Reflection Week 4 (Leadership Behaviour)
The fourth class of Dynamics of Leadership was started on Tuesday, 16th April 2024 with a topic of ‘Leadership Behaviour’. The introduction for this topic made me so exciting with the sharing You Tube video from Prof Jamilah about ‘What is the good behaviour shown by this leader?’. The video shows the coach as a leader to train his team to be don’t give up and the word of encouragement from the coach/leader inspires the victory to the team. Even we can see, from the early of the process to success, the team looks like not confident with their one of the team members that have to carry 149 pounds of other teammates at the back of him. The coach shown good behaviour such as positive mind set, supportive, strong courage to the team, motivate the team and strategic thinker.
 |
 |
Source From Youtube: Never Give up, don’t quit
Prof Jamilah
starts with Leadership styles number one is University of Iowa, Leadership style (1930s). University of Iowa
Studies was the first leadership study to analyse leadership using scientific
methodology. The study was conducted by Lewin, Lippitt, and White and worked on
different styles of leadership. The studies explored three leadership styles -
authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-fair leaders. Below diagram shown Kurt
Lewin Leadership Styles that I cited from https://www.leadershipahoy.com/behavioral-leadership-theory-explained-by-a-ceo/ .
Kurt Lewin Leadership Styles: is
University of Iowa, Leadership style
Authoritarian Leaders: Authoritarian leaders provided clear expectations for what needed
to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done.
Democratic Leaders: Democratic leaders offered guidance to group members, but they
also participated in the group and allowed input from other group members.
Laissez-fair leaders: Laissez-fair leaders offered little or no guidance to group
members and left decision-making up to group members.
The observations
and results of the study found that nineteen out of twenty boys like the
democratic leadership style. That kind of a leader never tried to boss over
them, yet they had plenty, to do. The only boy who liked the authoritarian
style of leadership happened to be the son of an army officer. It was also
observed that seven out of ten boys preferred the laissez-faire leader to the
autocratic one as they preferred confusion and disorder to strictness and
rigidity present in the autocratic style. Boys under the latter style exhibited
more of aggressive, hostile and indifferent behaviour as compared to their
counterparts under other styles of leadership. They either showed hostility or
cracked jokes about hostility towards others. Others belonging to the
democratic style of leadership showed less aggressive and more indifferent
behaviour when brought under the autocratic style of a leader. Even under the
laissez-faire style of the leader, boys committed more aggressive acts than the
ones under the democratic style [10].
The authoritarian leader of the group was very directive. He did not allow any
participation. He was concerned about the task and told the followers what to
do and how to do it. He was friendly while praising the performance of the
individual member and was impersonal while criticizing the individual member.
Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little
time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable
member of the group.
The laissez-faire leader of the third group gave complete freedom to the group and
did not provide any leadership. He did not establish any policies or procedures
to do the task. Each member was let alone. No one attempted to influence the
other. Laissez-fair leadership was the least effective of all three. In
addition, the member of their groups made more demands on them, showed little
cooperation, and the group members were unable to work independently. Delegative
leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making
up to group members. While this style can be effective in situations where
group members are highly qualified in an area of expertise, it often leads to
poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.
For democratic leadership in this group,
the democratic leader encouraged discussion with the group and allowed
participation in making decisions. He shared his leadership responsibilities
with his followers and involved them in the planning and execution of the task.
Participative leaders encourage group members to participate, but retain the
final say over the decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the
process and are more motivated and creative. The results of these studies found
under democratic leadership less work was performed than authoritarian group,
but much higher quality was achieved. In
addition, decision making was less creative under authoritarian leadership then
under democratic leadership. The researchers concluded that democratic
leadership was the most effective form. From my point of view, I like the way
of democratic leadership because we know the direction and we work together to
achieve the direction. Work together means we free to make a discussion along
with team member and from the discussion, we created positive environment on
brainstorming the ideas and create a critical thinking and problem solving.
But, yes to achieve the goals must have a timeline and it takes time. Compared
with autocratic leadership that need urgency result and fast action.
