Words: 8676
CENTRE FOR LEADERSHIP STUDIES A REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP THEORY AND COMPETENCY FRAMEWORKS Edited Version of a Report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre Bolden, R. , Gosling, J. , Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. June 2003 Centre for Leadership Studies University of Exeter Crossmead Barley Lane Dunsford Hill Exeter EX4 1TF United Kingdom Telephone: 01392 413018 Fax: 01392 434132 e-mail: leadership@exeter. ac. uk http://www. leadership-studies. com 1 Executive Summary This report presents a review of leadership theory and competency frameworks that was commissioned to assist the development of the new National Occupational Standards in Management and Leadership. ¦ The report begins with a review of leadership theories and tracks their evolution over the past 70 years from the “great man” notion of heroic leaders, through trait theories, behaviourist theories, situational leadership, contingency theory and on to transactional and transformational leadership.
Each of these offers some insights into the qualities of successful leaders, but there has been a shift in focus from the generic characteristics and behaviours of the individual to a recognition of the importance of responding to different situations and contexts and the leaders’ role in relation to followers. The review concludes with an introduction to the notion of “dispersed leadership” and a distinction between the process of “leadership” and the socially-constructed role of “leader”. The next section, on Leadership Models and Competency Frameworks, presents a range of leadership and management frameworks currently being used in organisations. These define the qualities required of people in leadership positions and help to inform the leadership development process. Seven private-sector, nine public sector and eight generic frameworks are discussed and web links to the full models included where available. ¦ The following section gives a brief overview of a selection of leadership development initiatives both associated with, and as alternatives to, a leadership competencies framework.
The aim of this is to give an indication of how different techniques can be used to develop leadership capability within individuals and organisations and how this relates to the underlying philosophy of the programme. ¦ The section on Providing Governance, describes the key legal and ethical responsibilities of Directors and an indication of the kinds of skills, behaviours and values required to achieve these. ¦ The report concludes with a discussion of the competency framework approach to leadership and leadership development and a proposal as to alternative ways of addressing these issues.
It is concluded that whilst this approach has its strengths, it leads to a particularly individualistic notion of leadership and a relatively prescribed approach to leadership development. The changing nature of work and society, it is argued, may demand new approaches that encourage a more collective and emergent view of leadership and leadership development and of sharing the role of “leader” more widely within organisations. A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 2 2 Table of contents 2 3 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP THEORY ………………………………………………………………………………. 6 4. 1 THE TRAIT APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP …………………………………………………………………………….. 6 4. 2 THE BEHAVIOURAL SCHOOL ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 4. 2. 1 McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y Managers ………………………………………………………….. 7 4. 2. 2 Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid……………………………………………………………………… 8 4. 3 THE CONTINGENCY OR SITUATIONAL SCHOOL …………………………………………………………………….. 8 4. 3. Fiedler’s Contingency Model ………………………………………………………………………………… 8 4. 3. 2 The Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership …………………………………………………………… 9 4. 3. 3 Tannenbaum & Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum …………………………………………………. 10 4. 3. 4 Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership Model …………………………………………………………….. 11 4. 4 LEADERS AND FOLLOWERS …………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 4. 4. 1 Servant Leadership……………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 4. 4. 2 The Following Part of Leading …………………………………………………………………………….. 12 4. 4. 3 Team Leadership………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 4. 4. 4 Transactional and Transformational Leadership ……………………………………………………. 14 4. DISPERSED LEADERSHIP ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17 5 LEADERSHIP MODELS AND COMPETENCY FRAMEWORKS ……………………………………….. 18 5. 1 PRIVATE SECTOR FRAMEWORKS ……………………………………………………………………………………. 18 5. 1. 1 AstraZeneca Leadership Capabilities…………………………………………………………………… 18 5. 1. 2 BAE Performance Centred Leadership ………………………………………………………………… 18 5. 1. Federal Express Leadership Qualities………………………………………………………………….. 19 5. 1. 4 Lufthansa Leadership Compass ………………………………………………………………………….. 19 5. 1. 5 Philips Leadership Competencies ……………………………………………………………………….. 19 5. 1. 6 Shell Leadership Framework ………………………………………………………………………………. 20 5. 1. 7 Vodafone Global Leadership Competencies …………………………………………………………. 0 5. 2 PUBLIC SECTOR FRAMEWORKS ……………………………………………………………………………………… 20 5. 2. 1 Senior Civil Service Competency Framework ……………………………………………………….. 20 5. 2. 2 DfES – Management and Leadership Attributes …………………………………………………….. 20 5. 2. 3 Northern Ireland Senior Civil Service Core Criteria ………………………………………………… 21 5. 2. 4 Scottish Executive Framework ……………………………………………………………………………. 1 5. 2. 5 Ministry of Defence ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 21 5. 2. 6 EO for Local Government – Compendium of Competencies …………………………………… 22 5. 2. 7 NHS Leadership Qualities Framework …………………………………………………………………. 23 5. 2. 8 National College for School Leadership – Hay McBer Model ………………………………….. 23 5. 2. 9 Senior Executive Service……………………………………………………………………………………. 4 5. 3 GENERIC FRAMEWORKS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 5. 3. 1 CEML Framework of Management and Leadership Abilities …………………………………… 24 5. 3. 2 METO Management Standards …………………………………………………………………………… 24 5. 3. 3 Investors in People Leadership and Management Model ……………………………………….. 24 5. 3. 4 EFQM Business Excellence Model ……………………………………………………………………… 5 5. 3. 5 Institute of Chartered Management – Chartered Management Skills ……………………….. 25 5. 3. 6 IMF Management Competencies…………………………………………………………………………. 25 5. 3. 7 Hamlin’s Generic Model of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness ……………………… 26 5. 3. 8 The Zenger Miller Grass-Roots Leadership Model…………………………………………………. 26 6 A SELECTION OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES……………………………………… 27 6. 1 6. 2 6. NHS CHIEF EXECUTIVES PROGRAMMES ………………………………………………………………………….. 27 NCSL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ………………………………………………………………. 