Words: 1809
The paper provides an analysis of the literature about Leadership, Culture and Strategic HARM. Definitions and theories are followed by comparisons supported by critiques and applications. Eventually, conclusion is drawn at the end. Leadership or Management? Morehouse (2007, p. 3) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” while to contrast Hollingsworth in Earner and Smith (2005) described management to involve administration, maintenance, structure and control.
According to Prewar and Eastman (1997) there is renewed interest in the concept of leadership due o changing patterns of organization life and social expectations in working environment. Due to the shift, organizations feel the need of becoming more flexible, task or client focused which requires different authority rather than the one typical for traditional (bureaucratic) organizations, Earner and Smith (2005). In current trends, Mullions (2005, p. 66) sees leadership skill being important for those attempting to “get things done through other people” rather than just simple managerial instructions coming from higher level of hierarchy. Some academics believe that leadership is similar to management in many ways and tot are essential for organization to prosper (Cotter, 1990), others argue that it differs in typical functions that present management such as budgeting, staffing and problem solving (Payola, 1916). Bennie and Anus (1985, p. 221) made the distinction very clear by saying “Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right things”.
Similarity in Leadership theories, Burns (1978) distinguishes between two types of leadership: one that focuses on simple exchange between leader and follower (Transactional/Managerial leadership) and other one where person engages with others and creates injection which raises motivation and morale (Transformational leadership). Bass and Viola (1985) explain that transactional leader does not focus on needs or personal development of subordinates and Kenneth and Lewis (1987) adds that these leaders are influential because it if the best for the subordinates to do what the leader wants.
Bass (1985) argued that transactional leadership is efficient as it builds foundation between leader and follower in regards to expectations, responsibilities, contracts, recognition and rewards. Transactional leader operates within the existing system by: effort-reward relationship eased on completion of task or assignment to satisfy followers’ needs (Bass and Rigging, 2006) and attention to deviations, mistakes and irregularities as much as taking actions to correct them Bass (1985). According to Morehouse (2007) transformational leadership produces greater effects than transactional leadership.
Transactional leadership outcomes are only expected outcomes but transformational outcomes go beyond the expectations and according to Lowe et al (1996) transformational leaders were also perceived to be more effective. Ill et al (2011) also argues that team members are not expected to go beyond their am leaders’ initial expectations neither they are not motivated to creative solutions to change the status quo. Instead Bass and Viola (AAA) argue that transformational followers have ability to transcend own self-interests and full potential.
Plato (1992) critiqued Transactional leadership by saying that it requires a person to sacrifice immediate self-interests, but this did not amount to altruism. Plato (1992) referred to stress, hard work, and thankless task of being a morally good leader. He argues that if just a person is a leader than the role will take toll on life of such a person. Plato (1992) expressed that whereas leadership is not in the person’s immediate self-interest it is in long-term interest. Plato (1992) argued that it is in our best interest to be just, because just people are happier and lead better lives than do unjust people.
People want leaders to put the interest of followers first (Transformational leadership, Bass (1985) and according to Viola ; Locke (2002, up. 186-188) “self-interest people who are unwilling to put the interest of others first are often not successful as leaders. ” Barman (1992) also criticized Bass and Viola’s (1985) transactional/ ramifications leadership model by saying that transactional leadership seems to relate to management more than to leadership and that the transformation overemphasis’s the role of leader in the changing process (Sadler, 1997).
Some critique take the view that House’s (1976) charismatic leadership is seen similar to, if not same with transformational leadership but (Barman, 1992) argued that charisma (the common element) is only one component of transformational leadership which according Yammering (1993) is important but not sufficient for leader to be successful. Morehouse (2007) argues that transformational adhering has potential to be abused as it is concerned with changing people’s values to follow new vision. Transactional/managerial leadership is evidence in Disney.
Disney is bureaucratic form of organization with clear division of labor and hierarchical structure which can be seen within employee’s grouping: Upper class prestigious Ambassadors and Tour Guides, Ride operators for skilled work, other ride operators, Sweepers, Food and Concession workers (Van Mean, 1990). High control over every step of service with clear rules with very little room left for experimentation are also seen in Disney (Van Mean, 1990). There are set guidelines regarding authority and only little personal interaction left for not supervisors or security (Van Mean, 1990).
Disney work objectives and performance standards are explained in training procedures and employee handbook which shows how Disney expect their employees to appear, present themselves, behave towards customers to present certain image Van Mean (1990). Van Mean (1990) describes how most of the ride operators aspire to working more glamorous rides such as Pirates of the Caribbean and others working for Utopia are looked down upon as the job requires them to wear oceanic jumpsuits.
