16
Theories associated with leadership and management

In this chapter we will look at:

Action-centred leadership

In the early 1970s, John Adair developed the theory that the interaction and control of three core elements of management within an organisation determined effectiveness and success, and that organisational leaders could learn the skills to manipulate these accordingly (see Adair 1996, 1998). Adair’s famous ‘three circles’ model demonstrates the three core management responsibilities (Figure 16).

Figure 16 Adair’s ‘three circles’ of management responsibilities

Figure 16 Adair’s ‘three circles’ of management responsibilities

Adair suggested that skilled leaders should know and understand these three elements of their organisation well and should be able to manipulate each appropriately, according to the situation they are trying to manage. In this way, morale remains high, fostering a positive team attitude and thereby increasing productivity.

Adair identified eight characteristics of leadership ability, the possession of which demonstrate leadership competence:

  1. Ability to define the task well, setting clear objectives.
  2. Ability to plan, identifying alternative approaches and contingency plans.
  3. Ability to brief the team appropriately, building an appropriate environment that brings out the best individual and team performance.
  4. Ability to work effectively, getting the best possible outputs from the most efficient use of resources and minimising waste.
  5. Ability to evaluate, identifying and understanding consequences and how to improve future performance.
  6. Ability to motivate, with the right combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators.
  7. Ability to organise effectively, both personally and all necessary resources.
  8. Ability to set an appropriate example to which workers can aspire.

John Eric Adair

  • Born: 18 May 1934, Luton, Bedfordshire
  • Professional description: leadership theorist

Relating the theory to adventure learning

Adventure learning can be likened to an organisation: there is a leader and a group of people working towards achieving a task. The leader has the responsibility of assessing performance against plan, making sure that all necessary work is undertaken correctly, adapting plans towards success, motivating team members, using individual strengths and recognising individual and collective abilities. These functions can be identified within the team delivering the adventure learning and in the participant groups. The leader of the adventure learning team must balance these three elements to maintain team morale and ensure quality of delivery over a long period. The participant group may only be together a short period, perhaps only the one session, but the same elements have to be present for them to be successful; the leader of the participant group may be the adventure learning instructor in the first instance, but leadership may be gradually transferred to a group member (or even rotated around group members) as the session progresses. Important learning points for the group are that awareness of these core ‘responsibilities’ will enable them to lead any group and that the identity of the leader may be irrelevant to accomplish tasks successfully.

Bureaucratic management theory

Max Weber, writing in the late 1800s, believed that the route to organisational effectiveness and maximising performance lay in a formal, rigid structure of bureaucracy, arguing that bureaucracy was the most logical way to organise human activity efficiently and that routine, systematic processes and defined hierarchies are necessary for maintaining order, working efficiently, avoiding favouritism or bias in the workplace (see Waters and Waters 2015). However, Weber also recognised uncontrolled bureaucracy as a threat to individual freedom. Advocating a highly impersonal structure with a rigid hierarchy, clear rules, legitimate authority and a stringent ‘reward and punishment’ system, Weber believed that the position an individual held within an organisation provided sufficient authority to command the performance of those below. While undertones of ‘theory X’ are clear, Weber’s theory related to a world of highly labour-intensive workflows that rested on standardisation and a social structure that followed the same hierarchical chain of command. Some of the core elements of bureaucratic management theory include:

  1. clearly defined job roles;
  2. a hierarchy of authority;
  3. standardised procedures;
  4. meticulous record-keeping; and
  5. hiring employees only if they meet the specific qualifications for a job.

