Leadership Styles And Their Influence On Employees .
Leadership styles and their influence on employeesregarding the acceptance of organizational changeAuthor: Thomas ThuijsmanUniversity of TwenteP.O. Box 217, 7500AE EnschedeThe NetherlandsAbstractThis paper examines the influence of leadership styles on the acceptance of organizational change by employees. We introduce aconceptual framework to elaborate on the relationship between employees and the acceptance of organizational change. The focus onemployees lies in their openness to experience, something that is considered to be related to the acceptance of change.This framework will be complemented with a set of propositions drawn from the literature. The propositions explain how an employeewill be influenced by a certain leadership style in his/her acceptance of organizational change. These propositions have practicalimplications for grasping the way that psychology can be used in an organization when implementing a change. More specifically,leadership styles will be linked to the openness to experience of employees, and propositions are formed to predict how individuals areinfluenced by the leadership styles when it comes to acceptance of organizational change.Supervisor: Dr. Raymond P. A. LoohuisSecond supervisor: Marlies Stuiver MScKey Concepts: leadership styles, managers, organizational change, business, acceptance of changePermission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies arenot made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copyotherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.5th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, July 2nd, 2015, Enschede, The Netherlands.Copyright 2015, University of Twente, The Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social sciences.1
can apply; acceptance of organizational change, and research onthe relationship between those two.The focus of research that studies the relationship of leadershipstyles and the acceptance of organizational change, is always onthe effective implementation or creating the least resistanceamong employees regarding organizational change and whichleadership styles prove most effective. The feelings ofemployees are often disregarded in existing research thatstudies the influence of leadership styles or other variables onthe acceptance or resistance of organizational change amongemployees (e.g., Aktouf, 1992; Bray, 1994; Wanberg & Banas,2000; Judge et al., 1999; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002, Judge,Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Lau & Woodman, 1995).For example, Aktouf (1992) asks for more humanism in theorganizations and wants the centre of attention to be on theperson. Wanberg & Banas (2000) predict that ‘openness towardan organizational change’ from employees is important forperformance in a firm.This paper will contribute to the gap in the literature that fails toconnect leadership styles with the feelings of employees whileaccepting organizational change. Having the knowledge of howindividuals react to different leadership styles, might give wayto the development of new leadership styles, alternation ofexisting leadership styles or open up the discussion abouteffectively implementing organizational change.INTRODUCTIONIn the contemporary world of business, both globalization andincreasing emphasis on sustainability factors force manycompanies to reconsider their strategy (Kotter, 2008). In orderto stay profitable and survive in the competitive market,companies constantly need to reposition their products and/orservices, bring down costs and increase their sales.The ultimate goal of any organization is to survive. Since theenvironmental turbulence increases (due to globalization)constant change seems to be the only constant factor in business(Drori, Meyer and Hwang, 2006)But, change is often feared by employees (Bower and Walton,1973).A very important theme for managers in organizations thereforeis how to implement organizational change without sufferingfrom employees’ resistance. Managers can do this by applyingdifferent leadership styles. These leadership styles vary fromcreating empathy towards change, thereby reducing resistance,on one end of the spectrum to forcing change, fuellingresistance, on the other end.This paper explores the influence of different leadership styleson employees within an organization. In an organization,leaders are expected to set direction for their employees whenorganizational change occurs.The focus in this paper is on organizational change on a sociallevel, which means that employees will be influenced by thechange.PRACTICAL RELEVANCEThe gap in the literature mostly neglects the attitude towardsacceptance of organizational change. However, employeesmake up a firm and are therefore partly responsible for the firmperformance. This is why businesses would benefit from theknowledge of which leadership style to apply to implementchange, so that the employees can accept organizational changebetter and faster and stay as positive as possible towards thefirm they work in, which in turn would lead to better businessperformance since the firm is able to adjust to a change in theenvironment quicker and thus stay ahead of the competition.The propositions produced by this conceptual paper willprovide a deeper insight into the process of organizationalchange. More specifically, organizations can influence theacceptance of change of employees by using differentleadership styles.The goal of this paper is to elaborate on the topic oforganizational change by studying how employees accept theorganizational change as influenced by different leadershipstyles applied by their managers. This