulation offers substantial independence of the ego-based defence mechanism (Bishop 2013). Self-regulation also acts as the internalization of moral values and standards. This helps the leaders with high levels of self-regulation to control their behaviours so that it matches with the ethical standards that are responsible towards the employees. When the leader can morally incorporate into the leadership the loyalty to herself, to the organization, and the role as a leader, it ensures that there is the sustainability of the organization within and beyond the cooperation (Dimovski et al. 2013). For a better relationship between the leader and the followers and also with the entire community, the leader should adopt the values coinciding with the moral values of the followers and the community.
Positive psychological capital reinforces the crucial role in self-awareness and self-regulation (Luthans &Avolion 2003). During the authentic leadership development process, positive emotions are a vital concept. Positive psychological capital has the following element; optimism, hope, self-confidence, and resilience. The positive feelings are the foundation of positive behaviour in the organization and positive human relation. This leads to increased performance, satisfaction, and loyalty. According to Dimovski et al. (2013), positive modelling is the process of personal identification of the employees with their leaders.
Authentic followership refers to followers who follow the leader for genuine reasons. They share the same values, convictions and beliefs as the leader not because of normative, coercion, or reward expectation but because of the leader's definition of the situation (Yasir et al. 2016). The follower's authentication of a leader reinforces the leader's authenticity. Authentic followership and authentic leadership share similar values and convictions because of the leader’s definition of the situation rather than the expectations of a reward, coercion, or normative. For the success of the organization, the authentic leaders and followers need to work together with a common goal in mind.
The transformational leadership theory is also known as relationship leadership theory. According to this theory, a leader is a person who engages with others and can create a connection (Amanchukwu, Stanley & Ololube 2015). This theory focuses on the relationship between a leader and the followers. It aids the leader to inspire, and motivate people by helping the followers see the benefits of the tasks they are undertaking. The idea of connecting the leaders and the followers makes the transformational theory and authentic leadership and followership suit each other (Mango 2018). For authentic leadership and followership, the leader creates a peaceful and healthy environment for their followers through their clear and decisive leadership. This, in turn, leads to increased follower's productivity. On the other hand, transformational leadership theory equips the leaders with the skills to inspire their followers to perform their work diligently by showing them the importance of the tasks they are performing (Mango 2018).
Leadership and Identity
During my third year in high school, having been motivated by the senior student leader’s attributes and dedication, I was motivated to vie for a student leader position so that I could use the position and power bestowed on me to positively impact on other student’s life in school and outside the school premises. My friend’s celebrity in school greatly helped me in securing the student’s secretary general position in the school. This was the third highest ranked position in the student leadership positions. Having not been in such a top ranked leadership position initially, I was at first terrified and confused on how to accomplish my objectives that drove me to contest for the position. After struggling for a while as I tried to copy other leaders, I realized that its only through been my own self that I would be able to accomplish the objectives. The self realization though took some time to fully impact on my leadership, I managed to comprehensively accomplish most of the objectives I had set by the time I was retiring from active student leadership in the school while I was in my fourth year.
For the past few decades, identity has been of concern to the social theorizing and has made appearances in the social psychologist, and cultural theorist (Sinclair 2011, p. 508). However, little focused has been given to the relationship between leadership and identity (Eubanks, Brown & Ybema 2012). According to Eubanks, Brown, and Ybema (2012), leaders who have high levels of self-identity places a high value on the relationships formed with their followers (p. 1). This is because self-worth of these individuals is dependent on the successful attainment of the goals and objectives set by their followers. Commonly, the followers meet the established goals and objectives because of the firm and supportive relationship they have with their leader. Once the leaders have attained the self-identity they had initially set, they tend to move away from them and set future identities where they heavily invest until they accomplish the objectives. With each accomplishment, their self-worth increases (Eubank, Brown & Ybema 2012). Through the setting of future identities, the leaders embrace nostalgic notions such as mission, vision, planning, and forecasting of the organization.
Based on Ford (2006), developing one’s leadership identity is a multistage process; it begins with increasing one’s awareness, transition as the leadership identity moves hierarchically, leader-centric view to a shared leadership view which views leadership as a relational and collaborative process (Komives et al., 2006). An equally critical and common to each of the stages is increasing one’s self-awareness. Self-awareness connection with intentional strategies to strengthen self-efficacy for leadership is important in developing leadership identity. Leadership identity process involves learning how to relate with others, developing social networks, building commitments, and using my improved self. Leadership identity pressure accrues through several academic and popular discourses. Through the social identity theory, leaders are advised on how they can craft and moderate their identity so that they can match the follower' identities. This helps in creating a stable ground for both the leaders and the followers; thus they can create a conducive work environment. According to Sinclair (2011), leaders are advised to create an individual brand transcending their organization and feed the romantic myths that underpin contemporary appetite for leadership.