Karl Emil Maximillian Weber

  • Born: 21 April 1864, Erfurt, Germany
  • Died: 14 June 1920, Munich, Germany
  • Professional description: sociologist, philosopher, jurist, political economist

Relating the theory to adventure learning

Implementing bureaucracy while advocating person-centred learning may appear counter-intuitive, but there is a logic to the implementation of systematic process that relates to a team of adventure learning instructors. The nature of adventure learning delivery is such that instructors are often out with groups for much of their time and therefore everyone has to work to the same process in order for the team to function effectively, for example:

  • • Job roles: everyone has to know what they are required to do and when, with which groups they are to work, what activities and support activities are expected of them.
  • • Hierarchy of authority: there has to be an overall leader to co-ordinate activities and ensure all tasks are addressed.
  • • Standardised procedures and record keeping: instructors have to know that equipment is fit for purpose, that the equipment they need is where they expect, damage and incidents have to be logged, accidents and applied first aid have to be recorded.
  • • Quality of staff: instructors have to hold appropriate skills and qualifications to conduct a session safely, colleagues need to know each other’s level of competence.

Without such bureaucracy, there is the danger of safety risks, breaches of health and safety legislation and potential threat to life, not to mention chaos and confusion among the instructor team!

Distributed leadership

Distributed leadership is associated with Alma Harris (2005, 2008; Harris and Spillane 2008). Essentially, it focuses on the mobilisation of leadership at all levels in an organisation in a collaborative model, and not relying on leadership from the top, as traditional models. It is about the many playing a role in the leadership function rather than the few, where the emphasis is on leadership practice rather than leadership as a hierarchical function and the responsibility of the highest tier(s). The idea of ‘distributed leadership’ has become popular in recent years and offers an alternative to the many models of leadership that focus on the attributes and behaviour of individuals, defining the characteristics that ‘leaders’ should portray. Shared leadership provides a more systemic perspective, where the responsibility of leadership is divorced from formal hierarchical roles; the actions and influence of people at all levels is recognised as integral to overall organisational direction and functioning. However, the critical role played by those in formal leadership positions must be recognised, although distributed (shared) leadership proposes that leadership is a collective responsibility, not a responsibility to be deposited on one person. The focus moves from the people to the systems and process, encouraging latent potential to be brought to the fore.

Distributed leadership emerges naturally within the culture as an integral way of operating; it is not a system that can be ‘built’ or forced. While practically leadership will emerge according to need, not everyone will lead all the time or simultaneously, and some team members will lead more strongly or in more ways than others will. The need for a recognised and credible figurehead to set direction and goals becomes critical within a distributed leadership structure; the leader cannot be seen as purely delegating, avoiding accountability and responsibility.

The distributed leadership relationship can be seen as a partnership of the various parties interested in the outcome(s) of the team. In a holistic learning environment, delivery has to be recognised less as the sole responsibility of the instructor and more of a partnership of relevant and necessary associates from all elements of the learner’s life. Within a multi-modal process, it has to be recognised that the instructor cannot deliver expertly in every aspect of the learning. Such partnership working is a relationship of mutual respect for the ability, experience and knowledge of each party, with a professional maturity that enables the sharing of ideas and expertise, and developing a coherent programme that facilitates maximising the learning potential of each programme opportunity. Such partnership working demands common purpose(s), with clear boundaries and goals. To achieve this, the individuals within the relationship have to be clear and comfortable with their own team culture and their position within it before they can navigate their way into and reconcile with an emerging new collaborative cultural domain.

Alma Harris

  • Born: 21 December 1958
  • Professional description: educationalist

Five forms of power

Leadership and power are closely linked. People tend to follow those who are powerful, and because others follow, the person with power leads. However, leaders have power for different reasons. Some are powerful because they alone hold the ability for promotion, dismissal or reward; others are powerful because they determine the tasks others must perform and control their workload. Yet, while leaders of this type have formal, official power, their teams are unlikely to be enthusiastic or supportive if this is all they rely upon. Alternatively, leaders may have power because they are experts in their fields, or because their team members admire them. People like this do not necessarily have formal leadership roles, but they influence others because of their skills and personal qualities.

