Change in Leadership

By Deepika Rana
 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Introduction

• Change in leadership

• Leadership in organizations

o Levels of leaders in organisations today

o Leadership personality development for modern managers

o Leadership development by Covey

• Conclusion

Deepika Rana Page 2

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

Introduction
Leadership is a subject which includes a great deal about changing people's minds,
often in fundamental ways. Just think about some of the great leaders of the world
and the impact they have had on the lives of other people.

There are things that leaders do that make them successful. Leadership actions are
different from styles in that actions are individual and specific, whilst styles are
overall approaches. Both are based on a combination of
their beliefs, values and preferences, as well as the organizational culture and norms
which will encourage some styles and discourage others.

The nature of leadership can perhaps be best understood by turning the coin over
and studying followership. Why do people follow leaders? If we can understand this,
then we will be a long way down the road to creating those followers and hence
becoming an effective leader.

People don't just follow anyone. You can't just say 'follow me' and expect people to
follow out of the goodness of their hearts. You have to give them good reason for
them to follow.

Leaders who want to create true followers do not just stand at the front of the army,
yell 'charge' and then run forward. They may be surprised if they do that the army is
still standing where they stood. And yet many would-be leaders do just this. They
think they can be leaders just by telling people to follow them. And then they are
surprised when people do not.

Followers respond

Followers are seldom blind. They are human, and pay attention to what their leaders
say and do. And then they respond with at least some degree of intelligence.

Gossip

If the leader does something that concerns them, then they will voice these concerns
to one another long before letting the leader know. The first sign for the leader that

Deepika Rana Page 3

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

all is not well in the camp is often the sound of the tom-tom drums as followers signal
their anxieties to one another.

Pack response

There may well be some level of pack response from followers. That is, there may
not seem to be any particular leader, but they all seem to move at around the same
time. If the leader does not hear the gossip, then they should most definitely notice
changes in behaviour.

Leaders adjust

If leaders do not do anything about the situation, then followers, who are volunteers,
remember, will abandon in droves. Just as they will follow as a pack, they will also
leave in the same concerted manner.

Noticing

At some point in the proceedings, the leader notices that followers are not as inclined
to follow as they once were. They hear the gossip drums and the creaking of the
overactive grapevine. They spot subtle (or not so subtle) changes in behaviour.

Diagnosing

When the shift in follower behaviour is noticed, the next step is to figure out why, and
particularly to know whether and how to connect this to the leader's own words or
actions, or at least to external events that have shifted the playing field.

Adjusting

When you know where it is going and why it happened, then you can do something
about it. So leaders adjust what they are saying and doing to hopefully bring the ship
back onto an even keel.

The dance continues

And so the band plays on.

Deepika Rana Page 4

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

It is a closed system, with followers responding to leaders, who themselves adjust in

response to this. Leadership and followership is thus an ongoing dance, a dynamic
interplay in which each closely monitors the other and responds accordingly.

Deepika Rana Page 5

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

Change in Leadership
Conventional Leadership Leadership Re-invented

Leaders in business lead AND Leadership = promoting new directions.

manage.
Management = getting things done.
There is no sharp distinction
All employees can promote new directions.
between leadership and management.
Leadership can be shown bottom-up or
They occupy positions of authority.
sideways to people who don't report to you.
Leadership is a formal role.
Leadership has nothing to do with managing
They make strategic decisions. people - that's management.

They are good at managing people.
They have emotional intelligence.
They sell the tickets for a new journey
AND take the group to the destination.
Leaders don't make decisions. The ACT
of leadership is one of pure informal
influence.
Leaders sell the tickets for the journey;
Managers drive the bus to the destination.

The Changing Meaning of Leadership

• Leadership has always been based on power. For the conventional view, this
means the power of personality to dominate a group.

• But in our knowledge driven world, business is a war of ideas where the power to
innovate and promote new products is the new basis of leadership.

• Anyone with critical knowledge that could alter business direction can. This
is thought leadership.

• It can be shown by front line employees who don't manage anyone.

• It can be bottom-up as well as top-down. It can even come from outside. It can be
shown between organizations too as in market leadership.

• Only management is a formal role.

Deepika Rana Page 6

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

• Leadership re-invented is an occasional ACT, like creativity, not a role or position.

• Those at the top sometimes lead, sometimes just manage. Other times they
operate as venture capitalists investing in the best ideas (leadership) emerging
from below.

• Leadership is based on youthful rebelliousness, the drive of young people to

challenge the status quo and find a better way.

