Essay topic 1: Discuss the usefulness and problems with contingency theories in understanding organizational structure.

How relevant can they be for the practice of organizing? The usefulness of contingency theory in understanding organizational structure is that it attempts to explicate the proper leadership style based on the leader, follower, and situation (Lussier & Achua, 2001). The success of a leader is dependent upon followers, duties, organizational dynamics, and external variables when contingency theory is discussed. Contingency theory is most associated with Fred Fiedler's writings in the latter part of the 1960s and the early 1970s concerning leadership styles being task or relationship oriented (Lussier & Achua, 2001). Fred E. Fiedler's Contingency theory (developed in 1967) seems to explicate the contingency period the best. Fiedler's theory addresses the question of which styles of leadership are most effective in what situations. He believed leadership styles of leaders are constant and to maximize the effectiveness of the leader, the leader's style must match the situation (Bass, 1990). For example, in a highly mechanized work environment, tasks are repeated to fulfill an objective, and a certain style of leadership may result in the optimum performance by the leader and the followers. The same leadership style may not fit a work environment that is dynamic. This same notion might hold true for entrepreneurs also, since entrepreneurs might be considered leaders (Lussier & Achua, 2001). Fiedler (1967) discussed three situations that defined the condition of a leadership task: leader-member relations (how well the leader and follower related to one another); task structure (either the job or task is structured in a high, medium, or low format); and position power (the amount of authority the leader possesses). In this
1

manner, leaders may be assessed as relationship-oriented or task-oriented. In Miner's (1984) study of established organizations, he found Contingency theory in organizations was most recognized by scholars as important (e.g., research generating, useful, and practical) of 110 distinct theories. The rationale for this finding supported that contingency theory was most widely known by academicians at that time. 14 The contingency theory, subjected to numerous and various business and organizational tests, is highly relevant to leadership studies (Honig, 2004; Lane & Cherek, 2000). Honig (2004) discussed a contingency model utilizing Jean Piaget's theory of equilibrium, which hypothesized that equilibrium is a dynamic process that assimilates new knowledge repetitively and incrementally by individuals while interacting with the environment. Fiedler's contingency theory described how situations were affected by a leader's personality and behavior. He believed that leadership styles remained consistent and that leaders did not change, but leaders changed situations. Fiedler postulated the effectiveness of leadership was contingent upon the characteristics of the leader (trait theory based), as well as group situations shaped by followers (behavioral theory based) (Lussier & Achua, 2001). Fiedler (1967, 1971) reported one style of leadership was not always the appropriate style in resolving group or organizational structure issues. Fiedler's contingency theory suggested leadership can be discerned by examining three conditions: (a) leader member relations, (b) task structure, and (c) position power (Northouse, 2001). Leader-member relations are concerned with the followers' (members') relationship (degree of trust, loyalty, and confidence) with the leader. If the relationship
2

is positive, the followers are loyal, trusting, and like the leader as a person. When trust is exhibited by the followers for the leader, the leader-member relations are considered good. If the atmosphere is comprised of friction among the members and the leader, the leader-member relations are viewed as poor (Northouse, 2001). Task structure involves the degree to which the structure of the tasks is defined. Tasks that are very structured tend to provide more control to the leader. Tasks that are unstructured tend to lessen the control and influence of the leader. Position power refers to the amount of authority a leader has to reward or reprimand followers (Northhouse, 2001). Position power is written as strong if the leader has the authority to hire or fire followers, or positively or negatively affect the pay of followers. Northouse (2001) summarized with the following verbiage: Together, three situational factors determine the favorableness of various s situations in organizations. Situations that are rated most favorable are those having good leader-follower relations, defined tasks, and strong leader position power. Situation that are least favorable have poor leader-follower relations unstructured tasks, and weak leader position power. Situations that are rated moderately favorable fall in between these two extremes (p. 77). Contingency leadership theory was also formulated by Henry Mintzberg, a scholar in management studies. Mintzberg's theory discussed the interfaces of "perceived uncertainty and strategy processes" (Hatch, 1997, p. 116). Mintzberg suggested one must discover how his or her organization operates and works to legitimize that discovery by symbolically constructing a rationale to protect one's self. Stated similarly, one must use strategy as a sense-making device to make order out of
3

