Plan de contenidos en redes sociales

This approach should also be reflected in the literature review in that temporal variables should be linked to specific outcome variables. It should be noted that it is not being suggested that the concept of leadership effectiveness should not be implied, but that it should only after specific outcome variables have been identified.

The contingency model, path-goal theory and situational leadership theories emphasised the cognitive processes associated directly with the leader who, is expected to be aware of situational characteristics and how to adapt behaviours to these characteristics. While these theories

subsequently have a behavioural component, the FRLT provides a more detailed analysis of leader behaviour that is perceived to motivate subordinates to high levels of performance. Arguably this is the attribute of the FRLT that makes it responsible for the wide support it gains; it explains how an individual can be motivated and influenced, and how this affects performance. In the

contingency model and situational leadership the process of influence is explicitly determined not by the leader but by the situation. Essentially, one way to distinguish between leadership approaches is by looking at the extent to which behavioural and situational factors are detailed in the influence process. Moreover, the FRLT has a stronger emphasis on transformational, spiritual and charismatic leadership compared to the earlier situational leadership theories and path-goal relationship theories (see Yukl, 1999; 2002).

Leadership versus Management

It is deemed important in relation to developing the TI construct in the context of leadership that consideration is given to the controversial debate that surrounds comparing leadership to management. This comparison raises the issue of how to distinguish between the two concepts. Considering this issue is important for defining the context and behaviours that TI as a construct relates to. While there is at a conceptual level, a distinction between leadership and management, there are a number of inconsistencies in the literature on exactly how to draw this distinction. For example, Bennis and Nanus (1985, cited in Gill, 2006 p26) states ‘managers are people who do

things right; leaders are people who do the right things’. This notion is also reflected in leadership versus management distinctions drawn by a number of scholars (Pascale, 1990). However, Gronn (2003, cited in Gill 2006, p26) suggests that this is an uneasy distinction based upon epistemological assumptions. As Gill (2006) notes, the Work Foundation draws the distinction by remarking ‘managers plan, allocate resources, administer and control, whereas leaders innovate, communicate and motivate’ (p26). This statement provides a clear

understanding of some of the perceived key differences between leadership and management but does not completely reconcile the inconsistencies reflective of the management versus leadership debate.

While is its acknowledged that there are conceptual differences between leadership and management, the finer nuances in distinguishing between the two, can lead to consistently and comprehensively making this distinction problematic. For example, if the behaviour

characteristic of transactional leadership style is considered, this can be interpreted to align more with traditional views of management. Developing this point, management-by-exception (denoting transactional leadership) is characterised by the leader setting objectives, setting processes and monitoring for problems in meeting objectives or following processes (active form). This is reflective of planning and structuring behaviour associated with management (Rajan, 2000) and Kotter’s (1990, cited in Gill, 2006, p27) definition of management; ‘produces orderly results that keep something working efficiently’. Moreover, making the distinction between leaders and managers can be especially difficult in practice, which appears a notion supported by Drucker (1966), who does not seek to explicitly identify the differences between the two and suggests that both are required to be effective when responsible for employees. In sum, the difficulties in distinguishing between leadership and management have one main implication on identifying individual differences in time related behaviours and cognitions in leadership. While the aim of the research is to identify time-related individual differences in leadership, it should be recognised that there may be an overlap with management behaviours but the predominant focus will be on leadership.

63

Review objective II. Temporal constructs in leadership Time in Leadership Theories and Models

The development of the situational, trait and style-based accounts of leadership described above can be observed to have a limited reference to time as a concept. For example, Bass’s FRLT had very little reference to time, and time as a concept cannot be observed as integral to any aspect of Bass’s conceptualization of FRLT. However, Bass (1985) did remark that charismatic leaders have a keen sense of time and are most effective when social conditions are allied with the vision of the leader. Casmir (2001) conducted research into timing of transactional and transformational leadership styles. As the study was conducted in a laboratory setting, further research is required to address the issue of whether the findings are generalisable across leadership contexts in a naturalistic organisational setting. Recent research by Farh (2011) suggests that sequencing of leadership behaviours is important for action teams (n=82 surgery teams observed) in relation to team performance.

Valuable as understanding timing in leadership is, it should be recognized that timing is a dimension of time. Developing this point, in the previous chapter, time was shown to be a multi- dimensional construct at an individual, group and organisational level. Thus, time potentially has a much more significant role in leading than can be accounted for by the notion of timing within the context of leadership styles. In fact, recently, a number of these temporal concepts have emerged in the context of leadership.

