Understanding organisational culture

Organisational culture is the way that things are done in an organisation, the unwritten rules that influence individual and group behaviour and attitudes. Organisational culture is defined by the organisation’s structure, the behaviour and attitudes of its employees, and the management and leadership style adopted by its managers. Organisational culture reflects the personality and character of the organisation, and is composed of the values, beliefs and basic assumptions that are shared by members of an organisation.

An understanding of organisational culture is crucial for effective leadership. Leaders and managers will be better placed to implement strategy and achieve their goals if they understand the culture of their organisation. Strategies that are inconsistent with organisational culture are more likely to fail, while strategies that are in line with it are more likely to succeed. It is also important to understand the existing culture of an organisation before thinking about change.

The workforce of an organisation swiftly comes to understand its particular culture. Culture is a concept that may be difficult to express plainly, but everyone knows it when they see it. For example, the culture of an informal software company may be quite different from that of a large financial corporation and different again from that of a hospital or a university.

To gain an understanding of the culture of an organisation, the relationships between values, behaviour and unwritten rules must be examined. This checklist outlines the main steps and questions to ask to help gain this understanding. Some well-known methods used to classify organisational culture are also introduced.

Organisations are human communities, peopled with individuals. Once managers develop an understanding of why people and their organisation behave as they do, they will be able to improve effectiveness, communication, organisation, control and, ultimately, results.

Action checklist

1 Read

For example:

• the mission statement, in which the organisation’s goals and values are explicitly stated
• publications, reports and newsletters – consider what is mentioned, emphasised or omitted and how the organisation presents itself
• the organisation’s website and intranet.

2 Ask questions

Ask people who work for the organisation:

• what their impressions of the organisation are
• what words they would use to describe the organisation (e.g. professional, experienced, friendly, stable, secure)
• what sort of behaviour is expected of employees
• whether the message they get about the culture is consistent across all levels and units within the organisation.

3 Observe the physical environment

• Do the furnishings and decor make a particular statement?
• Are the surroundings formal or informal?
• How do people dress? Do they dress differently depending on their position within the organisation?

4 Assess communication styles

• How do staff communicate with one another (face-to-face, phone, email)?
• How do people address one another in the organisation, and how are superiors addressed?
• If a manager’s office door is closed, how do people react and approach the individual?
• How accessible or approachable are senior staff members?
• How are organisational decisions communicated to staff?
• Is feedback (positive or negative) given regularly?

5 Look at the nature of decision-making and the impact on stakeholders

• How are HR policies such as remuneration implemented in practice?
• What level of priority and attention is given to customer service, and how are customer concerns or complaints handled?
• How are statutory regulations being applied?
• How is the balance between customer and business benefit handled when specifying products?
• How are accounts and financial reports managed?

6 Consider timekeeping

• Does the organisation operate with fixed working hours?
• What time do people come to work and do they arrive on time?
• Are coffee or tea breaks taken? Do they become extended breaks?
• Do people work their set hours only or do they stay late?

7 Analyse groups and networks

• Do people seem to prefer working in groups or individually?
• Do people gather together at lunch?
• Do people socialise at work, or outside the workplace?
• Do subcultures exist within departments or within professional groups?
• Are people encouraged to work outside their department or silo?

8 Observe dress codes

• Do people dress formally or informally?
• Are there dress-down days?
• How do people dress for special appointments or meetings?

9 Think about meetings

• Does everyone participate in meetings?
• Are people encouraged to share ideas at meetings?
• Who speaks at meetings?
• What do people say if they arrive late for a meeting?

10 Consider organisational boundaries

• What types of positions do women and members of minority groups hold in the organisation?
• Is saving face important to people?
• Does the organisation have a sense of stability, or is there unremitting change?
• Is there a common shared language consisting of jargon and acronyms?
• How are new members of staff assimilated or inducted?

As a manager you should avoid:

• assuming that an organisation’s culture can be fully understood through superficial observation
• believing that the values expressed, e.g. in mission statements, necessarily reflect the values actually practised by the organisation.

Classifying organisational culture

A number of management thinkers have studied organisational culture and attempted to classify different types of culture. The following approaches may be helpful in assessing and understanding the culture of an organisation.

Edgar Schein believed that culture is the most difficult organisational attribute to change and that it can outlast products, services, founders and leaders. Schein’s model looks at culture from the standpoint of the observer and describes organisational culture at three levels:

• Organisational attributes that can be seen, felt and heard by the uninitiated observer, including the facilities, offices, decor, furnishings, dress and how people visibly interact with others and with organisational outsiders.
• The professed culture of an organisation’s members. Company slogans, mission statements and other operational creeds are useful examples.
• An organisation’s implied assumptions, which are unseen and not consciously identified in everyday interactions between the organisation’s members. Even people with the experience to understand this deepest level of organisational culture can become accustomed to its attributes, reinforcing the invisibility of its existence.