One of the most notable studies on power was conducted by social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven (1959), who identified five bases of power:

  1. Legitimate power comes from the belief that a person has the formal right to make demands, and to expect compliance and obedience from others, their power being derived from holding a particular organisational position.
  2. Reward power results from one person’s ability to compensate another for compliance. Reward power is the ability to give other people what they want and demand something in return. Rewards can also be withheld for non-compliance.
  3. Expert power is based on a person’s superior or unique skill and knowledge; and is a very common form of power.
  4. Referent power is the result of a person’s perceived attractiveness, worthiness and right to respect from others. Power is derived from followers aspiring to be like the leader.
  5. Coercive power comes from the belief that a person will punish others for noncompliance; it is the power of dictators, despots and bullies, derived from fear.

If you are aware of these sources of power, you can:

John R. P. French

  • Born: 7 August 1913, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Died: 14 October 1995, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • Professional description: psychologist

Bertram H. Raven

  • Born: 26 September 1926, Youngstown, Ohio
  • Professional description: psychologist, academic

Learning organisations

A learning organisation is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and thereby continuously transforms itself. A learning organisation has five main features; systems thinking, personal progression, mental modelling, shared vision and group learning. The learning organisation concept was conceived by Peter Senge (1990) and his colleagues, encouraging organisations to realign to a more interconnected way of thinking. Learning organisations are more akin to communities with which employees can empathise, as they will then work harder towards success. The underlying principle is that, in times of change, only flexible, adaptive and productive organisations can excel and so to develop accordingly, organisations need to learn how to capitalise on the skills, knowledge, experience and commitment of all members of the workforce. While everyone has the capacity to learn, the structures in which they have to function are often not conducive to reflection and engagement. Further, individuals may lack the cognitive capacity or maturity to make sense of their situation. According to Senge, learning organisations are those where workers continually expand their capacity to achieve, where propensity to learn is fostered, where creativity is nurtured, where collective aspiration is encouraged and liberated and where workers see ‘the whole’ as opposed to their small function. Senge argued that only organisations able to adapt quickly and effectively can excel; to be a learning organisation two factors must exist: first, the ability to design the organisation to match the intended or desired outcomes, and second, the ability not only to recognise when direction differs from desired outcome, but also to initiate corrective action.

Senge also believed in the theory of systems thinking (discussed further later in this chapter), which has sometimes been referred to as the cornerstone of learning organisations. Systems thinking focuses on how the individual element interacts with other system elements and, rather than focusing on the individual, consideration should be on the interactions within and beyond the system. Systems thinking is a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on the way that a system’s constituent parts interrelate and how systems work over time and within the context of larger systems. The systems thinking approach contrasts with traditional analysis, which studies systems by breaking them down into their discrete elements. According to systems thinking, system behaviour results from the effects of reinforcing and balancing processes. A reinforcing process leads to the increase of some system component; if reinforcement is unchecked by a balancing process, it eventually leads to collapse. A balancing process is one that tends to maintain equilibrium in a particular system, therefore attention to feedback is an essential component.

Peter Michael Senge

  • Born: 1947, Stanford, California
  • Professional description: systems scientist

Relating the theory to adventure learning

The group undertaking adventure learning activities can be likened to an organisation in that it has members working to achieve one or more goals and must create a functional structure that allows it to do this. The group will continually change and transform in nature as its members find their operating model and develop their strategy. Successful attainment of the set goals will require a range of skills and knowledge, held by most or all of the members of the group and success will demand that all members remain focused and involved in the task in hand. If the group becomes distracted by one element of the activity or one group member, they will not succeed. They need to see the activity ‘as a whole’ in order to define and achieve each step.

Similarly, in an adventure learning team, the group of instructors has to have a shared understanding of what is to be achieved and should be able to learn new ways to approach a learning topic or deliver an activity element from one another. The acceptance that there is more than one route to success underpins both learning organisation and systems thinking theory; it is essential that individuals work as a cohesive unit, sharing practice, respecting one another and accepting constructive feedback, or the system becomes ‘stuck’, fixated on one element, which undermines overall success.

Management by objectives

Management by objectives (MBO) is the mutual definition of objectives by leaders and workers so that both agree and understand what they need to do, then get on with achieving the objectives without question or much further direction. Once the targets are set and agreed, the leader can focus on more strategic matters and the worker can focus on achieving the targets. This approach of joint target setting assumes that the involvement of the worker ensures their commitment to achieving the objectives, as the objectives of the organisation become aligned with the objectives of the worker; performance then becomes the comparison of actual against set targets.