The poststructuralist strand offers insight into the problematic of cultural and identity difference and the theoretical deconstruction of identity, notably the significance of power in the construction of identity through difference. This takes the social theory constructivist position into a deconstructionist direction (Ford 2006). Identities are constructed within discourse; thus the need to understand identities as produced in specific institutional and historical sites within specific formations and practices, by specific enunciative strategies. Because of positioning ourselves as the social subjects of particular discourses, identities can be termed as the meeting point in practices and discourses. Discourses offer subject positions for individuals to take up identities, and behaviors in terms of the power they offer the individuals.
According to Karp (2008), communication in an organization is of importance as it helps the people to couple up their practical activities in the organization to those surrounding them in an aim of creating meaning and identity. From such communications a diverse identities in which each participant is recognized and recognizes others amidst the differences with the role of a leader being among them. As a result of this, Karp (2008) states that leadership is better understood as a dynamic that occurs between people rather than from an individual's perspective. The configuration of power is only recognized in the leader-follower relationship. The power balance is tilted towards the leader’s identity. Leadership is the action after the leaders have acted. Thus, leadership is constructed from the identities of a leader (Karp 2008). Self is the individual core and substance that endures through different times; thus the different moments and times may pertain to the same person. Identity development is based on the same self. Intentions of an individual can only be inferred indirectly from something emanating from the individual and identity is the only characteristic of self-determination.
Key-Roberts, Halpin and Brunner (2012) states that Self-development is a process that individuals undertake to gain knowledge or strengthen a skill-set. Self-development is a pillar of leader development. Self-development increases the leader’s readiness and potential for greater responsibilities. According to Van, Velsor, and McCauley (2004), self-development expands an individual’s capacity, enabling leaders to handle more complex situations and increased information flow and as a result, it leads to increased effectiveness in leadership roles and processes (p. 2). As a consequence, there is enhanced leadership identity because of the increased leadership effectiveness.
Leadership and identity use the transformational leadership theory. Transformational leadership theory is the process where the leader engages with the followers, creates a connection with them resulting in motivation between the leaders and the followers (Greenwald 2007). Concerning leadership and identity, there exists a relationship between the leader, the followers, and the attainment of the organizational goals and objectives. Once the leader has created a healthy working environment, the followers can meet the set goals and objectives (Key-Roberts, Halpin & Brunner 2012). As a result of the attainment of the goals and objectives, the leader’s identity becomes more.
Leader’s Identity vs. Authentic Leadership
The authentic leadership and the leader’s identity concepts share some similarities though they have some striking differences. To begin with, the two concepts embrace the fact that with an increased healthy leader-followers relationship, the set organizational goals and objectives are easily achieved. Besides, both concepts concur that once the set goals are achieved, both the leader and the follower benefits. In the identity concept, the leader gains more self-identity while in the authentic leadership, the leader and the followers gain more experience from the attainment of the objectives. Both concepts use transformational leadership theory. Finally, both concepts rely on previous experiences (Amanchukwu, Stanley & Ololube 2015).
Besides the similarities, the two concepts have striking differences that are used to differentiate the two. They include; the authentic leaders are less focused on the leadership power and position while in the leader and identity concept, the leaders are concerned about their leadership position and power. Secondly, the identity concept is more centered on the leader’s success and progress other than the follower’s success (Van, Velsor & McCauley, 2004). In the authentic leadership, the leader is more focused on using the experience he or she has to improve the relationship with the follower so that they can both make significant progress.
Conclusion
For an organization to attain its goals and objectives there must have a healthy leader-follower relationship. Attainment of organizational goals is of utmost importance not only to the organization but also to the leaders and the followers. The different leadership dynamics have advantages and disadvantages to the organization, followers, and the leaders themselves. The leadership dynamics can either be acquired during the leadership period, or they can have been acquired during past experiences, leader’s believes, and values. Authentic leaders always believe in their past experiences and the values and believe they hold on to. Self-identity is an important aspect of the leader’s success because it helps the leaders to unleash their unknown abilities and strengths.