Geert Hofstede explored the national and regional cultural influences that affect the behaviour of organisations. He identified five dimensions of culture in his study of national influences:

• Power distance – the extent to which the less powerful members of organisations accept and expect the unequal distribution of power. This suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders.
• Uncertainty avoidance – reflects the extent to which society tolerates uncertainty, risk and ambiguity.
• Individualism versus collectivism – the extent to which people are expected to act as individuals, or as members of the group or organisation.
• Masculinity versus femininity – refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values.
• Long-term versus short-term orientation – in societies that focus on the long term, thrift and perseverance are valued more highly than in societies that focus on the short term, where respect for tradition and the reciprocation of gifts and favours are more highly valued.

  Charles Handy links organisational structure to organisational culture:

• Power culture – power is concentrated among a few with control spreading from the centre. Power cultures have few rules and little bureaucracy; decision-making can be swift.
• Role culture – authority is clearly delegated within a highly defined structure. Such organisations typically form hierarchical bureaucracies where power derives from a person’s position and little opportunity exists for expert power.
• Task culture – teams are formed to solve particular problems with power deriving from expertise.
• Person culture – all individuals believe themselves to be superior to the organisation. The concept of an organisation suggests that a group of like-minded individuals pursues organisational goals. For this type of organisation, survival can become difficult.

  Gerry Johnson and Kevan Scholes developed the Cultural Web in 1992. This is a representation of taken-for-granted assumptions of an organisation that helps management to focus on the key factors of culture and their impact on strategic issues. It can identify blockages to and facilitators of change in order to improve performance and competitive advantage.

  The Cultural Web contains six interrelated elements:

• Stories – the past and present events and people talked about inside and outside the company.
• Rituals and routines – the daily behaviour and actions of people that signal acceptable behaviour.
• Symbols – the visual representations of the company including logos, office decor, and formal or informal dress codes.
• Organisational structure – includes structures defined by the organisation chart, and the unwritten lines of power and influence that indicate whose contributions are most valued.
• Control systems – the ways in which the organisation is controlled, including financial systems, quality systems and rewards.
• Power structures – power in the company may lie with one or two executives, a group of executives, or a department. These people have the greatest amount of influence on decisions, operations and strategic direction.

 

Charles Handy

Understanding the changing organisation

Introduction

Charles Handy (b. 1932) is well-known for his work on organisations. This has culminated in the formation of a vision of the future of work and the implications of change for the ways in which people manage their lives and careers.

His observation of work in modern society has identified discontinuous change as the (paradoxically) continuing characteristic of working lives and organisations. He has forecast a future – already with a good deal of accuracy – where half of the UK’s workforce would no longer be in permanent full-time jobs.

It is Handy’s understanding of the ways in which organisations are changing to meet the accelerating changes and demands of new and diverse markets that we shall concentrate on here.

Life and career

Born in Ireland, Handy is a self-employed writer, teacher and broadcaster. He is a visiting professor at London Business School (LBS) and consultant to a wide range of organisations in government, business, and the voluntary and educational sectors.

After graduating from Oxford, his working life began in the marketing and personnel divisions of Shell International and, as an economist, with Anglo-American Corporation. He then returned to academia at the Sloan School of Management of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1967 he was founder director of the Sloan Programme at LBS, where he also taught managerial psychology and development. Appointments as professor and governor of LBS followed in 1972 and 1974 respectively. In 1977 he was appointed warden of St George’s House in Windsor Castle, a private conference and study centre with a strong focus on the discussion of business ethics. As a teacher he latterly concentrated on the application of behavioural science to management, the management of change, the structure of organisations, and the theory and practice of individual learning in life.

He is a former chairman of the Royal Society of Arts and in 1994 he was Business Columnist of the Year. He has been a regular contributor to ‘Thought for the Day’ on Radio 4.

Handy on organisations

Four of Handy’s books in particular consider the structure of organisations in detail and offer a perspective on the way in which they work:

Understanding Organisations (1976)

The Age of Unreason (1989)

Gods of Management (1985)

The Empty Raincoat (1994)

Organisation structure

Understanding Organisations – described by publishers and commentators alike as ‘a landmark study’ – is equally valuable for students of management and practising managers. Among other subjects it deals with motivation, roles and interactions, leadership, power and influence, the workings of groups and the culture of organisations. They are considered both as ‘concepts’ and ‘concepts in application’. A ‘Guide to further study’ points the way for further examination of each concept.