the chaos of his or her lived experiences (Hatch, 1997). Clegg, Hardy, and Nord (1996) discussed contingency theory's root as being an organic analogy, whereby the formulation of an organization is contingent upon its organic form and the environment that sustains it. One might surmise an individual adopting the same notion. An individual could think of himself or herself as the root, and his or her growth and planning being dependent upon his or her experience, education, self-awareness, as well as the environment in which he or she lives. One might further construe contingency planning as a component of contingency theory. Contingency planning is a component of contingency theory that uses tenets of Psychoanalytic and Social Learning theories. Contingency theory formulates worst case to optimum scenarios and develops plans associated with each scenario to achieve one's goal (Bass, 1990). Brimmer (2002) agrees that contingency planning is critical for the success of leaders and entrepreneurs. It might be conjectured that not all leaders use some form of contingency planning to achieve their goals. A charismatic leader might use other modalities to achieve his goals. For example, one's traits, characteristics, and behavior might be used to motivate followers to attain goals set by the leader and the followers (Lussier & Achua, 2001; Northouse, 1997). A lack of contingency planning may be the underlying reason why there are not as many AfricanAmerican leaders and entrepreneurs (Caver & Livers, 2002). In order for organizational members to become adept at contingency planning, organizations must create a nurturing and structured environment (Vera & Crossan, 2004)

Contingency planning, while a component of contingency theory may not have been applied by leaders in their quest for autonomy, control of self, personal pride, and development (Woodson, 1969). The challenge for connecting the self to work might suggest that contingency planning becomes an avenue for creating that connection. To that end, the research explored the possible connection of contingency planning to the creation of wholeness in the entrepreneurial process, and in that vain, the leadership awareness and transformation might occur. Career contingency planning uses systems theory and thinking (Checkland, 1999). Such a correlation can be made if one believes individuals and organizations operate within a social system. Checkland (1999) stated, "what we are most aware of in our everyday membership of 'social systems' is the texture of the interpersonal relationships involved, the extent to which our membership engages our emotions as individual personalities" (p. 120). The incorporation of contingency planning in systems theory and thinking indirectly acknowledges the existence of social systems and their memberships. In so doing, individuals adopt the mindset of alternative survival techniques within their organizations; re-evaluate relationships and memberships; and determine whether their situation within the organization is viable for their careers within their respective organizational cultures (Checkland, 1999). This rationalization for one's career might suggest a parallel to the environment in which one works. The theory that may best exemplify such decisions is the Rational Choice theory. Rational Choice theory helps to articulate the explanations and justifications for decisions made by individuals acting from their own motivations for their self-interests. By using the rational choice theory, one is able to provide resolutions to issues that may be complex and multi-dimensional (Hardin, 1998).

Turner (2002), in the dissertation entitled Understanding the three dimensions of decision-making as a means of transforming the organization utilized a phenomenological study to better understand decision-making as it related to transforming an organization. The study was successful in uncovering themes that revealed a direct relationship between the organizational climate, dimension balance, organizational values, group justification of selected decision outcomes, and a transactional or transformational organization orientation . . . (p. iv). The transformation of an individual to that of a leader can take on many facets, and so is the transformation of a leader to a position of leadership. Bass (1990) discussed transforming leadership as leadership that results in mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents (p. 23). Such an understanding might prove to benefit leaders and the propensity to lead in society, organizations, and their communities. Lex Donaldson, in Clegg, Hardy, and Nord (1996) stated The recurrent set of relationships between organizational members can be considered to be the structure of the organization . . . Contingency theory states that there is no single organizational structure that is highly effective for all organizations (p. 57). This may also be the case for individuals using contingency planning in their careers. One might consider higher education as a constitutional prerequisite for career planning. Some may posit AfricanAmericans as not being equipped to conform to their societal demands because of the lack of, or deficient, education received (Woodson, 1969). A mind that remains in the present atmosphere never undergoes sufficient development to experience what is commonly known as thinking (p. 96).