In the 1950s Peter Drucker developed a theory in which the need for the different levels within an organisation to co-operate and interact, with common commitment and responsibility; if everyone within the hierarchy understands and agrees to the goals to be achieved, there is a natural common challenge to which everyone rises (Drucker 1999). The system starts at the top, with those at the pinnacle of the hierarchy determining the strategic goals of the organisation, and then each subsequent tier successively identifies and agrees the goals of their tier and shared targets form.

Advantages:

  • • Objectives are discussed before being mutually agreed.
  • • The participative approach builds understanding between leaders and workers.
  • • The worker is better motivated and fulfilled in their role.
  • • Overall communication and co-ordination within the organisation are improved.
  • • Organisational goals and those of the individual are aligned.
  • • All tiers and areas of the organisation have goals they understand and to which they agree.
  • • Goals can be tailored to specific interests, skills and circumstances.
  • • Leaders have to spend less time focused on the minutiae of worker performance and can devote more time to strategic development.

Disadvantages:

  • • It is a systematic process that has to be undertaken in the right order to be successful.
  • • The emphasis falls on the goal setting, rather than the process or the outcome.
  • • Individuals and teams can tend to focus on their own targets and not the interaction with others.
  • • There is no consideration of the external environment in which the organisation operates or capacity to change quickly if the environment changes unexpectedly.
  • • Goals can become the focus, without being SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound) or even of high quality.
  • • There is no capacity for creativity and innovation.
  • • Effective target measurement may be difficult to achieve in a synchronous timeframe across the organisation.
  • • Not every objective is measurable.
  • • The process is slow to set up, resource demanding and can be inefficient to maintain.
  • • Resources are managed to achieve targets, rather than evaluating whether it is the most effective use of the resources in the first place.

Peter Ferdinand Drucker

  • Born: 19 November 1909, Vienna, Austria
  • Died: 11 November 2005, Claremont, California
  • Professional description: management consultant, educator

Motivators and hygiene factors (two-factor theory)

According to Frederick Herzberg’s theory in the late 1950s, there are two critical factors that influence the way people perform: motivators and hygiene factors, where motivational factors will not necessarily reduce, but can increase motivation and hygiene factors will not, in themselves, motivate, but if not present, can lower motivation (Herzberg 2003; Herzberg et al. 2008).

Closely linked to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of need, Herzberg contends that the satisfaction of low-level needs (hygiene factors) is insufficient for motivating people to perform, that is a minimum salary and adequate working conditions are not enough; people also need higher needs (motivators) to be satisfied, such as personal fulfilment, recognition, responsibility, progression. Herzberg’s theory added a further element by the proposition of a two-factor model, where one set of work characteristics (incentives) leads to satisfaction at work, while the other leads to dissatisfaction (Figure 17). Thus, he proposed that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not ends of a spectrum, but are in fact independent and separate factors and to improve motivation both sets of factors must be recognised and satisfied. According to the two-factor theory, there are four possible combinations (Figure 18).

Herzberg contended that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not opposites that cancel each other out, but the opposite of satisfaction is no satisfaction and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction. Remedying the causes of dissatisfaction will not create satisfaction, nor will adding satisfaction eliminate dissatisfaction. If you have a hostile work environment, giving someone a promotion will not make them satisfied and if you create a healthy work environment but do not provide members of your team with satisfaction factors, the work they are doing will still not be fulfilling; you may create peace, but not necessarily enhance performance, as you placate your workforce instead of actually motivating them to improve performance.