In Gods of Management, Handy identifies some established structures in organisations and suggests new forms that are emerging. He perceives that organisations embrace four basic ‘cultures’:

• Club culture. This is represented metaphorically by Zeus, a strong leader who has, likes and uses power, and graphically by a spider’s web. All lines of communication lead, formally or informally, to the leader. Such organisations display strength in the speed of their decision-making; their potential weakness lies in the calibre of the ‘one-man bands’ running them.
• Role culture. This is personified as Apollo, the god of order and rules, represented by a Greek temple. Such organisations are based on the assumptions that people are rational, and that roles can be defined and discharged with clearly defined procedures. They display stability and certainty, and have great strength in situations marked by continuity; they often display weakness in adapting to, or generating, change.
• Task culture. This is likened to Athena, the goddess of knowledge, and is found in organisations where management is concerned with solving a series of problems. The structure is represented by a net, resources being drawn from all parts of the organisation to meet the needs of current problems. Working parties, subcommittees, taskforces and study groups are formed on an ad hoc basis to deal with problems. This type of culture is seen to advantage when flexibility is required.
• Existential culture. This is represented by Dionysus, the god of wine and song, and is found in organisations that exist to serve the individual, and where individuals are not servants of the organisation. They may comprise groups of professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, with no ‘boss’, and coordination may be provided by a committee of peers. Such structures are becoming more common as more conventional organisations increasingly contract out work to professionals and specialists whose services are used only as and when required.

The changing organisation

The link between this analysis of organisation structures and Handy’s later work is, in part, provided by the development of ‘contracting out’ – one of a number of changes which he observes in the world of employment. Another major change is the basing of the quest for profit on intelligence and professional skills rather than on manual work and machines. Yet another is that the days of working for one employer and/or in one occupation may be over.

The shamrock organisation

An example of Handy’s changing perception of organisations is provided by his use, in The Age of Unreason, of the shamrock to demonstrate three bases on which people are often employed and organisations are often linked. People linked to an organisation are starting to fall into three groups, each with different expectations of the organisation, and each managed and rewarded differently:

• The first group is a core of qualified technicians and managers who are essential to the continuity of an organisation. They have detailed knowledge of the organisation and its aims, objectives and practices. They are rewarded with high salaries and associated benefits, and in return they must be prepared to give commitment, work hard and, if necessary, work long hours. They must be mobile. They work in a task culture, within which there is a constant effort to reduce their numbers.
• The second group consists of contracted specialists who may be used, for example, for advertising, R&D, computing, catering and mailing services. They operate in an existential culture and are rewarded with fees rather than salaries or wages. Their contribution to the organisation is measured in output rather than hours, in results rather than time.
• The third group – the third leaf of Handy’s shamrock – consists of a flexible labour force, discharging part-time, temporary and seasonal roles. They operate within a role culture; but Handy observes that although they may be employed on a casual basis, they must be managed not casually, but in a way which recognises their worth to the organisation.

The federal organisation and the inverted doughnut

The concept of the federal organisation was first explored in The Age of Unreason and was expanded in The Empty Raincoat. In it, subsidiaries federate to gain benefits of scale. Federal organisations should not be confused with decentralised organisations, in which power lies in the centre and is exerted downwards and outwards. In the federal organisation the role of top management is redefined as that of providing vision, motivating, inspiring and coordinating; initiative comes from the components of the organisation. Handy observes and describes the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ – not handing out or delegating power, but ruling and unifying only with the consent and agreement of equal partners.

In The Empty Raincoat, Handy uses the metaphor of the inverted doughnut to demonstrate how those in the subsidiaries must constantly seek to extend their roles and associated activities. The hole in the conventional doughnut is filled by the core activities of the subsidiary; the substance of the doughnut represents a diminishing vacuum into which the subsidiary can expand its activities given the necessary drive, will and ability.

Portfolio working and downshifting

Following on from his work on organisational change, Handy studied the effects of such change on the individual. He coined the concept of portfolio working, where full-time working for one employer becomes a thing of the past. Embedded in this is the notion of downshifting – the idea that it is possible to exchange some part of income for a better quality of life.

Although Handy has said that more and more individuals will opt out of formal organisations and sell their services at a pace and price to suit themselves, he has also admitted that comparatively few may find themselves in a position to take real advantage of this. He argues, however, that there is much that organisations can do to help individuals get to grips with the new uncertainty. It was in discussion with the Japanese that Handy coined the ‘theory of horizontal fast track’. In Japan, the most talented people are moved around from experience to experience as quickly as possible, which means their skills can be tested in different situations, with different managers and in different cultures. This helps them discover what they are really good at and provides a lot of experience.