We go for the
next leadership styles, and below is the diagram of ‘The University of Michingan, Leadership Model’.
The Michigan University leadership studies of the 1950s used surveys and
interviews to identify behaviours common for the most effective leaders. The
approach involved behavioural leadership theory only, discounting the situation
of the leaders or whether they varied their behaviour over time. The Michigan
University Leadership studies found two categories of leadership behaviours:
job-oriented and employee-oriented leadership behaviours. The Michigan
Leadership Studies emphasized that both employee-oriented and job-oriented
leaders could be good and deliver excellent performance. The Michigan studies
also added a team element to their research, which was a bit of a novelty in
leadership research at the time [11]. As with most behavioural leadership
approaches, the Michigan leadership studies suggest that these two leadership
behaviours are mutually exclusive, and a single leader cannot display both
types of behaviours. Thus, leaders are either employee-oriented or
job-oriented/production-oriented. Later additions concluded that the two
leadership styles did not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, the final
conclusion was that employee-oriented leaders who also emphasized performance
showed the best production levels in the end. From my point of view, to be
effective, leaders must simultaneously balance the stability required for
execution with the change required for innovation. Leaders must balance the
need for internal collaboration and community with external performance
pressures from outside the team.
The end conclusion was that employee-oriented leaders who also emphasized
performance showed the best production levels after all. Eventually, the
findings were summarized as a four-cell table with different behaviour
combinations in each cell, thus enabling different combinations of
employee-orientation and job-orientation. This is very similar to the
conclusion of the Ohio State Leadership Studies, where their versions of
job-orientation (initiating structure behaviour is similar) and
employee-orientation (consideration behaviour in the Ohio case).
The other leadership style is ‘The Ohio State University Leadership Model’. The Ohio State Leadership Studies also called The Ohio State Model of Leader Behaviour is a behavioural leadership theory that explains how leaders’ behaviour affects the group’s performance and achievement of desired goals. This leadership theory ignores the concepts of trait leadership theory that says great leaders are born not made. But it states leaders’ effectiveness depends upon their behaviour, and through learning and practicing anyone can be a great leader [12].
Below is the diagram for my better understanding in leadership style of ‘The Ohio State University Leadership Model’.
Next leadership style as lecture by Prof Jamilah is Blake, Mouton and McCanse leadership style. Blake, Mouton, and McCanse are known for developing the managerial grid model, which identifies five different leadership styles based on two dimensions - concern for people and concern for production. The five leadership styles are:
1. Country Club Management (1,9) - High concern for people, low concern for production
2. Team Management (9,9) - High concern for both people and production
3. Middle-of-the-Road Management (5,5) - Balanced concern for both people and production
4. Impoverished Management (1,1) - Low concern for both people and production
5. Authority-Compliance Management (9,1) - High concern for production, low concern for people
Blake, Mouton and McCanse leadership style
In summary, the
Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid provides a visual representation of these
leadership styles, allowing leaders to assess their behaviour and adapt
accordingly. Team Management, with its balanced approach, is often
considered the ideal style for modern business leadership.
After Prof
Jamilah finished discussing this leadership style, one of the topics on
‘Motivation’, Prof Jamilah asked us to watch the video in e-learning. Before
end the lecture, Prof Jamilah discussed with the class about what is the
best leadership style to apply within the crisis time or in conflict?
The answer is University of Iowa,
Leadership style, where this
leadership style consists 3 areas, which are autocratic, democratic and
laissez-fair.
Prof Jamilah then invited for Group 1 presentation with the topic ‘Leadership Behaviour and Motivation’. Group 1 presented by Mohammed Mustafa Hussein, Bavatarani, Cao Zhaizhaokang, Chua Pei Yee and Foo Yang. Overall, for first presentation is quite good and I enjoyed their presentation with a good leadership style showed by Mr Mohammed Mustafa. The team accomplished the mission so well. We are the divide into a breakout session to evaluate the group presentation. Last but not least, Prof Jamilah ended with an advice, ‘In the world you can be anything, be kind, in life always remember, what you give, you get back'.
Comments
Post a Comment