Figure 17 Herzberg’s motivators and hygiene factors

Figure 17 Herzberg’s motivators and hygiene factors

Figure 18 The four possible combinations of factors

Figure 18 The four possible combinations of factors

Frederick Irving Herzberg

  • Born: 18 April 1923, Lynn, Massachusetts
  • Died: 19 January 2000, Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Professional description: psychologist

Relating the theory to adventure learning

Motivation is critical to performance and to success. Young people are not paid to learn, so the most basic of motivators (salary) is non-existent for them, heightening the importance of more intrinsic rewards. For participants to engage in an activity there has to be a conscious decision on their part (employment of self-will). That decision is based upon their personal objectives (their motives), which may be to have fun, because they want to achieve certain goals, or something entirely different. The point is that the instructor cannot envisage activity performance as the sole impetus to a session, there has to be something else, a (motivator or hygiene) factor that resonates with the participant and makes them want to have a go. If a participant only engages on the basis of ‘the sooner I get this over with, the sooner I can be out of here and go home’ (the fulfilment of a basic security need), they will never gain the most they can from the activity. However, if they believe in peer respect, personal development and strengthened peer relationships, they will derive so much more.

Within the adventure learning team, a similar psychology exists; workers have to derive personal fulfilment and a sense of worthiness from their role; it can be very isolating to be operating geographically distanced from colleagues, especially with a more challenging group, leading potentially to poor motivation if an instructor does not feel valued, respected or fulfilled.

Revisionist theory of leadership

In the modern business environment, characterised by complexity and constant change, it is neither necessary nor desirable for the pinnacle of the hierarchy to be populated by autocrats. Rather, leaders with more humanistic, democratic styles will achieve better results and maximise performance. According to Warren Bennis, true leaders understand themselves, possessing both a vision and the ability to translate that vision to their teams, which are staffed by workers who trust them and want to follow them (Bennis and Nanus 1985). It was Bennis who coined the phrase ‘managers do things right: leaders do the right thing’.

Bennis identified six personal qualities of effective leaders:

  1. Integrity: aligning words, actions and values, and maintaining these because they are the right course of action for the whole, even if an alternative may be easier or more personally advantageous.
  2. Dedication: devoting the time and energy necessary to get the job done correctly, not making the job fit into a timeframe.
  3. Magnanimity: giving praise where it is due, not taking the praise for the work of others and admitting when they are wrong.
  4. Humility: recognising that others may have better skills, knowledge or experience, rather than assuming that a leadership position means they are right.
  5. Openness: listening to the thoughts and ideas of others, even when they are completely different, then being willing to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each without preconceptions.
  6. Creativity: being able to think laterally and conceive of alternative approaches.

It was Bennis’s contention that leadership is a skill that may be learned and that if they were willing, individuals could learn (even from failures) to empathise with their workers, bring them together as a functioning team and create the opportunities for that team to thrive.

Warren Gamaliel Bennis

  • Born: 8 March 1925, New York City, New York
  • Died: 31 July 2014, Los Angeles, California
  • Professional description: scholar, organisational consultant

Relating the theory to adventure learning

The revisionist theory of leadership works alongside theories like distributed leadership in advocating that hierarchical position does not equate to greater knowledge or ability, but rather that leaders can recognise the abilities of others, will consult team members and will happily give credit where due to others for the successful attainment of targets. The adventure learning team leader has many complex responsibilities from session timetables, to session planning, to equipment requisition and maintenance, to personnel management, to future planning. In addition, the geographic displacement of the team (and depending on schedules and delivery type, there could be a significant time displacement too) makes collaborative relationships far more important than rigid command and control structures.

Systems thinking

Systems thinking has roots in the general system theory that was advanced by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1940s and furthered by Ross Ashby in the 1950s. Von Bertalanffy argued that, contrary to contemporary popular scientific belief, systems are more than the sum of their elemental parts by interacting with their environment in such a way that they evolve new properties. While systems thinking is an essential component of a learning organisation (Senge 1990), it brings together principles and concepts from all fields and therefore cannot be ascribed to a single theorist. Systems thinking concerns itself with a holistic entity that may be permanent or temporary. A system is a set of interrelated and interactive parts that interact and affect each other, thereby creating a larger complex whole, a system. Systems thinking is a method of critical thinking by which the interrelationship between the elemental components of a system are studied in order to understand their interaction, thereby gaining a better perspective on the overall system and making more informed decisions.

