Useem (2001) stated leadership is a process which can make a difference in the society and culture. He continues “it entails changing an organization and making active choices among plausible alternatives, and depends on the development of others and mobilising them to get the job done” (Mullins, 2007, p. 363). However, Useem (2001) promoted couple of new significant
abilities which connect vision and strategy of organizations, they are; leading out and leading up. According to Useem, managers should have the skill to lead out by spreading their talents to their colleagues. To explain it more clearly, most of the time managers think that their job is only to send work downwards to subordinates. This is not Useem’s leading out capability. If managers not only send work downwards but also use their knowledge, skills, ideas and creativities in delegating work to colleagues then it will be called leading out skill. At the same time managers’ leading up talent is to guide their upper levels such as their managers, directors, as managers are the regionalized authority of organizations. Useem also added that managers also should have the capacity to support and direct the organizations from top to bottom. This implies that, leadership is leaders’ and/or managers’ ability, quality and overall behavioural actions to lead a group of people in an organization.
52 To explain leadership behaviour there is not only one way but also some possible ways as leadership has many magnitudes. According to Mullins (2007) leadership behaviour refers as
unitary, dictatorial, benevolent, consultative, bureaucratic, charismatic, abdicatorial and participative. Conversely, in terms of managerial leadership power and behaviours towards their subordinate staff Mullins (2007) broadly classified leadership styles in a basic three-fold heading which are described below.
The authoritarian style refers the manager is all in all. Manager who follows this style is the only person in the organization or institute who makes the decision and officially responsible for taking policies, actions for reaching goals, missions and relationships as well as has control of rewards or punishments.
The democratic style refers equal behaviour towards the group members. Manager who follows this style shares the leadership functions with co-workers. Each member of the group has a vital role in any vital decision. Democratic managers give the full rights to agree or disagree with any judgment.
A manager who follows laissez-faire leadership style lets his team members to perform independently and watches that the subordinates or the fellow workers are doing well by themselves.
In the meantime, researchers of GLOBE project characterized six types of global leadership styles, they are; charismatic/value based, team oriented, participative, humane oriented, autonomous, and self-protective (House and Javidan, 2004). These global leadership styles are briefly explained below:
Charismatic/value-based leadership style considers use of leader’s talents and charisma what they possess to encourage, motivate others to perform better. It incorporates leaders being innovative, dominant, moral, inspiring, trustworthy, and job oriented.
Team-oriented leadership style gives emphasis to structure the team and a shared goal of that team. This leadership behaviour contains all the characteristics of leaders what help them to be more integrative, united, not malevolent, and organizationally skilled.
Participative leadership style is where leaders seek to involve other people in the process and engage them to make and apply decisions. This kind of leadership behaviour comprises the characteristics of leaders which make them to be more sharing minded, friendly, and not
autocratic. This is more likely to Mullins’ (2007) democratic leadership style which is described before.
53
Humane-oriented leadership behaviour refers emotional perceptions of the group
members. This type of leadership behaviour reflects the qualities of the leader that make them to be generous, supportive, thoughtful, and kind-hearted. The key part of this type of leadership style is modesty and sensitivity to other members of the group.
Autonomous leadership style is quite similar to Mullins’ (2007) laissez-faire leadership style. This kind of leadership behaviour indicates leaders prefer to be self-governing and they like group members’ independent and individual work.
Self-protective leadership style refers behaviours that certify the safety and security of leaders as well as the group. And it includes self-absorbed, egoistic, argumentative, and bureaucratic leadership.
Two important forms of leadership behaviour also have been identified by Burns (1978) for organizational culture. Firstly, transactional leadership and secondly, transformational
leadership. Transactional leadership focuses on legal authority inside the organization’s intrusive formation. This type of leadership style reflects the insight of targets and aims, job assignment and outcomes, and administrative remuneration and penalties. Transactional leaders state to the egotism of the group members and this leadership style is based on the association of shared reliance. Leaders motivate their followers by the ‘give and take process’ which is, “I will give you this, if you do that.” Conversely, transformational leadership is a type of leadership
behaviour where leaders complete the task by bringing out of their followers’ inner talents, skills and knowledge rather than encouraging others by the give and take process. It appeals to
elevated followers’ principles and values, and generating a sense of integrity, reliability and belief. In terms of organizational perception, transformational leadership behaviour changes the performance or fortunes of an organization.
From the discussion above it seems that transformational leadership style has similarities with charismatic leadership style which has been denoted by Kreinter et al. (1999). They stated that charismatic leaders transform employees to follow the goals of the organization over self- interests: “charismatic leaders transform followers by creating changes in their goals, values, needs, beliefs, and aspirations. They accomplish this transformation by appealing to followers’ self concepts – namely, their values and personal identity” (Mullins, 2007, p. 382). However,
Hunt suggests that there is no certain positive effect of charismatic leadership although, charismatic leaders can have a profound effect on an organization’s members (Mullins, 2005).
54 Organizational leadership efficiency can be influenced by many variables which are
indicated below (Mullins, 2007):
• Personalities, attitudes, abilities of the manager’s in the organization;
• The type of the manager’s authority and the basis of the leadership relationship;
• Characteristics of the group members;
• The manager’s affiliation with the team and the members of the team;
• The culture, the form, and the environment of the organization, and the organization’s various steps of the progress;
• The type of the assignments to be completed, the extent to which organized or routine;
• The organizations communication networking systems, using of technology, and operational technique;
• The administrations and organizational formation;
• The type of troubles in the organization arise and what type decisions manager takes against those problems;
• The aspect of outer situation and its control;
• The form of the society and comfortable organization, and the psychosomatic contract;
• The influence national culture.
Most of the factors mentioned above are familiar to a manager as they are the fundamentals of the culture where a manager grows up. But national culture is unfamiliar when the manager is from different culture. Similarly, organizational culture is also a new experience for managers and over the time they adjust their mindset with it. Therefore, it is essential to discuss about the impact of culture on leadership styles.