It should be noted that the effectiveness of management depends not only on the individual qualities of a person but also on the way these characteristics meet the roles that a leader has to perform in the company. Moreover, it is the task of leadership to achieve such synergy in which personal achievements are less important than meeting the corporate objectives. The purpose of this paper is to analyze two different leaders and their approaches to management and to evaluate their effectiveness.
The two chosen leaders are Mr. S. A. and Mr. J. J. Their names are omitted due to ethical reasons. The first person is a CEO in an enterprise and the second individual is an executive manager. I used to work in the department unit under the supervision of Mr. J. J. for three months and then had to quit. It should be stressed that under the supervision of Mr. S. A. I was able to shift from part-time to full-time work and he enabled me to understand and utilize my strongest skills and potential. However, when being a follower of Mr. J. J., I could not execute autonomy and exercise my expertise and had to comply with the work guidelines that were similar to all the employees. Due to these reasons, I had to quit the job to be able to progress in my career.
These two managers were chosen to reflect on the differences in their leadership styles and to evaluate the way their approaches have impacted both staff and company performance. It should be noted that Mr. S. A. used to employ different styles to align those with the current employees’ needs. He changed his methods and set different objectives by the situation. It implies that he was flexible and could adapt to the team’s requirement to boost employee motivation and encourage them to meet corporate goals. Importantly, Mr. S. A. interchanged his leadership style from pacesetting to affiliative to ensure the employees could be rather autonomous and did not require strict coordination and he also utilized his authority so that the team did not lose motivation (Goleman, 2000). Moreover, he applied the referent power skilfully to display the way particular business practices or methods could be employed based on his individual experience. Mr. J. J., in his turn, was a coercive leader most of the time, which implied rigidity in managing the team and resulted in the fact that employees were alienated from its leader.
Consistency with Contingency Theory
It can be stated that Mr. S. A. applied the contingency approach to managing staff while Mr. J. J. did not as preferred sticking to fixed leadership methods (Goleman, 2000). According to Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, and Morris (2006), effective leadership establishes a respectful and inclusive environment and aims to engage all the employees in decision-making. Mr. S. A. did have a particular interest in the employees and utilized various stimuli to enhance their dedication and as an additional source of encouragement. Meanwhile, the second manager resorted to coercive power solely. This style enabled him to achieve company goals rapidly through strict subordination, a delegation of tasks, and subsequent measures based on employee performance. Nevertheless, the company was constantly experiencing high workforce turnover, professional burnout, and low levels of worker commitment. In comparison to Mr. J. J’s leadership style, Mr. S. A. did apply the concept of contingency and empowered the employees to contribute to the decision-making based on the setting (O’Connell, 2016). In this approach, all the staff members were active participants, which led to greater loyalty, employee satisfaction, and motivation (Bjugstad et al., 2006). Therefore, it can be stated that two approaches enabled reaching corporate objectives differently.
Both Mr. S. A. and Mr. J. J. were effective in terms of achieving corporate goals. Nevertheless, the first leader reached higher efficiency through enhanced human relations. He always placed the focus either on the task or the relationships based on the current moods and needs while the second leader was always task-oriented. In the first case, the outcomes were obtained slower but the team felt dedicated and was encouraged to apply themselves to reach company goals (Coleman, Gulati, & Segovia, 2012). In the second case, the results were attained faster but the levels of stress among employees were high. Therefore, it can be concluded that the contingency approach to leadership enabled one of the leaders to adapt to current employee needs, to reflect on the circumstances, and to choose an adequate course of action while the other manager did not allow the unit to participate in the elaboration of important decisions and was indifferent to the actual environment.
Interestingly enough, both managers were able to encourage effective followership; however, the reasons and consequences of their approaches were different. Mr. S. A. empowered the team, gave each employee credit, and encouraged them to execute self-management practices (O’Connell, 2016). Whereas Mr. J. J. applied rigid authority and coercion so that the employees knew what consequences would follow in the case of incompliance (Goleman, 2000). Thus, both leaders ensured successful followership; nonetheless, in one instance, the outcome of it was employee motivation and loyalty, and in another instance, it was high staff turnover.
Successful management can become a significant competitive advantage in the business environment. A skillful leader should be able to form a team from detached employees, using the strengths of each of them, and to motivate them to increase productivity. The adequate management of people based on the current business setting and employee needs can bring positive results, which will be revealed in low employee turnover and high company performance due to staff commitment.
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 7(3), 304–319.
Coleman, J., Gulati, D., & Segovia, W. O. (2012). Passion and purpose: Stories from the best and brightest young business leaders. Web.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.
O’Connell, D. (2016). Leadership styles and improved governance outcomes. Governance Directions, 38(4), 202-206.