References
Amanchukwu, R, Stanley, G & Ololube, N 2015, ‘A Review of Leadership Theories, Principles and Styles and Their Relevance to Educational Management,' Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 6 – 14.doi: 10.5923/j.mm.20150501.02
Bishop, W 2013, ‘Defining the Authenticity in Authentic Leadership,’ The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1 – 9.
Christy, V & Duraisamy, S 2016, ‘Authentic Leadership Style,' Intercontinental Journal of Human Resource Research Review, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 24 – 32.
Dimovski, V, et al. 2012, ‘Authentic Leadership to the Future,’ pp. 1 – 12. doi: 10.5937/skolbiz1201001D
Eubank, D & Brown, A 2012, ‘Leadership, Identity, and Ethics,' Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 1 – 3. doi 10.1007/s10551-012-1295-5
Ford, J 2006, ‘Discourses of Leadership: Gender, Identity, and Contradiction in a UK Public Sector Organization,' SAGE Publication, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 77 – 99. doi: 10.1177/1742715006060654
Greenwald 2007, ‘Leadership and Followership,' pp. 223 – 259.
Karp, T 2009, ‘Leadership as Identity Construction: The Act of Leading People in Organisations: A Perspective From the Complexity Sciences,’ Journal of Management Development, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 880 – 894. DOI: 10.1108/02621710911000659
Key-Roberts, M & Halpin, S 2012, ‘Leader Identity, Individual Differences, and Leader Self-development,’ U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, pp. 1 – 12.
Komives, R, Mainella, F, Longerbeam, S, Osteen, L & Owen, J 2006, ‘A leadership identity development model,' Journal of College Student Development, vol.47, no. 4, pp. 401-418. <https://search-proquestcom.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/195180277?accountid=13158>
Luthans F & Avolio B 2003, ‘Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach.’ In: K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (eds.): Positive organizational scholarship, San Francisco, Barrett-Koehle
Mango, E 2018, ‘Rethinking Leadership Theories,’ Open Journal of Leadership, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 57 – 88. doi: 10.4236/ojl.2018.71005
Sayani, A 2011, ‘Transformative Leadership and Identity,' JSTOR, vol. 409, pp. 70 – 86.
Shamir, B & Eliam, G 2005, ‘What’s your Story? QA Life-stories Approach to Authentic Leadership Development’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 16, pp. 395 – 417. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.005
Sharma, M & Jain, S 2013, ‘Leadership Management: Principles, Models and Theories,' Global Journal of Management and Business Studies, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 309 – 318.
Sinclair, A 2011, ‘Being leaders: Identities and Identity Work in Leadership,' The SAGE Handbook of Leadership.
Van, V & McCauley, C 2004, ‘Our View of Leadership Development.’ The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development, vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yasir, M, Qureshi, M, Rasli, A & Khan, H 2016, ‘Authentic Leadership Development Process,' Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences.
LEADERSHIP
AND FOLLOWERSHIP
Student
name
MNGT320
Rethinking Leadership
Professor David Collinson
Lancaster University Management School
The City and State where it is located
Date
LEADERSHIP
AND FOLLOWERSHIP
Leadership is the process of influencing
a group of people to achieve shared goals and objectives (Datta 2015). It
comprises of everything done by a leader that affects the employees and
organization’s well being, and the achievement of the set objectives. According
to Shamir and Eilam (2005), a leader is differentiated from a non-leader by the
use of use of leadership traits, leadership theories, and leadership styles. The
leadership theories are based on the leader’s situation or personality. They
include; great-man theory, contingency theory, trait theory, situational
theory, participative theory, skills theory, management theory,
transformational theory, and behavioral theory. A leader-follower relationship
is a sequence of exchange that is both materialistic and non-materialistic. From
this relationship, several leadership dynamics are adopted; authentic
leadership and followership, leadership identity, leadership and resistance,
and leadership and emotions (Datta 2015). While giving examples of real life
personal experience, this paper in details discusses the leadership dynamics in
relation to the various leadership theories.
Authentic Leadership
and Followership
I managed to complete my High school education
some years back. During High school, I closely interact with the school
principal who was termed to be strict when it came to student's behavior. I was
among the top performers in our class and as a consequence, he would guide and
motivate me using his personal life stories of how at one time he struggled in
life and how great his values helped him in thick and thin situations. These
motivations helped me understand him better and in a more diverse manner. I came
to realize that the same convictions and values he dearly held about life were
the same values that he was trying to inflict in students. He always wanted
that every student should follow and have the same convictions and values that
he had learned from his personal life experience.
