Leadership Models: Problem Solving Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Leadership Models
Conclusion
References

Introduction

One of the most effective ways of solving problems in organizations or institutions is to employ effective leadership. Several leadership models have been developed to help leaders to solve organizational challenges. However, each leadership model has its merits and demerits. This means that the right model has to be chosen to address challenges effectively. In this paper, three leadership models will be analyzed. The analysis aims to identify the model that can be used to turn around a training department that has failed to improve employee performance.

Leadership Models

Managerial Grid Model

The managerial grid model is based on the premise that effective leadership is determined by two behavioral dimensions namely, concern for people and concern for results (Koc, Kiliclar, & Yazicioglu, 2013). Leaders usually combine the two dimensions in different proportions. This leads to four types of leaders. These include team leader, impoverished, country club, and authoritarian leader.

Team leaders are strong on tasks and people skills. They lead by example and create a work environment that allows every team member to achieve his or her highest potential. Team leaders focus on improving both results and relationships to ensure long-term success (Solansky, 2008). In this respect, the managerial grid model is likely to create a highly cohesive team in a training department. The resulting improvement in teamwork is likely to facilitate the sharing of resources and knowledge to enhance employee performance. Employee satisfaction and motivation are also likely to improve, thereby enhancing performance.

Authoritarian leaders are often strong on tasks but lack people skills. They focus on achieving results rather than collaborations. This limits their followers’ ability to participate in decision-making processes. Authoritarian leadership can improve performance by instilling discipline in the department (Lussier, 2011). However, high performance will be short-lived because employees are likely to experience high levels of dissatisfaction. Conflict within the department is also likely to increase.

Country club leaders use rewards to ensure discipline and high performance. However, they are often incapable of using coercive or legitimate power to punish underperformance. A country club leader is likely to improve employee satisfaction and harmony in the training department (Lussier, 2011). Nonetheless, performance will hardly improve because employees know that they will not be punished for poor performance.

An impoverished leader shows little or no commitment by delegating too much responsibility to team members (Lussier, 2011). This means that performance will not improve because employees will engage in power struggles to gain control over the department. The resulting increase in dissatisfaction will worsen performance.

Overall, the managerial grid model can only be effective if the department is led by a team leader. Although team leaders show high commitment, as well as, ability to motivate and empower employees, they might not be able to adapt to external forces. Low performance will still be reported if the team leader is not able to create change to enable employees to adapt to the situations that limit their ability to excel.

Four Framework Model

This model shows that individuals demonstrate leadership behaviors in terms of one of four major frameworks (Talloo, 2007). These are structural, human resources, symbolic, and political frameworks. The suitability of these leadership frameworks depends on the situation to be addressed.

In the structural framework, the leader is viewed as a social architect who analyzes a situation and designs an effective solution. This means that the leader will be expected to analyze the structure, objectives, roles, and technology that the training department needs to improve employee performance. Excellence is likely to be achieved if the leader can design appropriate strategies to address the causes of underperformance (Chen, 2006). The weakness of this framework is that the leader might not have the skills to analyze and design the right strategy. Moreover, failure to align a new strategy to organizational structure can lead to failure.

The human resources framework emphasizes the importance of understanding employees and building relationships. It allows the leader to determine the fit between an employee and the organization. The performance of the department is likely to improve if the leader is able to identify the weaknesses of employees and implement appropriate development programs to enhance goal achievement (Galanou, 2010). The weakness of this framework is that addressing employees’ needs alone is not enough to ensure high performance. The leader might focus too much on building relationships rather than using legitimate power to punish underperformance.

In a symbolic framework, effectiveness is achieved through the culture, symbols, and rituals of an organization. This means that the leader will have to use organizational culture to inspire employees in the training department to improve their performance. Failure is likely to arise if the organizational culture does not support excellence (Thrash, 2012). Creating a new culture within the department can also be difficult due to resistance.

The political framework emphasizes power and competition for scarce resources. In this case, high performance is achieved through negotiations, coalitions, compromise, and coercion. This can lead to innovation and high performance if employees use their diverse skills, values, and interests to pursue a common goal (Northouse, 2010). Conversely, it can lead to failure since competition often leads to conflicts.

Situational Leadership Model

The most important aspects of situational leadership are supervision and arousal. Leaders achieve the desired level of performance by providing the right level of supervision and arousal (McKimm & Phillips, 2009). Effective supervision improves communication, creativity, and self-motivation among employees. Arousal is the emotional support that stimulates employees to embrace change.