• Bottom-up or thought leadership is more like the actions of Martin Luther King Jr.
than business leadership. His demonstrations had a leadership impact on policy
makers in the U.S. government and, of course, they did not report to him.

This shows that leadership is really just about taking a stand for what you believe
and trying to convince people to think and act differently.

Conventional theories paint a distorted picture of leadership by focusing narrowly on

people in positions of power. These theories are in crisis today because they face an
unpalatable dilemma: either they have to say that CEOs no longer lead or they have
to change the meaning of leadership. The latter option states that leadership now
means being a facilitator, like the level 5 leaders of Jim Collins who grill top people
with questions designed to elicit ideas for new directions from them. This option
preserves the idea that CEOs are leaders. Another option is to retain the older notion
that leaders promote new directions but to say that CEOs no longer have a
monopoly on leadership. By saying that leadership means promoting new directions,
such as new products and services, we open the door to everyone being able to
show leadership. This means that CEOs manage as much as lead. But to make
sense of this move, we need to upgrade management, to make it a more positive
concept. At present, management is cast in a negative light. Explore these pages to
learn more about how and why our understanding of leadership needs to change.

The Level 5 Leadership idea developed by Jim Collins is the greatest irony in
modern thinking about leadership. Recognizing that CEOs no longer have all the
answers, Collins has shifted the goal posts. Leadership now means, according to
Collins, drawing ideas for new directions out of your best people. This move
preserves the myth that the CEO is the leader but the cost is that leaders no longer

Deepika Rana Page 7

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

provide direction. Surely the reality is that CEOs can no longer provide all
the leadership an organization needs. If we retain the idea that leadership =
promoting new directions, then it is something all employees can do regardless of
position. With a view of leadership so re-invented, we have to say that much of what
CEOs do should be classed as management. The level 5 leaders of Jim Collins,
when they use facilitative skills to draw new directions out of others, are really
wearing a managerial hat, not showing leadership by other means.

Leaders or managers? How do leaders differ from managers?

• Leaders direct, managers execute.

• Management is like investment - getting the best return from all resources - your
own energy, talent and time plus all other resources at your disposal.

• Management requires efficiency, profitability, depends on minimal inputs for

maximum returns. Like the 80-20 rule.

• To manage well, regularly review your priorities, just as you would your
investments.

• The same person can both lead and manage - they are different functions - like
sales and marketing - they serve different organizational purposes or functions.

• Managers are like sports coaches - they inspire and develop people to get the
best performance out of them.

• They also provide structure and measure output.

• Leaders champion change. They may or may not manage people.

• Management is a role, a set of responsibilities.

• Leadership is not a role. It is an occasional act, like creativity.

• Managers can be inspiring, empowering, nurturing, supportive and encouraging.

An inspiring leader moves us to change direction. An inspiring manager moves
us to work harder.
Deepika Rana Page 8
 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

• Managers use open questions to draw solutions out of others as a way of

reaching better decisions, fostering broader ownership and developing people.

• By contrast, leaders propose novel solutions. They want to persuade prospective

followers that they know a better way of doing things.

• Managers occupy a role of responsibility for people. They may show leadership
too, but leadership can also be shown by non-managers.

• By clearly separating leadership and management, we are better able to explain

how all employees can show leadership without having to be in management
roles.

Deepika Rana Page 9

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

Leadership in organizations
An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving
defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies
how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions,
departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus,
the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships
with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and
subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives a salary
and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards her/him from the arbitrary influence of
superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater
his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the
work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure
that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative
subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their
position.

In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges

within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The
informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the
individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with
those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension
of the social structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous
emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.

In prehistoric times, humanity was preoccupied with personal security, maintenance,

protection, and survival. Now humanity spends a major portion of waking hours
working for organizations. Her/his need to identify with a community that provides
security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging continues unchanged
from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its
emergent, or unofficial, leaders.

Deepika Rana Page 10

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their personal
qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and
other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several
overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed head or
chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a
person to gain co-operation from others by means of persuasion or control over
rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to
enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.

A leader is a person who influences a group of people towards a specific result. It is

not dependent on title or formal authority. Leaders are recognized by their capacity
for caring for others, clear communication, and a commitment to persist. An
individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to command and
enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position. However, she or he must
possess adequate personal attributes to match his authority, because authority is
only potentially available to him. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a
manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge her/his role
in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of
position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal
influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the
hierarchy, with commensurate authority. Leadership can be defined as one's ability
to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.