elaboration will be donearound a central research question, namely:How can leadership styles influence employeeson their acceptance of organizational change?This is a conceptual paper. The theoretical insights will beobtained from other scholars, drawing upon their alreadyconducted research regarding certain concepts used in thispaper, such as the different leadership styles and their impact onimplementing organizational change.CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUNDBelow, the concepts introduced in the research question will beexplained and elaborated on to get a full understanding of whatthe problem entails.Outline:This paper outlines the concepts connected to organizationalchange, the acceptance of this organizational change byemployees, the personality of employees and leadership stylesto establish the context of the problem. Using these concepts weconstruct a conceptual framework explaining the relationshipbetween the personality of employees and the acceptance ofchange as influenced by different leadership styles. After that,using the concepts, a set of propositions will be developed thatwould explain the conceptual framework and the relationship inthat framework.ManagersEspecially during organizational change, when the status quo isshaken up and routines need to be re-established, employeeshave to have a clear direction of where the company is headed.The leaders that communicate this new direction and lead theorganization towards it, are the managers.Whittington and Johnson (2011) in their book ‘ExploringStrategy’ distinguish four levels of managers that they call ‘thestrategists’, i.e. the ones who implement the strategy in anorganization: top managers and directors, strategic planners,middle managers and strategy consultants.Top managers and directors set the strategic directions of anorganization but are not so much involved in the actualexecution of this strategic direction.Strategic planners are ‘managers with a formal responsibilityfor coordinating the strategy process’(Whittington and Johnson,2011).ACADEMIC RELEVANCEAs mentioned in the introduction, organizations have to changetheir strategy more often than before, due to an increasingnumber of demands, such as globalization (Kotter, 2008). Therehas been a lot of research about leadership styles that managers2
Middle managers’ involvement in strategy implementation isseen as very limited. This, because middle managers are tooinvolved in the operations to be able to have an overview overthe organization.Strategy consultants can be internal or external and are oftenused in the development of a strategy.Second-order change is a change that cannot be undone oncestarted. This change focuses on doing something totallydifferent than before.Forced change is change that does not come from theemployees but rather is forced upon them by the higher levelmanagement.Voluntary change occurs when employees recognize the need tochange and start this change from within the company.The main difference between these two changes found in theliterature on resistance to change is that when employees aremore committed to the change (hence; they initiated it), thechange is more likely to succeed (eg. J. P. Kotter & L. A.Schlesinger, 1979; P. R. Lawrence, 1975; D. Kirkpatrick, 1985;D. Bryant,1989).According to these definitions, the focus in this paper will be onthe strategic planners as managers responsible for implementingthe organizational change. We recognize that this is a somewhatsimplification of the reality, but a simplification we have tomake for the sake of the feasibility of the research.BusinessBurns and Stalker (1961) distinguish between two types oforganizations; the organic and the mechanistic organization.Their definition: “The mechanistic approach, suitable for stableindustries, is marked by precise definition of member functionand is highly hierarchical. The organic approach is moreappropriate to industries undergoing change and ischaracterized by fluid definitions of function and interactionsthat are equally lateral as they are vertical.”(Burns and Stalker,1961).Even though this distinction between types of organizationsstems from 1961, in the literature Burns and Stalkers’distinction is still seen as the most fundamental dichotomywhen it comes to organizations.This study focusses on organic businesses which undergochange more often, making them more appealing for thepurpose of this research.In this study, the propositions are based on a type oforganizational change that is radical, discontinuous, secondorder and forced, because this type of change is expected tocause the most resistance when compared with its counterpart.Leadership stylesThe literature about leadership styles is superfluous. There aremany different leadership styles distinguished by manydifferent authors. Some of these leadership style classificationsare well known in the literature. We will elaborate on some ofthese better known leadership styles below.A distinction that comes back in the literature quite often is onebetween three styles called ‘transformational’, ‘transactional’and ‘laissez faire’ leadership.