Essay topic 2: Is leadership and management the same of different? Analyse different perspectives and present your argument. Differentiating leadership and management have always been difficult. The two terms often are used interchangeably, creating confusion. Many leadership theorists have noted that there are nearly as many definitions for leadership as attempts to characterize it (Kotter, 1999; Zaleznik, 1998). In order to make useful comparisons, a reliable measurement system is necessary. In this case, the original intention was to correlate workplace leadership performance with leaders' personality traits. It quickly became apparent that research on leadership and management performance was fraught with problems. Ultimately, it was determined that measurement should be in terms of effectiveness, as rated by subordinates. This decision was based on historical empirical research that indicated subordinates often were identified as the determinant success factor in leadership and management success (Gordon and Yukl, 2004; Zaccaro and Horn, 2003), so this measurement approach seemed reasonable. Leadership is one of the world's oldest preoccupations, serving as both a hot topic and an important driver of innovation for thousands of years (Gordon and Yukl, 2004). Effective leadership remains one of the most misunderstood human phenomenon and comprises one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition. Why do the experts believe it is important to differentiate between leadership and management? Fundamentally, if you can't define leadership or management, you can't measure, test, make assessments, or consistently hire or promote for them. Yet, they are both important to a successful workplace. The ongoing debate as to whether or

not a clear distinction exists between leadership and management generally remains unresolved (Gordon and Yukl, 2004). On the other hand, management is a fairly new phenomenon. The emergence of large, complex organizations in the last century generated the need for a system to regulate work and deal with authority and control issues. This resulted in the modern workplace manager who was expected to reduce the internal chaos of those more complicated organizations. Managers brought order and consistency to the multitude of workplace processes. Since that time, the duties of workplace management and its associated processes have been researched, refined, and improved significantly in the past century (Kotter, 1999). Another barrier in leadership and management research is the fundamental disparities between academic research and empirical research. Academic research, which is also called basic, fundamental, or pure research, focuses on the advancement of knowledge and the theoretical understanding of the relations among variables. It attempts to structure and identify new problems or develop new solutions to problems. Empirical or applied research, however, bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality, evaluating the feasibility of an existing solution to a problem (Humphreys and Einstein, 2004). Two of the reasons for this disparity are differences between the research methodologies and theory constructs used. Additionally, there may be a lack of research rigor on the part of practitioners, a lack of empirical rigor on the part of academics, and differences in the research goals (Gordon and Yukl, 2004). Unfortunately, a diverse array of conceptualizations and understandings concerning
8

management and leadership exist within academia, empirical research, and in the workplace; thus, it has been very difficult to add collectively to the overall knowledge on this subject. Contemporary research literature does little to clarify what criteria subordinates use to rate their leaders' performance. Research suggests followers may rate superiors based on one or more leadership attributes or on perceived management ability. Additionally, ratings may result from just one or more salient situations, the supervisor's outward behavior, his or her personality traits, or some uniquely subjective combination (Lord, 2000; Yukl et al., 2002). To understand and define leadership and management from the perspective of subordinates, it is, therefore, important to conduct further research using better definitions, constructs, controls, and preparation of participants (Barbuto, 2000). All this confusion of terms undoubtedly has created a significant level of factor confounding, which has certainly reduced the accuracy and precision of leadership and management research (Gordon and Yukl, 2004; Zaccaro and Horn, 2003). Researchers hypothesize that if effective workplace management is some combination of leadership and management, the approach used by effective managers to accomplish objectives may be much different from that of ineffective managers. Both will certainly have profound and important affects on those they manage (Madzar, 2001; Varma, Srinivas and Stroh, 2005). Zaleznik (1998) asserts, as does Kotter (1990), that although leadership and management may be similar in a few ways, they have many very distinct differences. Both leaders and managers may have involvement in establishing direction, aligning
9