"Organizations should be built and managers should be functioning so people

can be naturally empowered. If someone's doing their job...they should know
their job better than anybody. They don't need to be 'empowered,' but
encouraged and left alone to be able to do what they know best." — Henry
Mintzberg, management researcher and author

Ram views himself as a "realist." As a manager, he has little time or patience for, as
he puts it, "making nicey-nicey." Coming from a deep technical background, he hates
meetings ("they get in the way of real work") and resents having to sell changes or
get people on board. "I don't care if they like me," he's fond of saying, "I only want
their respect and compliance." He likes nothing better than solving tough technical
problems with practical, well-designed solutions. He runs his organization "by the

Deepika Rana Page 11

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

numbers." He focuses on continuously improving existing processes and

technologies. He sets high targets and relentlessly drives everyone to meet them.

The part of the job Ram likes least is dealing with people. Their irrational, emotional
behaviour drives him nuts. He often dismisses contrary points of view with comments
like, "That's only their perception, that's not reality." He then proceeds to prove his
point with facts, rational arguments, and analysis.

Ram believes that most people see their work as a four-letter word and must
therefore be tightly controlled, threatened, or bribed with incentives before they will
work hard enough. He prides himself on being a tough manager who rolls up his
sleeves and digs deep into operational details. He exercises tight control with
policies, directives, and rules. His mood swings cause the team's emotional tone to
wildly gyrate from high to low with much time being spent figuring out how to read
him and avoid his wrath. Ram's main tool for influencing behaviour on his team is
through punishment and "shooting down people who haven't done their homework."

On the other hand, Rita is an "idealist" with a strong technical background. She
realized some time ago that her real leadership work increasingly gets done in
meetings. So she has trained and worked hard at developing her facilitation and
team leadership skills. She also knows that just wishing or "positive thinking"
problems away usually makes them worse. She is also determined not to be so
focused on the problem that she and her team can't see the possibilities. To avoid
getting stuck in "reality ruts," Rita keeps everyone focused on what could be.

Rita sees possibilities in people. She believes that people want to take pride in their
work and be part of a winning team. She has learned that motivation or morale
problems are usually rooted in leaders failing to engage people in the broader aims
and ideals of the organization. As more people search for meaning in their lives and
in their work, this disconnect creates much of the frustration and lack of purpose
found in so many workplaces today. Rita works hard at connecting people to her
organization's vision, values, and purpose. Rita's high energy and optimistic attitude
sets a strong and positive emotional tone throughout her organization. People are
inspired to face tough problems with confidence and teamwork.

Deepika Rana Page 12

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

Out in the real world, we see plenty of Rams — and not nearly enough Ritas’. Their
differences are obvious enough, but ask yourself the following questions:

o Whom would you rather work for?

o Who is the stronger leader?

o Who is likely to get the best results?

o Would your team consider you to be most like Ram or Rita? How do
you know?

Rita uses a collaborative approach to partner with people. She sees people as adults
who are generally self-managing (with some exceptions). Ram treats them like kids
who need to be managed "with a firm hand" (with some exceptions). Rita cares
about people. Ram dehumanizes and objectifies them. Rita uses the power of
persuasion (leadership) to get things done. Ram uses position power (management).
Rita builds a cause and case for change, appealing to the head and heart to get buy-
in. Ram tries to overcome resistance to change with facts and force; like someone
travelling in a foreign country who can't speak the local language, he'll just talk
louder to be understood. Rita shares as much information as she can and builds
strong multi-channel and multi-directional communication loops. Ram gives people
information on a need-to-know basis; he only "empowers" people as a motivational
technique to get people to do what he wants. Rita partners with people so they feel
naturally empowered to reach their mutual goals.

Deepika Rana Page 13

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

One approach to leadership identifies the fact that leaders play many roles within an
organization. Hence what the leader does may well depend on the functions that the
leader is performing at the time.