Situational leadership involves using four steps to improve employee performance. The first step involves providing a lot of direction or supervision to enable an underperforming employee to understand the expected performance level (Winkler, 2010). The employee also receives limited support to avoid instruction overload. The second step focuses on coaching the employee to learn the skills that are needed for success. In the third step, supervision is reduced so that the employee can learn to be self-reliant. The fourth step focuses on the delegation of responsibilities. The employee is expected to have adequate skills and motivation at this stage. Thus, supervision and support are provided based on performance needs.

A situational leader should be able to analyze a situation to determine the causes of underperformance. The leader should also be able to adapt his behavior to the situation to address it successfully. Effective communication is also required to ensure seamless interaction between the leader and followers (Winkler, 2010). In this context, situational leadership is likely to improve the performance of the training department by enabling the leader to formulate and implement the right strategy.

The main challenge in using the situational leadership model is that determining the right level of supervision and arousal is often difficult since the leader must have adequate knowledge about each employee’s ability. Knowing employees can be difficult in a large organization. However, a training department is not likely to be very large. This means that the leader is likely to have adequate knowledge about each employee’s ability.

Effective Model

Situational leadership is the most effective model. Thus, it should be used to respond to poor performance in the training department. One of the reasons that make the model suitable is its directive and flexible nature. The model is effective because it tells the leader what to do in various situations. Poor performance is often caused by internal and external factors that cause a negative change in organizations (Lussier, 2011). Situational leadership allows leaders to respond quickly to any change that is likely to cause failures. The four stages of the model facilitate adaptation to change through the use of appropriate levels of direction and support. For instance, hiring new employees might cause failure in the department if recruits lack adequate skills. In this case, recruits would require more direction than motivation at the early stages of their careers to succeed.

Situational leadership also promotes high performance because it recognizes and values diversity within a team. Members of the training department are likely to have different cultures, values, and socio-economic backgrounds that are likely to cause conflicts and poor performance (Chen, 2006). Situational leaders view diversity as an asset that strengthens the team rather than a problem. The performance of the department will improve as the leader promotes harmony and addresses the weaknesses of each employee.

Another factor that makes situational leadership effective is that it requires the leader to be involved in all aspects of every process. This requirement implies that the leader of the department will be expected to participate in training activities. This will allow him to obtain accurate information concerning the challenges that prevent employees from achieving their performance targets (Talloo, 2007). As a result, the leader will be able to develop the most appropriate strategy to improve performance.

The model will allow the department to sustain high performance in the long-term because of its circumstantial nature. The model requires leaders to monitor the internal and external environment of their organizations constantly in order to adapt their behaviors to new performance requirements (Northouse, 2010). The leader must reframe his actions whenever the relationship between the employee and his or her task changes. This involves providing employees with the right support and inspiration to adapt to internal and external changes.

Arousal is an important element of the model that will promote high performance. Employees are likely to be self-motivated if they are led by a situational leader who understands and helps them to achieve their goals. Self-motivation promotes creativity and innovation. This will improve performance in the department.

Conclusion

Organizations can use different leadership models to respond to various challenges. These include situational leadership, four framework, and the managerial grid model. The situational leadership model is appropriate for responding to poor performance in the training department. The model promotes high performance by allowing a leader to use appropriate levels of supervision and arousal to create positive change. It also promotes collaboration between a leader and his or her followers. The resulting improvement in teamwork is likely to ensure high performance in the training department.

References

Chen, S. (2006). Leadership styles and organization structural configurations. Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning 1(2), 1-10.

Galanou, E. (2010). The impact of leadership styles on four variables of executive workforce. International Journal of Business and Management 5(6), 1-13.

Koc, H., Kiliclar, A., & Yazicioglu, I. (2013). The analyzing leadership styles of Turkish managers in the scope of the Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid. International Journal of Business and Social Science 4(11), 1-15.

Lussier, R. (2011). Management fundamentals. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McKimm, J., & Phillips, K. (2009). Leadership and management in integrated services. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. London, England: Sage.

Solansky, S. (2008). Leadership style and team processes in self-managed teams. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 14(4), 332-341.

Talloo, T. (2007). Business organization and management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thrash, A. (2012). Leadership in higher education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 2(13), 5-15.

Winkler, I. (2010). Contemporary leadership theories. New York, NY: Springer.

Click Here To Order Now!