Authentic means original, genuine,
or not fake. Authenticity is the act of owning one’s personal experience (Datta
2015). Thus, an authentic leader is one who does not fake his or her
leadership. This type of leaders neither pretend to be leaders just because of
their leadership position nor do they try to create a leader’s persona (Shamir
& Eilam 2005). Authentic leaders possess the following characteristic; they
do not accept leadership positions for honors, rewards, or status; instead,
they take on leadership from conviction. They take over the leadership because
they have a value-based mission that they want to accomplish (Christy &
Duraisamy 2015).
Secondly, authentic leaders are original. They
come up with the mission or cause not from imitation, preferably from their
interpretation of experience they have gained thus they hold their values to be
true (Shamir & Eilam 2005). However, the content of their convictions and values
may at times not be original because they are social beings who may be
influenced by societal norms and values, peer and parental socialization, role
models, and schooling. Regardless of the values and convictions originality,
they have made these values and norms personal through the reflection process, experienced
emotions, and lived experiences (Shamir & Eilam 2005).
Thirdly,
authentic leaders have a high level of self-concept clarity and resolution.
This attribute aids them in the provision of knowledge from the psychological
universe where self-image resides. This provides the leader with a framework
defining their existence, planning for future events, organizing experience,
and guiding social interactions (Shamir & Eilam 2005). Authentic leaders
are goal-motivated. Their goals represent their actual values, beliefs, and
passion. Finally, authentic leaders are leaders whose actions are based on
their convictions and values. After owning up the convictions and values, they
talk and act consistently with their beliefs. They are commonly not after
popularity, pleasing others, or because of any political interest. They are
believed to be of high integrity (Klenke, 2009).
Authentic leadership is a
transparent, genuine, ethical, and positive form of leadership (Yasir et al.
2016). It is a leadership style that promotes and draws upon moral and positive
psychological capacities, foster self-awareness, rational transparency, and
balanced information processing (Yasir et al. 2016). It is acknowledged as a
positive organization leadership development that aids in meeting contemporary
challenges. Authentic leadership does not only refer to the leader's attributes
but also the follower's traits. This is because leadership is always a
relationship between the leader and the follower(s).
Authentic followership refers to
followers who follow the leader for authentic reasons. They share the same
values, convictions and beliefs as the leader not because of normative,
coercion, or reward expectation but because of the leader’s definition of the
situation (Yasir et al. 2016). Authentic followers do not follow the leaders
because of the leader’s delusions or illusions, but instead, they independently
judge the leaders and the leader's actions. They are never interested in the
false safety provided by the leader’s illusions. They judge leaders based on
their convictions and values rather than their power, influence, benefits, or
status. The follower’s authentication of a leader reinforces the leader’s
authenticity (Shamir & Eliam, 2005). Yasir et al. (2016) state that authentic
followership is developed through modeling of authentic leadership.
The transformational theory focuses
on the relationship between leaders and followers (Greenwald 2007). Concerning
this theory, leadership is the process where the leader engages with others,
the followers, creates a connection with them resulting in motivation and
morality between the leaders and the followers. The transformational theory
aids the leader to motivate, and inspire people by helping the followers see
the benefits of the tasks they are undertaking (Amanchukwu, Stanley &
Ololube 20156). This theory perfectly suits the authentic leadership and
followership. This is because they are both creates a connection between the
leaders and the followers. For the authentic leadership, the leader establishes
the relationship with the followers through their decisive and transparent
leadership thus enabling the followers to be in a position to conduct their
roles in a peaceful and healthy environment (Amanchukwu, Stanley & Ololube
2015). Through the follower's judgment, they can know how the leader wants the
tasks to be performed.
Leadership and
Resistance
When I completed my high school
education, I managed to be employed in one of the restaurants as a cashier. As
a result of the continued technological advancement in the organization, the
restaurant top management decided to conduct a major reshuffle in the
restaurant’s supervision team. As a consequence, one of the cashier supervisors
was shifted from the cashiering department to the store department which was
involved in receiving goods that were being delivered, keeping records, and
issuing of the goods to the staff as they were recording. This shift did not
sound good for the leader and as a result, he denied the shift and claimed that
he was the best choice for the cashiering department in the restaurant
regardless of whether he was an information technology guru or not. The
cashiering department was the department that most of the employees wished to
work because of the privileges and flexibility of the shifts. He believed that
once he shifts to the store department, his influence in the restaurant could
greatly reduce. After several unfruitful attempts of the supervisor to
influence the managerial team to let him retain his position, he gave up and
decided to heed to the changes. Two months later, the supervisor voluntarily
resigned claiming that he had minimal impact to the restaurant in the stores
department.