27 ACEVO – LEADERSHIP JOURNEY …………………………………………………………………………………… 28 A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 3 6. 4 6. 5 6. 6 7 LEAD2LEAD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 INTERNATIONAL MASTERS IN PRACTISING MANAGEMENT (IMPM) …………………………………………. 28 THE LEADERSHIP GAME ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29 PROVIDING GOVERNANCE…………………………………………………………………………………………. 30 7. 1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE …………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 7. 1. 1 Higgs Report on Non-Executive Directors…………………………………………………………….. 0 7. 1. 2 Company law ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33 7. 2 ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR IN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE …………………………………………………………….. 33 7. 2. 1 Summary of First World Report on Corporate Social Responsibility…………………………. 34 7. 2. 2 Developing an Ethical framework ………………………………………………………………………… 35 8 TOWARDS AN ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK OF LEADERSHIP ……………………………………. 7 8. 1 8. 2 8. 3 8. 4 8. 5 REVIEW OF COMPETENCIES …………………………………………………………………………………………… 37 EXPERIENCE OF USING COMPETENCY FRAMEWORKS …………………………………………………………… 37 EVIDENCE-BASED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………………… 38 EMERGENT AND COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………. 39 AN ALTERNATIVE TO LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS? ……………………………………. 39 9 10 NEXT STEPS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41 REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42 A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 4 3 INTRODUCTION Welcome to this report which was commissioned to assist development of the new National Occupational Standards in Management and Leadership.
It draws together a range of materials detailing approaches to leadership, leadership development and leadership/management competency frameworks in a wide range of organisations. Much of this material is sensitive in nature so we request that it is treated with care and not copied or distributed without our permission. The purpose of the report is not to propose a framework of standards for providing direction in organisations, but to draw together a diverse yet comprehensive set of information to act as a reference for those charged with this task.
The material provided is intended to contribute towards the “Providing direction” part of the framework, including “Developing a vision for the future”, “Gaining commitment and providing leadership” and “Providing governance” and as such, some other core activities and responsibilities of leaders and managers may be omitted. This report acts very much as a “first step” towards the development of a new set of occupational standards and it is intended that its results should lead directly into further fieldwork, discussion and consultation.
Leadership is a complex process and we have serious reservations over the extent to which a set of standards, qualities or competencies can ever fully capture the nature of what makes some leaders/organisations successful and others unsuccessful. These concerns are voiced in Section 8. Finally, we would like to thank all those who helped contribute towards the development of this report, particularly Geoff Carroll of Chase Consulting who initiated the project and Alan Hooper, Peter Wilkinson and Martin Wood for their comments.
Special thanks also goes to those representatives from the organisations who were kind enough to contribute their frameworks to this report. Centre for Leadership Studies, May 2003. A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 5 4 REVIEW OF LEADERSHIP THEORY A review of the leadership literature reveals an evolving series of ‘schools of thought’ from “Great Man” and “Trait” theories to “Transformational” leadership (see table).
Whilst early theories tend to focus upon the characteristics and behaviours of successful leaders, later theories begin to consider the role of followers and the contextual nature of leadership. Based on the belief that leaders are exceptional people, born with innate qualities, destined to lead. The use of the term ‘man’ was intentional since until the latter part of the twentieth century leadership was thought of as a concept which is primarily male, military and Western. This led to the next school of Trait Theories The lists of traits or qualities associated with leadership exist in abundance and continue to be produced.
They draw on virtually all the adjectives in the dictionary which describe some positive or virtuous human attribute, from ambition to zest for life These concentrate on what leaders actually do rather than on their qualities. Different patterns of behaviour are observed and categorised as ‘styles of leadership’. This area has probably attracted most attention from practising managers This approach sees leadership as specific to the situation in which it is being exercised. For example, whilst some situations may require an autocratic style, others may need a more participative approach.
It also proposes that there may be differences in required leadership styles at different levels in the same organisation This is a refinement of the situational viewpoint and focuses on identifying the situational variables which best predict the most appropriate or effective leadership style to fit the particular circumstances This approach emphasises the importance of the relationship between leader and followers, focusing on the mutual benefits derived from a form of ‘contract’ through which the leader delivers such things as rewards or recognition in return for the commitment or loyalty of the followers The central concept here is change and the role of leadership in envisioning and implementing the transformation of organisational performance From ‘Great Man’ to ‘Transformational’ Leadership Great Man Theories Trait Theories Behaviourist Theories Situational Leadership Contingency Theory Transactional Theory Transformational Theory Each of these theories takes a rather individualistic perspective of the leader, although a school of thought gaining increasing recognition is that of “dispersed” leadership.
This approach, with its foundations in sociology, psychology and politics rather than management science, views leadership as a process that is diffuse throughout an organisation rather than lying solely with the formally designated ‘leader’. The emphasis thus shifts from developing ‘leaders’ to developing ‘leaderful’ organisations with a collective responsibility for leadership. In the current section we will focus primarily on the more traditional, individualistic views of the leader as we feel these have greatest relevance to the development of management and leadership standards. We will finish, however, with an introduction to “dispersed leadership” – a concept which will be explored further in Section 8. 4. 1 The Trait Approach to Leadership The Trait Approach arose from the “Great Man” theory as a way of identifying the key characteristics of successful leaders.