resources, and motivating people. Managers, however, plan and budget while leaders establish direction. Managers have a narrow purpose and try to maintain order, stabilize work, and organize resources. Leaders seek to develop new goals and align organizations (Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik, 1998). Managers control and problem solve while leaders motivate and inspire. Finally, managers produce standards, consistency, predictability, and order. Leaders produce the potential for dramatic change, chaos, and even failure (Kotter, 1990). An abundance of taxonomies have been developed to identify and differentiate the role differences between leaders and managers. The conclusion reached by Bass (1990) is that the vast amount of research into leadership versus management indicates that sometimes leaders manage and sometimes managers lead. The research resulting from diaries, observations, interviews, questionnaires, and surveys suggests that both leadership and management exhibit considerable variation but little co-variation, where the hypothesized cause must correlate with the observed effect. In other words, the demands of each vary considerably, exhibit some overlap, but they are much more different than they are the same. Nebeker and Tatum (2002) suggest that management is continually planning, organizing, supervising, and controlling resources to achieve organizational goals. Planning is associated with providing what the customer wants and developing a way to provide it. Organizing and supervising involves developing an organizational structure, reward systems, and a performance management system. Controlling involves measuring processes and product characteristics, sustaining production processes, reducing variation, providing customer satisfaction, and anticipating short-term needs.
10

Managers take responsibility for those processes and are constantly seeking to improve them. Leaders, on the other hand, are looking into the future from 50,000 feet in anticipation of the organization's global needs and long-term future. There is a general acceptance that the functions of leaders and managers are conceptually different, but no universal acceptance of what those functional differences are is apparent. Gordon and Yukl (2004) along with Zaccaro and Horn (2003) believe one common misconception that divides academics from practitioners is that leadership and management are mutually exclusive, when, in fact, they are complementary. For his research, Yukl (1989) prefers not to separate management from leadership and uses the term managerial leadership. Kotter (1990, 1995, 1999) and Zalesnick (1998), however, see the two functions as occasionally blended, complementary, but definitely as two different functions. Kotter (1995) sees management as dealing with procedures, practices, and complexity and leadership as dealing with change. In a nutshell, management is tactical and all about coping with the here and now while leadership is strategic and primarily about coping with the future. In large, complex organizations, these two distinct roles are even more difficult to assimilate in one person, and the tendency is to set leadership skills aside in favor of managing the workplace. Too often, senior managers believe they are leading when in fact they are managing. Kotter (1995) points out that most U.S. corporations are typically over-managed and under-led. Although organizations must have a mix of leaders and managers to succeed, there is little understanding of differences between the two roles and what is their optimal ratio. Since management and leadership are so

11

misunderstood, most companies believe they need many leaders when in fact what they really need is a few great leaders and many first-class managers. In reality, managers in most organizations are rarely in a position to lead. Companies often hire expensive leadership consultants to teach leadership development classes and develop leadership assessments. When the newly trained leaders attempt to lead, they quickly discover they aren't allowed to do so; they actually are expected to manage. This creates frustration, apathy, and discontent. In fact, as the old saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. In the case of modern organizations, too many leaders will spoil their effectiveness. Multiple leaders with different visions not only can confuse but also can decrease subordinates' motivation. Additionally, if everyone is focused on leading, then no one is managing the processes or doing the work. This does not mean that managers cannot demonstrate leadership qualities. Managers may lead by example or lead a project or team, but they still end up performing the functions of management. Successful management is a really tough, challenging, and very important job. It should be given its due respect. Real leadership is tough, too, but it should not be confused with management. Agreeing to a relatively simple taxonomy of what a leader is and what a manager does may save corporations some resources, improve both leadership and management performance, and help academics and practitioners come to a consensuses that could benefit everyone. In the final analysis, it appears that the debate will continue in academic circles, corporations will continue to ask for leaders but need managers, and consultants will continue to supply leadership development and assessment. For practical purposes in the workplace, managers supervise nearly everything. Rarely will a plant manager,
12