Even clothing and other aspect of physical appearance affect status within the park. Nowadays even though the bureaucratic style, employees take pride in working for Disneyland (Van Mean, 1990). CULTURE Van Mean (1 988, p. 3) explain that “Culture in itself is not visible, but is made visible only through its representation” while (Schwartz and Davis, 1981) argues that culture is seen as abstract concept and is referred to state of affairs within organization, its values and beliefs.
Functionalist concept sees culture as something that organization has and is directly linked to successful organizational performance (Peters and Waterman, 1 982), strong organizational commitment and high productivity and moral (Burnham and Gunter, 1993). Ray (1986) argues about this being symbolic/culture control rather than bureaucratic control. He sees it as process of manipulating culture (myths and rituals) to its goals in order to increase outcome.
Scheme (2004) offered model for analyzing organizational culture at three levels: artifacts, values/ beliefs and basic assumptions. Scheme (1985) suggests that organizational culture is being deeply inserted in unconscious parts of group rather than just being observable behaviors or artifacts. He emphasizes assumptions and beliefs while in comparison to Hefted (1980) who argues that culture consists of systems of values which are allocated among the blocks that build culture. He sees culture as program of mind that distinguishes the members of one group from another.
From critical perspective the organizations is the culture which represents the subjective reality (Smirch, 1 983) and according to Morgan (2006) living evolving reality that exists only as pattern of symbolic relationships and meanings though human interactions. Rousseau (1990, p. 58) in his model appears to capture all the key elements of culture ‘a continuum from unconscious to conscious, from interpretative to behavior, from inaccessible to accessible’ not just one of few attributes like others.
His Organizational culture is made up of aspects such as patterns of behavior, observable symbols, ceremonies, underlying values, assumptions and beliefs. Chine’s (2004) have been critiqued by Alveolus (2002) who argues that the functionalist view on culture is simplistic by organizational management. Sociologists argue that culture is more complex and they question the creation through interaction (Alveolus, 2002) and (Schultz, 1995). They described leadership study being over-positivistic where Schultz (1995) argues that positivistic scientific method is not applicable in organizational culture study.
Schultz (1995, p. 17) argues that culture is symbolist vision of an organization and that “An organization does not have a culture, it is the culture. ” Alveolus (2002) and Schultz (1995) also critiqued Chine’s (1985) point of view of what should leader do to affect culture. They believe that good leadership is dependent on cultural context not the other way around and suggests ethnographic research into organizational culture to gain better understanding.
Some academics believe that organizational culture can be managed by focusing on visible aspects (rituals) that shape behavior however others argue that cultural deep aspects (beliefs, feelings) must be considered when thinking of changes to culture and not just directly manage the culture (Hatch, 1997). Legged (1995) explained that managing culture which consists of understanding of patterns and the shaping directs but it is not the same as changing the ‘rhythms of the ocean’ (Legged, 1995, p. 07) Disney logo describes place as where dreams mom true. Disney offers innovative entertainment experience where cartoons take you to the “Happiest Place on Earth” full of fun, laugher and unforgettable atmosphere (Van Mean, 1990). Artifacts are visible elements of the culture such as symbolic resources from history, logo, park design, innovative play areas/ human and non-human provides an organization with the opportunity to gain sustained competitive advantage.
Legged (1995) criticizes soft version of HARM by saying that while management may claim the rhetoric of a new approach and a new concern for workers the actual reality may be harsher. In Storey mode 1992), even though that clearly distinguished between hard and soft models according to Keenly (1990) in practice its possibilities were straightened by its ambiguity. Legged (1995) criticized its applicability of models of integrations and argues for Whittling’s (1993) framework which recognizes that HARM integration with strategy is complex process which depends on interplay and resources of different stakeholders.
Oliver (1997) critiqued application of REV for being limited because of its focus on internal resources which does not examine the external forces and social context within decisions or resource selection. Wright et al (1994) also critiqued application of Barneys (1991) theory and explains that human resources are deemed to be valuable because they are generally heterogeneous in both supply and demand as people’s skills differ and therefore businesses differs in jobs they offer. HARM attracts lots of criticism as according to Marching and Wilkinson (2008, p. ) “it can never fully satisfy business imperatives or the drive for employee well-being. ” According to Walt Disney (2012) company creates an optimal employee experience while meeting business needs. Their human resource policies include Talent Acquisition, Learning amp; Development, Employee Benefits and Communication that consist of communicating business initiatives and strategy, employee recognition, work- life assistance, volunteer opportunities, business conduct and ethics practices together practices of social responsibility (Walt Disney, 2012).
These all take place in order to fit with business strategy of making profit from making people happy to corporate strategy of creating the “SMILE FACTORY (Van Mean, 1990). To recap, the paper provides critical analysis of Disney from diverse lenses. First, Even though bureaucratic organizations are rare nowadays we see simply just management rather than Transactional/Transformational leadership Barman (1992).