It was believed that through this approach critical leadership traits could be isolated and that people with such traits could then be recruited, selected, and installed into leadership positions. This approach was common in the military and is still used as a set of criteria to select candidates for commissions. The problem with the trait approach lies in the fact that almost as many traits as studies undertaken were identified. After several years of such research, it became apparent that no consistent traits could be identified. Although some traits were found in a considerable number of studies, the results A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 6 ere generally inconclusive. Some leaders might have possessed certain traits but the absence of them did not necessarily mean that the person was not a leader. Although there was little consistency in the results of the various trait studies, however, some traits did appear more frequently than others, including: technical skill, friendliness, task motivation, application to task, group task supportiveness, social skill, emotional control, administrative skill, general charisma, and intelligence. Of these, the most widely explored has tended to be “charisma”. The table below lists the main leadership traits and skills identified by Stogdill in 1974.
Skills Traits – Clever (intelligent) – Adaptable to situations – Conceptually skilled – Alert to social environment – Creative – Ambitious and achievement-orientated – Diplomatic and tactful – Assertive – Fluent in speaking – Cooperative – Knowledgeable about group task – Decisive – Organised (administrative ability) – Dependable – Persuasive – Dominant (desire to influence others) – Socially skilled – Energetic (high activity level) – Persistent – Self-confident – Tolerant of stress – Willing to assume responsibility Leadership Skills and Traits (Stogdill, 1974) 4. 2 The Behavioural School The results of the trait studies were inconclusive. Traits, amongst other things, were hard to measure. How, for example, do we measure traits such as honesty, integrity, loyalty, or diligence? Another approach in the study of leadership had to be found. After the publication of the late Douglas McGregor’s classic book The Human Side of Enterprise in 1960, attention shifted to ‘behavioural theories’.
McGregor was a teacher, researcher, and consultant whose work was considered to be “on the cutting edge” of managing people. He influenced all the behavioural theories, which emphasize focusing on human relationships, along with output and performance. 4. 2. 1 McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y Managers Although not strictly speaking a theory of leadership, the leadership strategy of effectively-used participative management proposed in Douglas McGregor’s book has had a tremendous impact on managers. The most publicized concept is McGregor’s thesis that leadership strategies are influenced by a leader’s assumptions about human nature. As a result of his experience as a consultant, McGregor summarised two contrasting sets of assumptions made by managers in industry.
Theory X managers believe that: Theory Y managers believe that: • The average human being has an • The expenditure of physical and mental effort in inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if work is as natural as play or rest, and the average possible. human being, under proper conditions, learns not only to accept but to seek responsibility. • Because of this human characteristic, most people must be coerced, • People will exercise self-direction and self-control controlled, directed, or threatened with to achieve objectives to which they are committed. punishment to get them to put forth • The capacity to exercise a relatively high level of adequate effort to achieve organizational imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the objectives. olution of organizational problems is widely, not • The average human being prefers to be narrowly, distributed in the population, and the directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, intellectual potentialities of the average human has relatively little ambition, and wants being are only partially utilized under the security above all else. conditions of modern industrial life. Theory X and Y Managers (McGregor, 1960) A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 7 It can therefore be seen that a leader holding Theory X assumptions would prefer an autocratic style, whereas one holding Theory Y assumptions would prefer a more participative style. 4. 2. 2 Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid The Managerial Grid developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton focuses on task (production) and employee (people) orientations of managers, as well as combinations of concerns between the two extremes.
A grid with concern for production on the horizontal axis and concern for people on the vertical axis and plots five basic leadership styles. The first number refers to a leader’s production or task orientation; the second, to people or employee orientation. The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964) Blake and Mouton propose that “Team Management” – a high concern for both employees and production – is the most effective type of leadership behaviour. 4. 3 The Contingency or Situational School Whilst behavioural theories may help managers develop particular leadership behaviours they give little guidance as to what constitutes effective leadership in different situations.
Indeed, most researchers today conclude that no one leadership style is right for every manager under all circumstances. Instead, contingency-situational theories were developed to indicate that the style to be used is contingent upon such factors as the situation, the people, the task, the organisation, and other environmental variables. The major theories contributing towards this school of thought are described below. 4. 3. 1 Fiedler’s Contingency Model Fiedler’s contingency theory postulates that there is no single best way for managers to lead. Situations will create different leadership style requirements for a manager. The solution to a managerial situation is contingent on the factors that impinge on the situation.
For example, in a highly routine (mechanistic) environment where repetitive tasks are the norm, a relatively directive leadership style may result in the best performance, however, in a dynamic environment a more flexible, participative style may be required. Fiedler looked at three situations that could define the condition of a managerial task: 1. Leader member relations: How well do the manager and the employees get along? 2. Task structure: Is the job highly structured, fairly unstructured, or somewhere in between? 3. Position power: How much authority does the manager possess? Managers were rated as to whether they were relationship oriented or task oriented.
Task oriented managers tend to do better in situations that have good leader-member relationships, structured tasks, and either weak or strong position power. They do well when the task is unstructured but position A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 8 power is strong. Also, they did well at the other end of the spectrum when the leader member relations were moderate to poor and the task was unstructured. Relationship oriented managers do better in all other situations. Thus, a given situation might call for a manager with a different style or a manager who could take on a different style for a different situation.