“Transformational leadership: Style of leadership in which theleader identifies the required change, creates a vision to guidethe change through inspiration, and executes the change withthe commitment of the members of the group.” (BusinessDictionary, 2015)“Transactional leadership: Style of leadership that is based onthe setting of clear objectives and goals for the followers as wellas the use of either punishments or rewards in order toencourage compliance with these goals.” (Business Dictionary,2015)“Laissez faire leaders try to give the least possible guidance tosubordinates, and try to achieve control through less obviousmeans. They believe that people excel when they are left aloneto respond to their responsibilities and obligations in their ownways.” (Business Dictionary, 2015)The effectiveness of these leadership styles is still under debateby multiple scholars who all hold a different opinion. But, in thelight of employee participation on organizational change, Burns(1978) writes in his book ‘Leadership’ that ‘leaders whoexhibit transformational behaviours appeal to followers’ senseof values and are able to get them to see a higher vision and toencourage them to exert”.Organizational change“The only thing certain about organizationalchange is that nothing is certain”(Davy et al., 1988, p. 58 in: Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006)Organizational change can be explained in many ways. Broadlydefined, organizational change refers to any modification inorganizational composition, structure, or behaviour (Bowditch& Buono, 2001).Furthermore, organizational change can be divided in‘incremental change’ and ‘radical change’(Tushman and Romanelli, 1985), ‘continuous versusdiscontinuous change’ (Meyer, Goes, & Brooks, 1993) and‘first-order versus second-order change’ (Meyer et al., 1993).In the light of this research, we would like to add ‘forcedchange versus voluntary change’.These four aspects are seen in the literature as the four mostbasic characteristics of organizational change.In her article on ‘Managing radical change’, Ann Todd (1999)describes radical and incremental change as follows: “RadicalChange is a substantial change that is often forced on theorganization by an interaction with its environment. It requiresa change in the basic values of the organization.”“Incremental Change is the task of achieving changes in linewith the existing culture and objectives of the organization. Itwill usually be generated from within the company as part ofcompetitive improvement.”Continuous change is a type of change that occurs over timerather than at a certain point in time. This change is understoodand expected by the employees of the organization.Discontinuous change is not understood nor expected by theemployees. This is because there is no initial inducement forthis change.First-order change can always be undone and is a type ofchange that focuses on doing more or doing less of something.Lewin in Lewin, Lippit, & White (1939) was one of the first todistinguish between three major styles of leadership: autocratic(a manager does not consult his/her team members beforemaking a decision), democratic (a manager makes the finaldecision but does this with consulting the team members first)and laissez-faire (managers offer support to the team membersbut do not get involved).Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee (2001)elaborated on six emotional leadership styles.The six emotional leadership styles distinguished are: thevisionary leader (emphasis on empathy), the coaching leader(connect organizational goals with the goals of individuals), theaffiliative leader (emotional needs over work needs), thedemocratic leader (commitment of employees via participation),3
the pace-setting leader (challenges and sets goals foremployees), the commanding leader (uses authority to givedirections to employees).Provided below is a scheme that elaborates on each leadershipstyle.In 1989, management expert Steven R. Covey published a selfhelp book called ‘The 7 habits of highly effective people’ , inwhich he explains how one can be effective in attaining goalsby thinking with a long-term perspective and buildingoncommunicative relationships with others both at work and athome.Covey starts by identifying that two people can see the exactsame thing, but have different opinions about it. Covey statesthat it is important to stay true to oneself and act out ofprinciples, he calls this ‘principle-centred leadership’. Hecontinues by identifying eight characteristics of principlecentred leaders:1. They are continually learning.2. They are service-oriented.3. They radiate positive energy.4. They believe in other people.5. They lead balanced lives.6. They see life as an adventure.7. They are synergistic.8. They exercise for self-renewal.Another author in the field of management is Steven Covey. Hehas written many books about several facets of management,mainly from a more psychological point of view. Because thispsychological background is valuable in the light of this paper,we would like to introduce Covey’s idea on management andleadership styles.Principle-centred leadership uses four principles (security,wisdom, guidance and power) along four different levels,according to Covey:Fig. 1: Goleman, Daniel, “Leadership that Gets Results”Harvard Business Review. March-April 2000 p. 82-83.4
Fig. 2: Four levels in which to practice the Four Principles,by Covey, S.regarding the extent to which changes were needed and theorganization’s capacity to make those changes.”There has been lots of research done on the topic oforganizational change and the influence of different leadershipstyles on the acceptance of this change. Tsoukas (2002), talksabout change as a normal condition in organizational life. Hestates that change happens constantly.Shaul Oreg (2001) elaborates on the multiple styles ofleadership that managers can use to implement the change.Oreg therefore draws upon a 60 year review of quantitativestudies of change recipients’ reactions to organizational change.The researchers did this by examining the leadership thatmanagers applied and the intentions of employees to resist theorganizational change. They found that when the managerapplied a leadership style that is open to