The defining characteristics of a system are:

Organisational systems may consist of people, structures or processes, working together to make the overall organisation or they may be the separate components that make up an individual part of the overall organisation. In adventure learning, a system may be an overall adventure centre or it may be one particular activity; thus, a system may be comprised of a number of smaller systems that overlap or exist within one another.

The systems thinking approach as a decision-making and problem-solving methodology advocates identifying and analysing the elements that make up the system, rather than targeting the outcome as the ‘problem’, which may lead to further issues or consequences. The focus is on the system cycle, rather than a linear cause and effect perspective, recognising that an improvement in one element of the system can affect another positively or negatively. This interactive approach encourages communication and co-operation to avoid the silo effect of tackling one element in isolation. By recognising patterns, we can make informed decisions to strengthen or change a pattern towards overall effectiveness and the achievement of objectives.

Some systems thinking theorists are briefly described below.

Alfonso Montuori

  • Born: The Netherlands
  • Professional description: transformative leadership consultant
  • Montuori’s multifaceted research has been dedicated to creativity in research in order to make sense of our complex, diverse and ambiguous world. His principle foci are leadership, cultural diversity, education and creative inquiry.

Béla Heinrich Bánáthy

  • Born: 1 December 1919, Gyula, Hungary
  • Died: 4 September 2003, Chico, California
  • Professional description: linguist, systems scientist
  • Founder of the International Systems Institute and the White Stag Leadership
  • Development Programme, Bánáthy focused his work principally on how people can shape their world through consideration of the systems from which it is constructed. His son, Béla Antal Bánáthy, continues his work.

Debora Hammond

  • Born: 1951
  • Professional description: historian of science
  • Inspired by the outdoors, Hammond believes social justice rests on consideration of the structural systems for inclusive participation and community dialogue.

Eugene Pleasants Odum

  • Born: 17 September 1913, Newport, New Hampshire
  • Died: 10 August 2002, Athens, Georgia
  • Professional description: biologist
  • Famous for his work on ecosystemic ecology, Odum pioneered the idea of the ecosystem and the interdependence of many different diverse ecosystems as the basis of how the earth functions.

Fritjof Capra

  • Born: 1 February 1939, Vienna, Austria
  • A physicist, educator, activist and author, Capra advocates holism and the inter-connectivity of all parts to any system.

Howard Thomas Odum

  • Born: 1 September 1924, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  • Died: 11 September 2002, Gainesville, Florida
  • Professional description: ecologist
  • Like his brother, Eugene, Howard concerned himself with ecosystemic ecology, but focused on zoology and meteorology, as the basis for systems ecology. Odum’s legacy is vast and covers many fields, including ecological modelling, ecological engineering, ecological economics, estuarine ecology, tropical ecosystems and general systems theory.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy

  • Born: 19 September 1901, Altgersdorf, Austria
  • Died: 12 June 1972, Buffalo, New York
  • Professional description: biologist, general systems theorist
  • One of the founders of general systems theory, Bertalanffy suggested that thermodynamic laws applied to closed, but not always open systems (living things).

Richard A. Swanson

  • Born: 1942
  • Professional description: organisational theorist
  • Best known for his work on financial research related to human resource development, Swanson focuses on performance improvement through development of staff.

Talcott Parsons

  • Born: 13 December 1902, Colorado Springs, Colorado
  • Died: 8 May 1979, Munich, Germany
  • Professional description: sociologist
  • Parsons developed action theory, the study of society, based on voluntarism (free will) and analytical realism (considered action). The theory is seen as a theory of social evolution and a means to understand and evaluate world history.

William Ross Ashby

  • Born: 6 September 1903, Lewisham, London
  • Died: 15 November 1972, Tockington, Gloucestershire
  • Professional description: psychiatrist, cybernetics pioneer
  • Despite being highly regarded and influential within the field of cybernetics and systems theory, Ashby remains less well known than others of the field.