These environmental variables are combined in a weighted sum that is termed “favourable” at one end and “unfavourable” at the other. Task oriented style is preferable at the clearly defined extremes of “favourable” and “unfavourable” environments, but relationship orientation excels in the middle ground. Managers could attempt to reshape the environment variables to match their style. Another aspect of the contingency model theory is that the leader-member relations, task structure, and position power dictate a leader’s situational control. Leader-member relations are the amount of loyalty, dependability, and support that the leader receives from employees. It is a measure of how the manager perceives he or she and the group of employees is getting along together.
In a favourable relationship the manager has a high task structure and is able to reward and or punish employees without any problems. In an unfavourable relationship the task is usually unstructured and the leader possesses limited authority. The spelling out in detail (favourable) of what is required of subordinates affects task structure. Positioning power measures the amount of power or authority the manager perceives the organization has given him or her for the purpose of directing, rewarding, and punishing subordinates. Positioning power of managers depends on the taking away (favourable) or increasing (unfavourable) the decision-making power of employees.
The task-motivated style leader experiences pride and satisfaction in the task accomplishment for the organization, while the relationship-motivated style seeks to build interpersonal relations and extend extra help for the team development in the organization. There is no good or bad leadership style. Each person has his or her own preferences for leadership. Task-motivated leaders are at their best when the group performs successfully such as achieving a new sales record or outperforming the major competitor. Relationship-oriented leaders are at their best when greater customer satisfaction is gained and a positive company image is established. 4. 3. The Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership The Hersey-Blanchard Leadership Model also takes a situational perspective of leadership. This model posits that the developmental levels of a leader’s subordinates play the greatest role in determining which leadership styles (leader behaviours) are most appropriate. Their theory is based on the amount of direction (task behaviour) and socio-emotional support (relationship behaviour) a leader must provide given the situation and the “level of maturity” of the followers. • Task behaviour is the extent to which the leader engages in spelling out the duties and responsibilities to an individual or group.
This behaviour includes telling people what to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and who’s to do it. In task behaviour the leader engages in oneway communication. Relationship behaviour is the extent to which the leader engages in two-way or multi-way communications. This includes listening, facilitating, and supportive behaviours. In relationship behaviour the leader engages in two-way communication by providing socio-emotional support. Maturity is the willingness and ability of a person to take responsibility for directing his or her own behaviour. People tend to have varying degrees of maturity, depending on the specific task, function, or objective that a leader is attempting to accomplish through their efforts. • •
In summary therefore leader behaviours fall along two continua: Directive Behaviour • One-Way Communication • Followers’ Roles Clearly Communicated • Close Supervision of Performance Supportive Behaviour • Two-Way Communication • Listening, providing support and encouragement • Facilitate interaction Involve follower in decision-making A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 9 For Blanchard the key situational variable, when determining the appropriate leadership style, is the readiness or developmental level of the subordinate(s). As a result, four leadership styles result: • Directing: The leader provides clear instructions and specific direction. This style is best matched with a low follower readiness level. Coaching: The leader encourages two-way communication and helps build confidence and motivation on the part of the employee, although the leader still has responsibility and controls decision making. Selling style is best matched with a moderate follower readiness level. • Supporting: With this style, the leader and followers share decision making and no longer need or expect the relationship to be directive. Participating style is best matched with a moderate follower readiness level. • Delegating: This style is appropriate for leaders whose followers are ready to accomplish a particular task and are both competent and motivated to take full responsibility. Delegating style is best matched with a high follower readiness level.
To determine the appropriate leadership style to use in a given situation, the leader must first determine the maturity level of the followers in relation to the specific task that the leader is attempting to accomplish through the effort of the followers. As the level of followers’ maturity increases, the leader should begin to reduce his or her task behaviour and increase relationship behaviour until the followers reach a moderate level of maturity. As the followers begin to move into an above average level of maturity, the leader should decrease not only task behaviour but also relationship behaviour. Once the maturity level is identified, the appropriate leadership style can be determined. 4. . 3 Tannenbaum & Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum One criticism of early work on leadership styles is that they looked at styles too much in black and white terms. The autocratic and democratic styles or task-oriented and relationship-oriented styles which they described are extremes, whereas in practice the behaviour of many, perhaps most, leaders in business will be somewhere between the two. Contingency theorists Tannenbaum and Schmidt suggested the idea that leadership behaviour varies along a continuum and that as one moves away from the autocratic extreme the amount of subordinate participation and involvement in decision taking increases.
They also suggested that the kind of leadership represented by the democratic extreme of the continuum will be rarely encountered in formal organisations. Four main leadership styles can be located at points along such a continuum: • Autocratic: The leader takes the decisions and announces them, expecting subordinates to carry them out without question (the Telling style). • Persuasive: At this point on the scale the leader also takes all the decisions for the group without discussion or consultation but believes that people will be better motivated if they are persuaded that the decisions are good ones. He or she does a lot of explaining and ‘selling’ in order to overcome any possible resistance to what he or she wants to do.