Levels of leaders in organisations today

Leader's function Actions
Coordinating group activities and overseeing the setting
Executive of policies and goals.
Planner Deciding how the group will achieve its goals.
Policy maker Establishing policies and goals.
Expert A source of expert information.
External group
representative Speaking for the group with others.
Controller of internal
relationships Determining the social structure of the group.
Purveyor of rewards and
punishment Controlling members by punishing and rewarding.
Arbitrator and mediator Resolving disputes in the group.
Exemplar Behaving in a way that others should behave.
Acting as symbolic embodiment of the group, its goals
Symbol of the group and its values.
Substitute for individual Relieving individuals of the need and responsibility of
responsibility personal decisions.
Ideologist Being the source of beliefs and values.
Focus for positive emotional feelings of individuals and
Father figure the object for identification and transference.
Acting as a target for aggression and hostility. Taking
Scapegoat the blame on behalf of the group.
“A leader is not the one who does everything. A leader is the one who makes it
possible for others to do.”
-- Paulo Freire

It is a common mistake to think that leaders only exist at senior levels in

organisations. It is also a mistake to think that leaders are only required at senior
levels in organisations.

A humorous sign I once saw above a person's desk indicates that people in
organisations recognise the need for leadership:

“Leaders are like eagles. We don’t have either of them here.”

Deepika Rana Page 14
 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

It does not matter at what management level you are operating in your organisation.
It does not matter what your job title or role is. You can be a leader.

Organisations need leaders at every level.

Whilst it is useful to understand the demands that are placed on a leader at various
levels in an organisation it cannot be stated strongly enough that leadership is
required throughout an organisation.

People can be leaders at any level and at anytime. You do not need to wait to be
appointed to an “official” leadership position. A leader is anyone who chooses to
lead.

With this said, let us explore some of the demands that leaders face at differing
levels of the organisation.

What level are you operating at?

An important area to consider is at what level in your organisation are you operating
as a leader? Effective leaders will understand at what level in the organisation they
are operating and more importantly what they need to be doing at each level.

We can usefully analyse three levels of leadership within an organisation:

1. People Leaders

2. Operational Leaders

3. Strategic Leaders

People leaders

People leaders are the first “official” leaders in an organisation. They are given a role
that requires them to lead. This is different from the more informal leadership role
that someone may choose to take within the organisation.

People leaders generally operate at a team level and their main responsibility is for
the people who work in their team. Their focus is primarily on day-to day tactical
accomplishments that they and their team are responsible for.

Deepika Rana Page 15

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

People leaders need to spend a considerable amount of time coaching, training,

developing, and influencing small groups and individuals. As the first line leaders in
an organisation they will also be required to inspire and motivate the people in their
teams to improved levels of performance.

People leaders are often the medium through which organizations communicate to
their employees.

Operational leaders

Operational leaders usually have responsibility for a departmental function or

functions. They will often need to manage managers that are beyond their own
functional area. Their focus is primarily on optimizing the processes & performance
of their unit.

Operational leaders need to balance short-term functional concerns with a longer

view on sustaining and driving competitive advantage.

Strategic leaders

Strategic leaders operate at the senior levels in an organisation and will have
responsibility for a (sometimes wide) range of organisational functions. T heir focus
is on driving execution.

Strategic leaders need to ensure alignment between organisational strategy and the
capability of the organisation.

Strategic leaders – as the name implies – need to formulate future strategy.

Leadership personality development for modern managers

1. Self Confidence- They have complete confidence in their judgment and ability.

Deepika Rana Page 16

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

2. A vision- This is an idealized goal that proposes a future better than the status
quo. The greater the disparity between idealized goal and the status quo, the
more likely that followers will attribute extraordinary vision to the leader.

3. Ability to articulate the vision- They are able to clarify and state the vision in
terms that are understandable to others. This articulation demonstrates an
understanding of the followers’ needs and, hence acts as a motivating force.

4. Strong convictions about vision- Charismatic leaders are perceived as being

strongly committed, and willing to take on high personal risk, incur high costs,
and engage in self-sacrifice to achieve their vision.

5. Behavior that is out of the ordinary- Those with charisma engage in behavior
that is perceived as being novel, unconventional, and counter to norms. When
successful, these behaviors evoke surprise and admiration in followers.

6. Perceived as being a change agent- Charismatic leaders are perceived as

agents of radical change rather than as caretakers of the status quo.

7. Environmental sensitivity- These leaders are able to make realistic

assessments of the environmental constraints and resources needed to bring
about change.

Characteristics of Transactional and transformational leaders

Transactional Leaders

• Contingent Reward: Contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises

rewards for good performance, recognizes accomplishment

• Management by exception (active): Watches and searches for deviations from

rules and standards, takes corrective action.

• Management by exception (passive): Intervenes only if standards are not met

• Laissez faire: Abdicates responsibilities, avoids making decisions

Transformational Leaders

Deepika Rana Page 17

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

• Charisma: Provides vision and sense of mission, instills pride, gains respect
trust.