Traditionally,
resistance was viewed as an oppositional or asymmetric influence locking it
into activities of the followers as opposed to the leaders. Purposeful
resistance leadership is a new theory where mid-level leaders in an
organization resist organizational changes so that they can retain their
position of power in the organization (Prindle 2012). Power is the potential or capability to
influence. The basic principles of purposeful resistance leadership are derived
from the contingency theory of leadership, a style approach, and psychodynamic
approach to leadership. The psychodynamic approach presumes that the leaders
are not conscious of the organizational consequences of their behaviors
(Carroll & Nicholson 2014). On the other hand, the style approach emphasizes
that a leader’s behavior focuses on what the leader does rather than who the
leader is. The contingency theory suggests that situations can be characterized
by assessing position power (Carroll & Nicholson 2014).
According to Zoller and Fairhurst
(2009), states that resistance is socially created in situ and that it has a
dialectical relationship with power as opposed to a binary relation. This
dialectical approach can be used to curb tendencies to either go too far in
either dismissing or celebrating the significance of organizational resistance.
The complexity of events and the rapid changes in the technological industry,
organizations are under pressure to change both the external and the internal
environments of the organization (Yilmaz & Kilicoglu, 2013). The validity of the internal and external
forces varies according to the organization’s industry. In the education
sector, the internal and external forces are equally valid (Yilmaz &
Kilicoglu 2013). The external factors affecting an organization do not come
from within the organization. They include; laws and regulations by the
government, demographic characteristics, social and political factors, and
market globalization. The internal factors originate from inside the
organization, and they include; administrative structure, technology, tasks,
and human resource. Both the internal and external factors are related to
speed, direction, and outcomes of change in the organization. With such
changing elements, there needs to be a once in a while leadership change so that
it can accommodate the changes in the organization's environment (Carroll &
Nicholson 2014).
Secondly,
individuals in an organization implement or break proposed changes due to
representing some form of influence regardless of how successful or administratively
perfect the change could be. People perceive they change differently according
to how they see change. Some may consider the changes with low tolerance, they
embrace the change and move it while others fight the change, and they deny its
necessity (Yilmaz & Kilicoglu 2013). Resistance to change can either be due
to; fear to move from the known to the unknown, and loss of something valuable.
Resistance to change can lead to deliberate sabotage or passive resignation (Yilmaz
& Kilicoglu 2013). Some leaders may feel that the proposed changes will not
work, they are ill-timed, or they will cause more harm than good to the
organization. These intellectual differences are common as a result that the
feelings are violating their values. The common causes of resistance include;
need fulfillment interferences, loss of freedom, inconveniences, change of
habits, selective perception, economic implications, threats to influence or
power, fear of the unknown, obsolescence of skills, and organizational structure
(Prindle 2012).
Contingency
theory focuses on particular variables related to the organization's
environment that will determine the best leadership style that suits the
business at the moment. No leadership style is appropriate for all situations.
Each situation varies from the other thus requires a different leadership style
(Amanchukwu, Stanley & Ololube 2015). The success of the business is
determined by the features of the situation, the quality of the followers, and
the leadership style used (Peretomode 2012). The contingency theory states that
leadership success is determined by the degree of fit between the leader and
the leadership style, and the demand by a specific situation (Vidal et al.
2017). Leadership resistance and the contingency theory both use the current
situation in determining the course of action to take (Amanchukwu, Stanley
& Ololube 2015). For leadership resistance, change is advocated in cases
where there are changes in the organization's internal and external
environments. The aim is usually bringing in the best administrative leaders
who will help the business o0vercome or adjust to fit in the current changes
(Peretomode 2012). For instance, in case there is technological advancement in
the internal environment, the company is compelled to bring in a competent I.T
leader. Such a change may affect other leaders who may then feel that the
change is of no much benefit to the organization thus was unnecessary and
ill-planned (Vidal et al. 2017). This will, in turn, lead to leadership
resistance. A similar scenario applies to the contingency theory where there is
no permanent leadership style to be used because different techniques are
suitable for different situations (Peretomode 2012).
Though
the purposeful resistance leadership does not have clearly defined assumptions,
the following assumptions are evident; some mid-level managers are not willing
to relinquish power during changes, some of the mid-level managers tend to mask
the expression of their true feelings, fearing to jeopardize their position and
power during change events (Prindle 2012). Besides, some of the leaders are
deeply ingrained in the thirst for status and power, and it becomes difficult
or even impossible to change them. Finally, managers using passive management
by exception model, traditionally resist change (Prindle 2012).