The leader also puts a lot of energy into creating enthusiasm for the goals he or she has set for the group (the Selling style). • Consultative: In this style the leader confers with the group members before taking decisions and, in fact, considers their advice and their feelings when framing decisions. He or she may, of course, not always accept the subordinates’ advice but they are likely to feel that they can have some influence. Under this leadership style the decision and the full responsibility for it remain with the leader but the degree of involvement by subordinates in decision taking is very much greater than telling or selling styles (the Consulting style). Democratic: Using this style the leader would characteristically lay the problem before his or her subordinates and invite discussion. The leader’s role is that of conference leader, or chair, rather than that of decision taker. He or she will allow the decision to emerge out of the process of group discussion, instead of imposing it on the group as its boss (the Joining style). What distinguishes this approach from previous discussions of leadership style is that there will be some situations in which each of the above styles is likely to be more appropriate than the others. • Telling: In an emergency, a telling style may be most appropriate and would normally be considered justified by the group (as long as the general climate of that group is supportive and mature). Selling: The selling style would tend to fit situations in which the group leader, and he or she alone, possesses all the information on which the decision must be based and which at the same A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 10 • • time calls for a very high level of commitment and enthusiasm on the part of group members if the task is to be carried through successfully. Consulting: The consulting style is likely to be most appropriate when there is time in which to reach a considered decision and when the information on which the decision needs to be based lies among the members of the group.
Joining: The joining style is appropriate under similar conditions, with the important exception that this is likely to be appropriate only in those instances where the nature of the responsibility associated with the decision is such that group members are willing to share it with their leader, or alternatively the leader is willing to accept responsibility for decisions which he or she has not made personally. 4. 3. 4 Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership Model John Adair has a long pedigree in the world of leadership. The Adair model is that the action-centred leader gets the job done through the work team and relationships with fellow managers and staff. According to Adair’s explanation an action-centred leader must: • direct the job to be done (task structuring) • support and review the individual people doing it • co-ordinate and foster the work team as a whole
Action-Centred Leadership Model (Adair, 1973) His famous three circle diagram is a simplification of the variability of human interaction, but is a useful tool for thinking about what constitutes an effective leader/manager in relation to the job he/she has to do. The effective leader/manager carries out the functions and exhibits the behaviours depicted by the three circles. Situational and contingent elements call for different responses by the leader. Hence imagine that the various circles may be bigger or smaller as the situation varies i. e. the leader will give more or less emphasis to the functionally-oriented behaviours according to what the actual situation involves.
The challenge for the leader is to manage all sectors of the diagram: Task • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • define the task make the plan allocate work and resources control quality and rate of work check performance against plan adjust the plan maintain discipline build team spirit encourage, motivate, give a sense of purpose appoint sub-leaders ensure communication within group develop the group attend to personal problems praise individuals give status recognise and use individual abilities develop the individual Team Individual A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 11 4. 4 Leaders and Followers The models discussed so far have dwelt on the leader as some frontal figure who stands out from the rest as being somehow different and “leading” the rest of the people. The discussion now moves to recognition of the importance of the leaders’ relationship with his/her followers and an interdependency of roles. No longer the hero or solo leader but the team leader.
Not the leader always out in front but the leader who has the capacity to follow. Not the master, but the servant. 4. 4. 1 Servant Leadership The notion of “Servant Leadership” emphasises the leaders’ duty to serve his/her followers leadership thus arises out of a desire to serve rather than a desire to lead Robert Greenleaf, founder of the Center for Servant Leadership describes it as follows: “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. He or she is sharply different from the person who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions.
For such it will be a later choice to serve – after leadership is established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. The difference manifest itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer , is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, will they not be further deprived? Taken from the Servant as Leader published by Robert Greenleaf in 1970. Characteristics of Servant Leaders are as follows: “Servant-Leadership is a practical philosophy which supports people who choose to serve first, and then lead as a way of expanding service to individuals and institutions. Servantleaders may or may not hold formal leadership positions. Servant-leadership encourages collaboration, trust, foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment. ” Taken from the Center for Servant Leadership web site, April 2003. The emphasis on serving a higher purpose has made this model popular within the Church and other religious institutions. 4. 4. 2 The Following Part of Leading
Katzenbach and Smith, authors of ‘The Wisdom of Teams’ talk of the “following part of leading”, saying that the critical behaviours of leaders are: Asking questions instead of giving answers Providing opportunities for others to lead you Doing real work in support of others instead of only the reverse By asking such questions such as “What do you think we should do? ” or “How do you suggest we proceed? ” you take a step behind another person. Whether you stay behind, of course, depends on your intention to actually follow the suggestion or answer of that other person. This goes beyond the traditional notion of looking for growth opportunities for other people.
Unless the opportunity in question bears a real risk for your personal performance outcome, you are not actually positioning yourself as a follower. Rolling up your sleeves and contributing “sweat equity” to the efforts and outcomes of other people earns you their appreciation as someone upon whom they can depend, regardless of the relative hierarchical or functional position each of you holds. A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 12 In addition to following other people yourself, you must learn to help them follow each other. This requires you to get beyond considering yourself the “central switch” through which all decisions flow.