• Inspiration: Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts,

and expresses important purposes in simple ways.

• Intellectual Stimulations: Promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful

problem solving.

• Individualized consideration: Gives personal attention, treats each

employee individually, coaches, and advises.

The A

Deepika Rana Type o Page 18

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

Deepika Rana Page 19

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

•Interpersonal

•Coachin
•Counse
What ski •Listenin
Deepika Rana Page 20
 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

Leadership development

by Covey

• Empower your inner child-children are genuine, speak their mind-so do

successful leaders

• Be slightly weird-effective leaders have their own approach to do things

• Embrace compensation-everyone likes money, but successful leaders can

talk about it

• Focus carefully –successful leaders are able to handle more than 2-3 things
at a time because they are able to filter out extraneous information and focus
on critical issues

• Speak openly- successful leaders say what they think

• Don't get even-get mad-good leaders let off steam and get on to the next
issue

• Keep up on the latest developments- successful leaders know the latest

jargon and trends

Deepika Rana Page 21

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

Conclusion
The fundamental meaning of leadership has not changed in all of recorded history. It
has always been about the person in charge of the group. Being a leader has always
meant having power over people and the authority to make decisions for the group.
We have tweaked the meaning of leadership a little bit, thus moving from dictatorial
to more participative styles but the essence has remained basically unchanged for
centuries.

What Is Different About the 21st Century?

It is time for a fundamental change in our definition of leadership. To see this, we

need to ask what is so different about the context today in which leadership is
shown.

1. Ours is a knowledge-driven age. Leadership has always been based on

power. First it was the physical strength to be the top dog. Then it was the
force of personality that counted, all with a view to getting into the top slot in a
group hierarchy. These forms of power can be regarded as the triumph of
form over substance. That is, it doesn’t matter so much what you say as how
you say it. For example, a political candidate with charisma or “sex appeal”
could get elected with vague content. But, today we are moving toward the
view that “content is king” which is the triumph of substance over form. The
problem for traditional conceptions of leadership is that no one can
monopolize good ideas so that ongoing dominance is much more difficult
when it is based on the power to generate new and better ideas.

2. Change is much more rapid today; the world is more dynamic, making it
harder to maintain the static state in which one person stays at the head of
affairs. Also, if you add complexity, it is much harder for any one person to
know what to do and, therefore, to provide the group with direction. It is still
possible in small groups such as street gangs, but CEOs of high tech
organizations that compete on the basis of rapid innovation have a much
harder time of calling the shots.

Deepika Rana Page 22

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

3. The world was once made of discrete groups minding their own business
where you were definitively a member of a group or an outsider. Now, there
are transients and loose group boundaries, informal networks and strategic
partnerships. So-called “boundary-less” organizations are made up of rapidly
changing subgroups that come together only for a limited purpose. Who is the
stable leader in groups that have no boundaries or which are made up of
loosely connected networks of small groups?

4. A corollary of the previous point is that the dynamics between groups are just
as important as those within groups. Although we never talk about it, there
has always been leadership between groups. Companies like Apple show
leadership to competitors and one country can show leadership to another,
say by adopting innovative green practices. The key point about inter-group
leadership is that it is not a role, let alone a dominant one. Such leadership is
only an occasional act.

5. In modern organizations, knowledge workers are not compliant drones. They

want to have their say regarding how the organization functions. In the old
days, we could label their contributions suggestion-box material, but this is too
patronizing today. The reality is that, when knowledge workers advocate
better ways of doing things, they are showing leadership, even if it is an
occasional act and they have no interest or skills to attain a formal leadership
role.

How the Meaning of Leadership Needs to Change

Leadership that is shown by one group to another shares a very important feature
with the occasional leadership shown bottom-up by knowledge workers when they
convince their bosses to adopt a new product. Neither has anything to do with
managing people or the implementation of their proposals. Their leadership consists
solely in the successful promotion of new directions. The implication of this line of
thinking is that everything to do with getting things done and managing people must
be a managerial function.

Leadership in the 21st century is no longer a fixed role. In a fluid, dynamic

environment where innovation rules, leadership is only an occasional act that can

Deepika Rana Page 23

 Change in Leadership

Mar,2010

come from any direction including outside the group. Showing leadership means
convincing others to change direction. It is time to separate leadership and
management. We need to upgrade management to take its rightful place as a
constructive force for getting the best out of people and managing all resources
along the lines of investment, that is to get the best possible return.

Deepika Rana Page 24