Team roles

Dr Meredith Belbin (1981, 1993) studied teamwork for many years, noting that people tend to assume different roles when they work together. The team roles that he defined measure behaviour, not personality, but by identifying the particular role we assume in a group, or observing how others behave, we can work to develop strengths and manage weaknesses, thereby improving our own contribution and the overall performance of the team. Teams can become unbalanced if several team members have similar styles of behaviour (team roles); if team members have similar weakness, the team as a whole tends to have that weakness but if team members have similar strengths, they tend to compete (rather than co-operate) for the tasks and responsibilities that best suit them. Belbin identified nine team roles and he categorised these roles into three groups: action oriented, people oriented, and thought oriented; each role is associated with certain behavioural and interpersonal strengths and weaknesses.

Action-oriented roles

  1. Shaper (SH): people who challenge the team to improve, being dynamic and extroverted, enjoying stimulating others, questioning norms and finding the best approaches for solving problems. The shaper is the one who shakes things up to make sure that all possibilities are considered and that the team does not become complacent. Shapers see obstacles as exciting challenges and want to push on when others feel like quitting. Their weaknesses are in being argumentative, often offending other people’s feelings.
  2. Implementer (IMP): people who get things done, turning ideas and concepts into actions and plans. They are disciplined people who work systematically, being efficient and well organised. On the downside, Implementers are inflexible and resistant to change.
  3. Completer–finisher (CF): people who see that projects are completed, without omissions and paying attention to the detail. They are concerned with deadlines and will push the team to make sure the job is completed on time; they are orderly, conscientious and anxious. However, a completer–finisher worries unnecessarily, and finds it hard to delegate.

Thought-oriented roles

  1. Plant (PL): the creative innovator who comes up with new ideas and approaches, thriving on praise but finding criticism hard to deal with. Plants are introverted and prefer to work apart from the group, being poor communicators and tending to ignore parameters and constraints. Their novel ideas can be impractical at times.
  2. Monitor–evaluator (ME): best at analysing and evaluating ideas from other people. Being shrewd and objective, they are critical and strategic thinkers, carefully weighing all the options before making a decision. Often perceived as detached or unemotional, they are poor motivators who react to events rather than instigating action.
  3. Specialist (SP): specialised knowledge needed to get the job done, they pride themselves on their skills and abilities and work to maintain a professional status. Their job within the team is to be an expert in the area, and they commit themselves fully to their field of expertise. This may limit their contribution and be preoccupied with technicalities at the expense of the bigger picture.

Meredith Raymond Belbin

  • Born: 1926
  • Professional description: management theorist

Theory X and theory Y

Theory X and theory Y, devised by Douglas McGregor (1960, 1966), have to do with the perceptions that managers hold of their employees, which in turn influence their management style. Theory X can be compared with transactional leadership, where managers rule in a ‘reward and punish’ style that assumed extrinsic reward suffices to define performance. Theory Y and transformational leadership assume that leaders want to encourage the best from their staff, assuming trust, respect and self-motivation. Theory X assumes that people are inherently idle, requiring close control and direction. An authoritative management style within a rigid hierarchical organisational structure is the only way to ensure performance. Workers are assumed to have no ambition and no ability to contribute to organisational planning or objectives.

Theory Y assumes that workers are ambitious, self-motivated and have self-control, that they derive enjoyment from their occupation and want to give the best of themselves if they continue to feel that emotional fulfilment. Workers are seen as having a significant contribution to organisational planning and objectives but are insufficiently exploited in most organisations.

McGregor did not perceive theories X and Y as ends of one spectrum, but as separate phenomena. Inherent in theory X is the assumption that people would rather not be at work and therefore there is the supposition that productivity relies on close supervision. However, theory Y assumes that people have chosen their career and naturally want to do the best they can and progress within the organisation, so the supposition of theory Y is that people do not need supervision in order to perform their job effectively.