Instead, you need to look for every possible chance to help people find their best collaborators. “Have you asked Sally or Rasheed what they think? ” is often the only input required to facilitate the effort at hand, although you then must submit your effort and support to whatever the people in question suggest. The pejorative meaning associated with consensus management has Seeking common nothing to do with either effective leading or effective following. Leaders understanding who know when and how to follow build deep common understanding, not instead of superficial consensus, around the purpose, goals, and approach at hand. consensus They submit hemselves and others to the discipline of ensuring that all sides to any disagreement are fully understood by everyone, recognizing that mutual understanding is far more powerful than any particular decision to choose path A over path B. All people will follow strong, commonly understood purposes and goals more easily than the “put-up jobs” associated with consensus. Key Behaviours of Leaders (Katzenbach and Smith, 1994) Becoming a matchmaker instead of a “central switch” They go on to say that the indicators of when a leader must follow are: Individual performance As a leader, you must follow another individual, regardless of hierarchy, if: • That individual, through experience, skill, and judgement, knows best. • That individual’s growth demands that you invest more in his or her skill and self-confidence than in your own. Only that individual, not you, has the capacity (the time and opportunity) to “get it done” As a leader, you must follow the team if: Team performance • The team’s purpose and performance goals demand it • The team, not you, must develop skills and self-confidence • The team’s agreed-upon working approach requires you, like all the others, to do real work As a leader, you must follow others, regardless of hierarchy, if: Organizational performance • The organization’s purpose and performance goals demand it • The need for expanding the leadership capacity of others in the organization requires it • “Living” the vision and values enjoins you to do so When a leader must follow Leaders (Katzenbach and Smith, 1994) 4. 4. 3 Team Leadership In the late 1970’s Meredith Belbin conducted a study of teams focusing on the factors separating successful and unsuccessful teams via a college business game at Henley a feature of which was shared leadership.
Through the game Belbin found that the composition of the team was important and that individual differences in style, role and contribution far from underlining personal weaknesses, were a source of potential team strength. Balanced teams comprised of such individuals who engaged in complementary role behaviour performed better than unbalanced teams. Nine distinctive roles were identified in the study, with most people being found to embrace a mix of two or three roles whilst also avoiding others with which they were uncomfortable. Where there was an individual with clear, useful and appreciated attributes they would fit into a team on the basis of the strengths they brought.
These people would also have weaknesses that belonged to the same cluster of characteristics as the strength itself. These potential deficiencies were considered the price that has to be paid for a particular strength, a price that is worth paying, and were referred to as ‘allowable weaknesses. Belbin found no ‘ideal’ team member, individual who could perform all of the roles. From this work, Belbin drew the distinction between the “Solo” and the “Team” leader. He suggests that “leaders are not notable for admitting their weaknesses, whether allowable or not. They act as A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 13 though they have no weaknesses”.
To many people the image of the leader – a person heading up a team of followers, ever ready to take on any role and assuming any responsibility – is very familiar to us for it is the one based upon our past experiences and beliefs. Belbin classified such leaders as ‘Solo leaders’ and in the workplace this type of behaviour may have great advantages, for internal barriers can be overcome and decisions, especially those of an urgent nature, can be made and put into effect with little or no delay. The increasing complexity and the discontinuous nature of modern work however, poses greater problems where Solo leadership is less appropriate and ‘Team leadership’ more suited.
The key difference between the ‘Solo leader’ and ‘Team leadership’ revolves around the behaviour and participation of the two as illustrated below: SOLO LEADER TEAM LEADER Plays unlimited role – the Solo Leader interferes Chooses to limit role to preferred team roles – in everything delegates roles to others Strives for conformity – the Solo Leader tries to Builds on diversity – the Team Leader values mould people to particular standards differences between people Collects acolytes – The Solo Leader collects Seeks talent – The Team Leader is not admirers and sycophants threatened by people with special abilities Directs Subordinates – subordinates take their Develops colleagues – the Team Leader leads and cues from the Solo Leader encourages the growth of personal strengths Projects objectives – the Solo Leader makes it plain what everyone is expected to do 1.
Creates mission – the Team Leader projects the vision which others can act on as they see fit Chooses to limit role to preferred team roles – delegates roles to others Solo and Team Leader (Belbin, 1993) Belbin uses a definition from Charles Handy to illustrate his hypothesis of Solo leadership: ‘A leader shapes and shares a vision which gives point to the work of others’ (Handy, 1992). Using Team Role theory the word ‘shape’ indicates to us ‘shaper’, whilst the word ‘vision’ implies ‘plant’. Looking at leadership using Handy’s definition is interesting for vision is certainly important to leadership, but does it have to be unique to an individual? Where it is unique to an individual with a drive to enact it such as a ‘Shaper’, strong Solo leadership is likely to prevail. Vision alternatively may be ‘borrowed’ by a ‘Shaper’ who treats it as a product of the self and similarly will adopt a Solo leadership style.
Many organisations have rewarded Solo leadership behaviour by promoting individuals to management and leadership positions, for such individuals have met past organisational needs In today’s organisation the alternative approach, the Team Leader, is more appropriate. Whilst Team leadership may not be as natural as Solo leadership, Belbin suggests it can be learned through understanding the nature of leadership and the qualities required. In the rapidly changing and uncertain work environment of today no one person has all the answers to leadership. A Team leadership style based upon the development of the strengths and the allowable weaknesses of all of the roles will permit a more holistic, or participative, style of leadership where teamwork, problem solving, decision making and innovation can flourish with heightened teamwork and work performance. 4. 4. Transactional and Transformational Leadership James MacGregor Burns writing in his book ‘Leadership’ was the first to put forward the concept of “transforming leadership”. To Burns transforming leadership “is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents”. Burns went on to also further define it by suggesting that: “[Transforming leadership] occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality…” A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 14
Burns draws upon the humanistic psychology movement in his writing upon ‘transforming leadership’ by proposing that the transforming leader shapes, alters, and elevates the motives, values and goals of followers achieving significant change in the process. He proposed that there is a special power entailed in transforming leadership with leaders “armed with principles [that] may ultimately transform both leaders and followers into persons who jointly adhere to modal values and end-values” . Burns sees the power of transforming leadership as more noble and different from charismatic leadership, which he terms ‘heroic’ leadership, and executive or business leadership. Despite this it is surprising that most of the application of Burns’ work has been in these two types of leadership.