production manager, quality manager, or training manager actually lead. He/she will manage the processes and the people to produce the status quo or an improved version of the status quo. That, however, is a good thing because the status quo is what companies make and what they sell. On the other hand, virtually every employee has the opportunity to show leadership at some point. When given the opportunity to lead, it is essential to lead well. Understanding the differences between management and leadership can ensure that employees know when and how to apply each set of characteristics for given processes.

13

References Barbuto, JE 2000, Influence Triggers: A Framework for Understanding Follower Compliance," Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, 2000, pp. 365-387, (online Academic Search Elite). Bass, GM 1990, Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.), The Free Press, New York. Brimmer, AF 2002, Competition and integration of black enterprises in the American economy. Review of Black Political Economy, 29(3), 9-51, (online EBSCOhost). Checkland, P 1999, Systems thinking, systems practice: A 30 year retrospective, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: Fiedler, FE 1967, A theory of leadership effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York: Fiedler, FE 1971, Validation and extension of the contingency mode of leadership Effectiveness, General Learning Press, New York. Gordon, A & Yukl, G, 2005, The Future of Leadership Research: Challenges and Opportunities," German Journal of Human Resource Research, Vol. 18,2004, pp. 359365, (online ProQuest). Honig, B, 2004. Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258- 274, (online ProQuest). Humphreys, JH & Einstein, WO, 2004, "Leadership and Temperament Congruence: Extending the Expectancy Model of Work Motivation," Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10, 2004, pp. 58-79, (online ProQuest).

14

Kotter, JP 1995, "What Leaders Really Do," In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The Leaders Companion, The Free Press, pp. 114-123. Kotter, JP 1999, John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do," Harvard Business Review. Hardin, R 1998, Rational choice theory. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge, (online EBSCOhost ). Honig, B 2004, Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258274, (online ProQuest). Northhouse, B 2000, Does economic culture and social capital matter? SAGE: USA. Lane, SD & Cherek, DR 2000, Risk aversion in human subjects under conditions of probabilistic reward. Psychological Record, 50(2), 221-235, (online EBSCOhost). Lord, RG, 2002, Thinking Outside the Box by Looking Inside the Box: Extending the Cognitive Revolution in Leadership Theory," Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, 2000, pp. 551-579, (online Academic Search Elite). Lussier, RN & Achua, CF2001, Leadership: Theory, application, and skill building. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Nebecker, DM & Tatum, BC, 2002, "Understanding Organizational Processes and Performance," In R, L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Consulting Psychology, Jossey-Bass, 2002, pp. 668-691. Northouse, PG, 1997, Leadership: Theory and practice. CA: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

15

Zaccaro, SJ & Horn, ZJ, 2003, "Leadership Theory and Practice: Fostering an Effective Symbiosis," Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, 2003. pp. 769-806, (online PsycINFO). Zaleznik, Z 1998, Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?" Harvard Business Review on Leadership, Harvard Business School Press. Vera, D & Crossan, M 2005, Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222-241, (online EBSCOhost). Woodson, W, 1969, Location, accessibility, and identification of controls and displays in 1969 passenger automobiles, Society of Automotive Engineers. Hatch, M 1997, Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives, Oxford University Press: UK. Miners, F 1984, Handbook of organizational communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sage Publications. Turner, J 2002, Face to face: toward a sociological theory of interpersonal behavior, Stanford University Press. Madzar, L 2001, Understanding occupational and organizational psychology, SAGE.

16