Douglas McGregor

Transactional leadership theory and transformational leadership theory

Transactional leadership theory is associated with Bernard Bass (1985), while transformational leadership theory is associated with James MacGregor Burns (1978). These are two seemingly opposing types of leadership: transactional leadership has a focus on the relationship between the leader and follower, whereas transformational leadership focuses on the beliefs, needs and values of the workers.

The transactional style of leadership was first described by Max Weber (1947); it is a style that focuses on the basic management processes of controlling, organising and short-term planning. Transactional leadership assumes that a worker’s own self-interest is sufficient to motivate them and that extrinsic rewards hold most, if not all, the power in determining performance. Transactional leaders rely on their given hierarchical formal authority, with the worker having no other responsibility than to obey given instructions (something akin to the behaviourist theory of learning). Transactional leaders are not looking to organisational change, but to maintain existing performance and situations, to operate in a routine, rote fashion, often characterised by micromanagement, where the leader is directive and prescriptive, focused on process. Within the context of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, transactional leadership works at the basic levels of need satisfaction, where transactional leaders focus on the lower levels of the hierarchy.

Transformational leadership is an opposing style, where the leader focuses on change, creating a vision and building the foundation of a motivated team to achieve the vision. The leader becomes the role model to inspire followers, understanding their strengths and weaknesses so that they can delegate responsibility appropriately.

Transformational leaders define achievable and emotional expectations for those below them, stimulating the basis for fulfilling their personal needs; workers feel empowered and nurtured. Transformational leadership is akin to cognitive learning processes, where the learner is credited with individual thought and self-will. Within Maslow’s hierarchy of need, the transformational style applies to the meeting of higher level needs. However, given that Maslow’s theory mandates the satisfaction of lower order needs ahead of higher ones, there is an inherent assumption in transformational leadership theory that transactional leadership exists simultaneously to address the lower level.

Bernard Bass

  • Born: 11 June 1925, the Bronx, New York
  • Died: 11 October 2007, Binghamton, New York
  • Professional description: leadership theorist, organisational behaviourist

James MacGregor Burns

  • Born: 13 August 1918, Melrose, Massachusetts
  • Died: 15 July 2014, Williamstown, Massachusetts
  • Professional description: historian, political scientist, leadership theorist

Relating the theory to adventure learning

Exactly as ‘theory X’ applies to the start of the relationship with a group of participants, (and defines the relationship when the group presents high challenge), so too does transactional leadership apply. The participants look to the instructor for direction and structure, deferring to their authority (legitimate power). As confidence and competence grow, the instructor moves to transformational leadership, deferring autonomy and independence.

For the adventure learning team, transactional leadership highlights the functional requirements of team operations, such as work rotas, equipment servicing, funding applications, making sure staff are paid, co-ordinating leave, covering sickness absence … the list can be almost endless. Transformational leadership defines the strategic visioning that enthuses the team members, explores new activities and programme structures, seeks new client groups and works to provide inspiration and enthusiasm to the workers. Both forms of leadership are necessary, as transactional leadership caters for the functional operating of the team and transformational leadership addresses the emotive caretaking and aspirational planning that provide worker motivation and commitment.

References

Adair, J. (1996) Effective Motivation. London: Pan Books.

Adair, J. (1998) Effective Leadership. London: Gower Publishing.

Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Belbin, R. M. (1981) Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Belbin, R. M. (1993) Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders. New York: Harper & Row.

Drucker, P. F. (1999) Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: HarperCollins.

French, J. P. R. and Raven, B. (1959) The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (eds), Group Dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.

Harris, A. (2005) Crossing Boundaries and Breaking Barriers. London: Specialist Schools Trust.

Harris, A. (2008) Challenging Leadership Practice: Exploring New Forms of Leadership Practice. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

Harris, A. and Spillane, J. (2008) Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in Education 22(1): 31–34.

Herzberg, F. (2003) One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review (January).

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. B. (2008) The Motivation to Work. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

MacGregor Burns, J. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McGregor, D. (1966) Leadership and Motivation: Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. London: Random House Business Books.

Waters, T. and Waters, D. (eds) (2015) Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (tr. A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons). New York: The Free Press.