Bernard Bass developed Burns’ concept of transforming leadership in ‘Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations’ into ‘transformational leadership’ where the leader transforms followers – the direction of influence to Bass is thus one-way, unlike Burns’ who sees it as potentially a two-way process. Bass, however, deals with the transformational style of executive leadership that incorporates social change, a facet missing from Burns’ work. For Bass ‘transformational leaders’ may: • expand a follower’s portfolio of needs • transform a follower’s self-interest • increase the confidence of followers • elevate followers’ expectations • heighten the value of the leader’s intended outcomes for the follower • encourage behavioural change • motivate others to higher levels of personal achievement (Maslow’s ‘self-actualisation’).
Tichy and Devanna in their book ‘Transformational Leadership’ built further on the work of Burns and Bass in organisational and work contexts. They described the hybrid nature of transformational as “… not due to charisma. It is a behavioural process capable of being learned”. Bass writing with a research colleague Avolio suggested that “Transformational leadership is closer to the prototype of leadership that people have in mind when they describe their ideal leader, and it is more likely to provide a role model with which subordinates want to identify”. Transactional leadership has been the traditional model of leadership with its roots from an organisational or business perspective in the ‘bottom line’.
Stephen Covey writing in ‘Principle-Centred Leadership’ suggests that transformational leadership “… focuses on the ‘top line'” and offers contrast between the two (a selection being): Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership • Builds on man’s need to get a job done and • Builds on a man’s need for meaning make a living • Is preoccupied with purposes and values, • Is preoccupied with power and position, morals, and ethics politics and perks • Transcends daily affairs • Is mired in daily affairs • Is orientated toward long-term goals without • Is short-term and hard data orientated compromising human values and principles • Focuses on tactical issues • Focuses more on missions and strategies • Relies on human relations to lubricate human • Releases human potential – identifying and interactions developing new talent • Follows and fulfils role expectations by • Designs and redesigns jobs to make them striving to work effectively within current meaningful and challenging systems • Aligns internal structures and systems to • Supports structures and systems that reinforce overarching values and goals reinforce the bottom line, maximise efficiency, and guarantee short-term profits Comparison of Transactional and Transformational Leadership (Covey, 1992) Both kinds of leadership are necessary. Transactional leadership has remained the organisational model for many people and organisations who have not moved into or encouraged the transformational role needed to meet the challenges of our changing times. A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 15 The goal of transformational leadership is to ‘transform’ people and organisations in a literal sense – to change them in mind and heart; enlarge vision, insight, and understanding; clarify purposes; make behaviour congruent with beliefs, principles, or values; and bring about changes that are permanent, self-perpetuating, and momentum building” According to Bass and Avolio, transformational leaders display behaviours associated with five transformational styles: Transformational Style 1) Idealized Behaviors: living one’s ideals Leader Behaviour • Talk about their most important values and beliefs • Specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose • Consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions • Champion exciting new possibilities • Talk about the importance of trusting each other 2) Inspirational • Talk optimistically about the future Motivation: • Talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished inspiring others • Articulate a compelling vision of the future • Express confidence that goals will be achieved • Provide an exciting image of what is essential to consider • Take a stand on controversial issues 3) Intellectual • Re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are Stimulation: appropriate stimulating others • Seek differing perspectives when solving problems • Get others to look at problems from many different angles • Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments • Encourage non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional problems • Encourage rethinking those ideas which have never been questioned before 4) Individualized • Spend time teaching and coaching Consideration: • Treat others as individuals rather than just as members of the group coaching and • Consider individuals as having different needs, abilities, and development aspirations from others • Help others to develop their strengths • Listen attentively to others’ concerns • Promote self development 5) Idealized Attributes: • Instill pride in others for being associated with them Respect, trust, and faith • Go beyond their self-interests for the good of the group • Act in ways that build others’ respect • Display a sense of power and competence • Make personal sacrifices for others’ benefit • Reassure others that obstacles will be overcome Transformational Leadership Styles and Behaviours (Bass and Avolio, 1994) Transformational leadership is a process in which the leaders take actions to try to increase their associates’ awareness of what is right and important, to raise their associates’ motivational maturity and to move their associates to go beyond the associates’ own self-interests for the good of the group, the organization, or society. Such leaders provide their associates with a sense of purpose that goes beyond a simple exchange of rewards for effort provided. The transformational leaders are proactive in many different and unique ways.
These leaders attempt to optimize development, not just performance. Development encompasses the maturation of ability, motivation, attitudes, and values. Such leaders want to elevate the maturity level of the needs of their associates (from security needs to needs for achievement and self-development). They convince their associates to strive for a higher level of achievement as well as higher levels of moral and ethical standards. Through the development of their associates, they optimize the development of their organization as well. High performing associates build high performing organizations. A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 16
Hooper and Potter (1997) extend the notion of transformational leadership to identify seven key competences of “transcendent leaders”: those able to engage the emotional support of their followers and thus effectively transcend change. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Setting direction Setting an example Communication Alignment Bringing out the best in people The leader as a change agent Providing decision in a crisis and on the ambiguous 4. 5 Dispersed Leadership The importance of social relations in the leadership contract, the need for a leader to be accepted by their followers and a realisation that no one individual is the ideal leader in all circumstances have given rise to a new school of leadership thought.