Comparison Between Authentic and
Resistance Leadership
Both
the authentic and resistance leaderships have striking differences. Authentic
leadership is commonly based on the leader-follower relationship as opposed to
the resistance leadership where the leader is the dominant player (Vidal et al.
2017). The authentic leadership usually uses the transformational leadership
theory while the resistance leadership uses the contingency leadership theory. The
resistance leadership, the leader, is more concerned with the loss of power and
control while in the authentic leadership, the leader is not interested in
power or authority, but instead, they are interested in the attainment of the
organization's goals and objectives (Peretomode 2012, p. 16). The authentic
leadership utilizes the experience gained in attaining the organization’s
objectives while the resistance leadership relies more on the position and
power in ensuring that organizational goals are met. In the resistance
leadership, a manager is termed as a leader who is not the case in authentic
leadership. In the authentic leadership, the leader uses values and convictions
that they believe in while in resistance leadership, the leader rarely has
values and convictions that they use while leading (Peretomode 2012). Authentic
leaders do not mask their feelings from their bosses because they do not fear
to lose their leadership power and position. For the resistance leadership,
they tend to mask their emotions from their bosses in the aim of trying to
please them so that they can retain their position and power during change
events. Finally, as opposed to resistance leadership, authentic leaders use a
decisive and transparent leadership that enables the employees to have a healthy
working environment (Shamir & Eliam, 2005).
Conclusion
In
conclusion, in an organization, the leader-follower relationship is of
paramount importance in the attainment of organizational goals and objectives. Leadership
failure begets the employees to be disengaged thus deteriorating the
organization’s effectiveness. Authentic leaders maintain cohesion and trust in
an organization as they build on a positive and rewarding relationship with the
followers. On the other hand, leadership resistance is as a result of the fear
of losing power and control associated with the switching of leadership
positions.
References
Amanchukwu,
R, Stanley, G & Ololube, N 2015, ‘A
Review of Leadership Theories, Principles and Styles and Their Relevance to
Educational Management’, Management,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 6 – 14.doi: 10.5923/j.mm.20150501.02
Besen,
F, Techio, E & Fialho, F 2017, ‘Authentic Leadership and Knowledge
Management’, Gest. Prod., vol. 24,
no. 1, pp. 2 – 14. doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X898-13
Carroll,
B, Nicholson, H 2014, ‘Resistance and
Struggle in Leadership Development’, The
Human Relations, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 1413 – 1436. doi:
10.1177/0018726714521644
Christy,
V & Duraisamy, S 2016, ‘Authentic
Leadership Style’, Intercontinental Journal of Human Resource Research
Review, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 24 –
32.
Datta, B 2015, ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of
Authentic Leadership’, International
Journal of Leadership Studies, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 62 – 76.
Greenwald 2007, ‘Leadership and Followership’, pp.
223 – 259.
Klenke,
K 2007, ‘Authentic Leadership: A Self, Leader, and Spiritual Identity
Perspective’, International Journal of
Leadership Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 68 – 97. ISSN 1554-3145
Peretomote, O 2012, ‘Situational and Contingency
Theories Of Leadership: Are They The Same?’, IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 13 – 17.
Prindle, R 2012, ‘Purposeful Resistance Leadership
Theory’, International Journal of
Business and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 15, pp. 9 – 12.
Shamir, B & Eliam, G 2005, ‘What’s your Story?
QA Life-stories Approach to Authentic Leadership Development’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 16, pp.
395 – 417. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.005
Vidal, G, Campdesuner, R, Rodrigues, A & Vivar,
R 2017, ‘Contingency theory to study leadership styles of small businesses
owner-managers at Santo Domingo, Ecuador’, International
Journal of Engineering Business Management, vol.9, no.2, pp. 1 – 11. doi: 10.1177/1847979017743172
Yasir, M, Qureshi, M, Rasli, A & Khan, H 2016,
‘Authentic Leadership Development Process’, Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences.
Yilmaz, D & Kilicoglu, G 2013, ‘Resistance to
change and ways of reducing resistance in educational organizations’, European Journal of Research on Education by
IASSR, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 14 – 21. < http://iassr2.org/rs/010103.pdf>
Zoller, H & Fairhurst, G 2009, ‘Resistance
Leadership: The Overlooked Potential in Critical Organization and Leadership
Studies’, SAGE Journal, vol.60, no.
9, pp. 1331 – 1360. doi: 10.1177/0018726707082850
No comments:
Post a Comment