Timescape in Leadership

As demonstrated earlier, time is sparsely referenced within the main theories and models of leadership. However, in addition to these central theories and models, there also are a number of accounts purporting to address temporal issues in leadership. These span across disciplines and often address one dimension of time (i.e., a uni-dimensional perspective of time in leadership) with limited consideration to the central leadership theories and models. Thus, overall the

literature linking time to leadership is fragmented, subsequently; the task of conceptual synthesis is cumbersome by nature. However, an account that integrates a number of concepts across disciplines and aims to provide a basis for guiding future research into time and leadership has been proposed by Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey and Buckley (2003). These scholars provide one of the most comprehensive theoretical analyses of time in a leadership context to date.

Halbesleben and colleagues propose a competency-based model that outlines how a leader’s awareness of the different components of timescape form the competency ‘awareness of temporal complexity’. In turn, this competency is posited to be important in influencing the leader’s capability of leading creative project teams and innovative organisations through its interactions with self-, context- and vision- related leadership competencies, which are mediated by social and cognitive factors. The notion of timescape originates in the sociological works of Adam (2000; cited in Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey & Buckley 2003, p436) and represents a specific conceptualisation of time that ‘captures both economic and social aspects of time into a holistic temporal landscape’ (Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey & Buckley, 2003; p.436). Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey and Buckley postulate that timescape is formed of nine sub-components (dimensions of time): timeframe, tempo, temporality, synchronisation, sequence,

simultaneity/zeitgeber, anticipated and emerging gaps and pauses, time personality and timelessness.

Timeframe

Timeframe refers to the time horizon of an event, which can be represented by ‘clock time (hours and days), cosmic cycles (years, seasons, and tides) or socioeconomic timing (fiscal years and economic cycles)’ (Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey & Buckley p.437). It is the leader’s understanding of the timeframe that is deemed important for the leadership of innovation.

65

Tempo

Tempo represents the ‘basic rhythm in the timescape’ (p.438), which also is referred to as a pace or speed. This temporal construct has been discussed at individual, group and cultural levels in the previous chapter. At an individual level, speed was discussed in relation to an individual’s preference of the speed at which to complete a task (time personality). This was not considered in the tempo component of Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey and Buckley’s model of temporal complexity, but time personality is represented as a component of its own in the model. At a group level, pace was discussed in chapter 2 in relation to a project lifespan, which draws upon the work of mid-point transitions (e.g. Gersick, 1988). Halbesleben and colleagues’s discussion of tempo centred around this interpretation of pace. Specifically in relation to temporal

complexity, it is proposed that a leader can facilitate mid-point transitions through initiating an appropriate structure to the task (Okhuysen & Waller, 2002). At a cultural level, pace was discussed in chapter 2 in relation to the pace of work activities within the organization. Halbesleben and colleagues discuss both these notions of pace in their model. However, while these two notions of pace are discussed at an organisational level, the leader’s role in having a potential impact on the pace of activities or decisions is proposed by Halbesleben and colleagues. For example, in the context of innovation, the tempo of activities can be ‘represented by how quickly an innovation is developed and introduced to the market, particularly relative to competition and customer needs’ (p.438). It is also stated that:

‘An organisation that introduces an innovation significantly more quickly than their competition (and swiftly, in response to a customer need that has developed in the product market) will realize greater success (Adam, 2000; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Simon, 1986)’ (p.438).

While the speed at which an innovation is introduced by an organisation (organisational tempo) is the aggregation of a number of activities leading up to introduction, Halbesleben and colleagues state that ‘leaders may need to adjust tempo’. Thus, while tempo is reported to exist independently of the leader and is not directly controlled by the leader, the leader’s behaviours

are deemed to have the ability to influence the tempo of the activities and the tempo of an organisation’s innovation introduction. Conceptually, the notion of a temporal dimension not occurring under the direct control of a leader (but the leader having the potential to influence that characteristic of a dimension) is significant and will be developed in the context of TI.

Temporality

Temporality, the third component of temporal complexity, refers to the ‘limited life span or durability of processes, events, and things within the timescape’ (Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey & Buckley, 2003; p.439). Although the authors employ the term ‘temporality’, it is clear that the construct relates to the notion of time perspectives and specifically of temporal depth and focus (Bluedorn, 2002). Halbesleben and colleagues suggest that leaders need to be aware of how temporality impacts innovation. The importance of temporality is linked with the decision-making process and specifically the extent to which decisions are based upon what has happened in the past, which relates to the notion of escalation of commitment. Escalation of commitment refers to when an investment in the past (i.e., resources) based on a decision (e.g. to develop a new product) may prevent that past decision being revisited in fear of the resources being wasted (Staw, 1976; cited in Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey & Buckley, 2003, p437). The notion of temporal depth refers to the ‘distance looked into the past and future’ and temporal focus as the ‘importance attached to the past, present and future’. However, the notions of temporal depth and focus refer to the individual (i.e., the importance an individual attaches), while temporality is arguably a

temporal characteristic of events. A perceived limitation with the model of temporal complexity is that the focus is on temporal characteristics of events, organisations, groups and individual

67