Referred to as ‘informal’, ’emergent’ or ‘dispersed’ leadership, this approach argues a less formalised model of leadership where the leaders’ role is dissociated from the organisational hierarchy. It is proposed that individuals at all levels in the organisation and in all roles (not simply those with an overt management dimension) can exert leadership influence over their colleagues and thus influence the overall leadership of the organisation. Heifetz (1994) distinguishes between the exercise of “leadership” and the exercise of “authority” – thus dissociating leadership from formal organisational power roles whilst Raelin (2003) talks of developing “leaderful” organisations through concurrent, collective and compassionate leadership. The key to this is a distinction between the notions of “leader” and “leadership”. Leadership” is regarded as a process of sense-making and direction-giving within a group and the “leader” can only be identified on the basis of his/her relationship with others in the social group who are behaving as followers. In this manner, it is quite possible to conceive of the leader as emergent rather than predefined and that their role can only be understood through examining the relationships within the group (rather than by focussing on his/her personal characteristics or traits). The origins of such an approach have their foundations more in the fields of sociology and politics than the more traditional management literature and draw on concepts such as organisational culture and climate to highlight the contextual nature of leadership.
It is a more collective concept, and would argue for a move from an analysis and development of individual leader qualities to an identification of what constitutes an effective (or more appropriate) leadership process within an organisation. A move in focus from the individuals to the relationships themselves. The implications of such an approach to the development of leadership and management standards will be explored further in Section 8. A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 17 5 LEADERSHIP MODELS AND COMPETENCY FRAMEWORKS This section of the report will look at some different leadership models and frameworks used in practice across the public and private sector organisations.
The chosen models were selected as the organisations were known to researchers at the Centre for Leadership Studies and/or details of the framework were publicly available. They are not intended to represent a comprehensive, or even representative, sample of available frameworks but rather a preliminary examination of readily available materials. The inclusion of a particular framework does not necessarily indicate that it is in any way assumed “better” or more “typical” than those that were not included and, indeed, there may well be many excellent models which have not been discussed. To many participating organisations the material reviewed represents an element of their “competitive advantage” and is thus confidential.
We have therefore chosen in this report, not to include the full framework but simply to refer to the key elements. Where further information is available on the Internet we have included the web address. For ease of presentation, they have been divided into private-sector, public-sector and generic (crosssectoral) frameworks. 5. 1 Private Sector Frameworks 5. 1. 1 AstraZeneca Leadership Capabilities The AstraZeneca Leadership Capabilities were defined shortly after merger in 1999 and have been used in performance management, development planning and management planning across the global company. They are a central part of leadership development programmes and a 360 degree feedback tool has been developed to support their application.
The leadership behaviours provide a link between business priorities and the AZ values of: respect for the individual and for diversity; openness, honest, trust and support for each other; integrity and high ethical standards; and leadership by example at all levels. There are seven key capabilities, each with associated indicators/behaviours: • Provides clarity about strategic direction • Ensures commitment • Focuses on delivery • Builds relationships • Develops people • Demonstrates personal conviction • Builds self-awareness For more information please visit: http://www. astrazeneca. co. uk/careers/developingyourself/leadership. asp 5. 1. 2 BAE Performance Centred Leadership Performance Centred Leadership competencies provide a set of related behaviours used to improve business performance.
They have been developed from 360 degree feedback information, benchmarked against the competencies of high performing organisations, changed to reflect input from the Senior leader focus groups and statistically evaluated by London University. The competencies and related behaviours are used to evaluate performance in Peer Recognition and Employee opinion survey, identifying development opportunities through 360 degree feedback and are used as part of the appointment process. There are five core competences, each with a set of related behaviours: • • • Achieving High Performance Focusing on the Customer Developing Others A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 18 • • Continuously Improving Working Together
The framework forms a basis for leadership development in BAE which is fully integrated with all other strategic processes in the organisation through the Performance Centred Leadership Development Framework. 5. 1. 3 Federal Express Leadership Qualities FedEx has a system for rating aspiring leaders according to 9 attributes: • • • • • • • • • Charisma Individual consideration Intellectual stimulation Courage Dependability Flexibility Integrity Judgement Respect for others For more detail on the framework please visit: http://www. geocities. com/gvwrite/9faces. htm 5. 1. 4 Lufthansa Leadership Compass The Lufthansa Leadership Compass sets out a framework for effective leadership that is used by the Lufthansa School of Business in its leadership development education.
It includes the following six key categories, which set out a range of skills and behaviours including: vision, decisiveness, concern for people, self-reflection and professional know-how: • • • • • • Entrepreneurial leadership Breakthrough problem solving Winning others Leading people Attitude and drive International business competencies Development Centres based on this framework are used to help “high potential” employees define their current position and determine the next steps for their professional career. This involves a selfassessment exercise, development centre (comprising individual and group exercises) and a post DC process whereby the participant develops an individual development plan with the support and coaching of their superior. It is intended that this process should occur about 1 year before moving into a C grade post. 5. 1. 5 Philips Leadership Competencies
Six Leadership Competencies define the behaviour that is required to achieve business success in Phillips. They provide a balanced approach, stating the importance of task aspects while recognising that results are obtained through people. These competencies are as follows: • • • • • • Shows determination to achieve excellent results Focuses on the market Finds better ways Demands top performance Inspires commitment Develops self and others For more information please visit: http://ad. chinahr. com/jobads/philips/leadership. asp A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 19 5. 1. 6 Shell Leadership Framework
The Leadership Framework used by Shell includes nine key elements as indicated below: • • • • • • • • • Builds Shared Vision Champions Customer Foc