change values, theemployees are least likely to resist the organizational change.Ann Todd (1999) and Kotter (2008) also recognize thedifficulty of implementing change. Executing organizationalchange requires certain skills from the managers, who shoulddiagnose the types of resistance they will encounter (Kotter,2008). The authors suggest three steps for managing theimplementation of change: 1. Analysing situational factors suchas the amount of resistance that is to be expected fromemployees; 2. Determine the optimal speed of change, quick orslow; 3. Consider methods for managing resistance, a part inwhich multiple methods are discussed, such as coercion oreducation.People in general do not want to change. (Bower and Walton,1973). But sometimes, organizational change is necessary tokeep a business competitive in the market.Organizational—my need to organizepeopleManagerial—my responsibility to get ajob done with othersInterpersonal—my relationships and interactionswith othersAround 1980,researchers started to elaborate on therelationship between organizational change implementation andthe effect on employees, and have found “motivational states toinfluence employees’ adaptation to change (Caldwell et al,2004) and personality dimensions (i.e., the Big Five) to berelated to people’s strategies for coping with change (Judge etal., 1999).”, as reported by Herold and Fedor in their Beyondchange management: A multilevel investigation of contextualand personal influences on employees’ commitment to change(2007).This suggests that employees’ acceptance of change can beinfluenced. Leadership styles are a factor that can influence thisacceptance of change. We will study this relationship in theconceptual framework.Personal—my relationship with myselfSummarizing, Covey enunciates that a manager should try toprovide the four principles (security; wisdom; guidance andpower) in all four levels (persona; interpersonal; managerialand organizational), using the 8 characteristics of principlecentred leadership.The six emotional leadership styles by Goleman et al. (2001) isomnipresent in the literature, because it is seen as thefundamental distinction of leadership styles.This paper will therefore use these six emotional leadershipstyles to study which one is most effective when it comes toemployees’ acceptance of organizational change.Acceptance of change as an employeeAdjusting to change and ultimately the acceptance of changeare two different concepts leading towards the same. Adjustingto change describes the process of getting used to new normsand procedures, whilst acceptance of change focuses on thefinal outcome, i.e. the new status quo. In this thesis, weelaborate on the adjusting to change while using the concept ofacceptance of change as the final outcome. I.e., this
different leadership styles. These leadership styles vary from creating empathy towards change, thereby reducing resistance, on one end of the spectrum to forcing change, fuelling resistance, on the other end. This paper explores the influence of different leadership styles
Introduction Types of styles OpenOffice.org Writer has five types of styles: Paragraph styles affect a an entire paragraph. Character styles affect a block of text inside a paragraph. Page styles affect page formatting (page size, margin and the like). Frame styles affect frames and graphics. Numbering styles affect numbered lists and bulleted lists.
particularly leadership. This requires manager to understand the effectiveness and impact of different leadership styles towards employees' performances. ass and Avolio (1994) introduced the Full Range Leadership model (FRL). The model illustrates the most effective leadership styles are transformational and transactional leadership styles.
Object styles: Use object styles to format objects in an InDesign document with settings such as stroke, color transparency, and text wrap. Drop caps and nested styles: Create drop caps, nested styles, and GREP styles in InDesign. Work with styles: Learn how to duplicate, group, move, and reorder styles in InDesign.
Feb 07, 2019 · 4.Describe the impact of culture on leadership styles. 5.Identify five leadership styles and their effectiveness in different situations related to CLC. 6.Reflect on the importance of using varied leadership styles to advance and sustain
Keyword: leadership style, transformational leadership, situational leadership, postsecondary education, online instruction INTRODUCTION There are many leadership styles represented LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 6SHFL¿FDOO\ WKHUH DUH D variety of leadership styles used by online college instructors. This study is an exploration of the
Leadership Styles They Adopt (Mokgolo, Mokgolo, & Modiba, 2012). There Are Several Theories And Styles Of Leadership Propounded By Different Authors From Time To Time. More Recently, the Dominant Topology of Leadership Styles Is Articulated By Bass (1980-1997) and His Associates, Avolio and Goodheim (1987).
Leadership, Servant Leadership, Situational Leadership, Authoritarian Leadership, and Moral Leadership. Although each of these styles had some very positive characteristics, it was found that Spiritual Leadership allowed for various leadership approaches to be applied as needed and these approaches were designed
Tourism 2020 is a whole-of-government and industry strategy to build the resilience and competitiveness of Australia’s tourism industry and to increase its economic contribution to Australia’s economy. When the Tourism 2020 goal was introduced, it was set at between 115 billion to 140 billion in overnight visitor expenditure, reflecting a range of scenarios, from holding market share to .