In perspective

With his imaginative use of analogy and metaphor, the Handy of the 1990s moves us from the past into the future. He argues that federalist and shamrock organisations can be successful only if organisations are prepared to invest in their workforce and build relationships of trust.

Although he is as much concerned with individuals as with organisations, his messages are sometimes disquieting. In a later book, The Hungry Spirit, he assesses the effects of the competitiveness of capitalism on individuals, suggesting that people can become not only stressed but also selfish and insensitive. But his message is not confined to pessimism about the future. On the contrary, the new capitalism consists of intellectual property (know-how, not merely physical and financial resources); the new knowledge markets enable low-cost entry to those with ‘a bit of wit and a bit of imagination’; and the new products of the knowledge world are not nearly as destructive of the environment as the industrial products of the past.

Handy stands apart from many other management writers through his breadth of vision, his setting of management in a wide social and economic context, and the sheer readability of his writing. He is also ready to modify his views in the light of experience and further thought (he has admitted that some of his expectations have been proved wrong). He is not merely an observer of change but increasingly a catalyst, forcing people to stand back from their daily routine, take stock and view the future through different glasses, acknowledge change and address its implications.

 

Understanding management styles

Management style is the way in which managers exercise their authority in the workplace and ensure that their objectives are achieved. It is about how managers plan and organise work in their area of responsibility, and in particular about how they relate to and deal with their colleagues, subordinates and team members. The principal components of management and leadership style are attitudes and behaviour.

Which personal style should managers adopt to ensure success? What is the most effective approach to managing the work of subordinates? These questions have been extensively researched and debated since the 1950s, and the general consensus has moved away from command-and-control styles of management and leadership towards more consultative and participative approaches. However, there is no single ideal, as the best approach may vary according to circumstances and individual characteristics.

Style is a personal matter, and it is important for managers to be able to discover the style that works best for them and adjust it according to the tasks at hand and the people involved. In his 2009 book, Managing, Henry Mintzberg comments on the importance of context in partnership with style and refers to a symbiotic relationship, where ‘style matters and context matters, but mostly they matter together’.

This checklist introduces some models of management styles to help managers begin to assess and develop their own style.

Some models of management styles

This review, which is by no means comprehensive, covers some of the best-known models and provides some pointers for analysing management styles.

Rensis Likert

Early theories about management and leadership style focused primarily on behaviour – the manner in which authority was exercised. Based on research carried out at the University of Michigan in the 1950s, Likert identified four different styles:

• exploitative/authoritative – leaders have little trust or confidence in their subordinates, manage by issuing orders, and use fear and punishment as motivators
• benevolent/authoritative – leaders have some trust in their workers but treat them in a condescending and paternalistic manner
• consultative – leaders show trust and confidence towards subordinates, seek their opinions and ideas, but retain decision-making power
• participative – leaders trust their subordinates completely, seek and act on their ideas, and involve them in setting goals.

Likert’s research suggested that consultative and participative styles were more effective, but he did not consider the context in which management was being carried out.

Theory X and theory Y

Douglas McGregor, working in the 1960s, believed that management style was determined by the manager’s assumptions about human nature. Based on his research, he identified two broad sets of beliefs that he labelled theory X and theory Y:

• Theory X suggests that human beings have an inherent dislike of work and need to be controlled and directed if they are to achieve objectives. This leads to autocratic and paternalistic management styles.
• Theory Y sees work as a natural part of life from which people gain a sense of satisfaction. Workers can be motivated to give their best through respect and recognition. This leads to more consultative and participative management styles.

McGregor believed that while both styles could be effective, theory X management could lead to demotivation and low levels of performance, but theory Y management could produce high levels of motivation and performance.

The managerial grid

Working in the 1950s and 1960s, Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton identified two drivers of managerial behaviour: concern for getting the job done and concern for the people involved. To demonstrate how an individual manager’s style is affected by their level of concern for these two factors, they used a nine by nine grid. This shows five basic management styles:

• Impoverished management – little concern for either the task or people. This style involves little more than going through the motions, doing only enough to get by.
• Authority-obedience – a high level of concern for the task and a low level for people. This represents a controlling style, close to the traditional command-and-control approach, but runs the risk of damaging human relationships.
• Country club leadership – high levels of concern for people and low levels for the task. This is seen as accommodating; it may create a warm and friendly working environment, but to the detriment of getting the job done efficiently.
• Team management – high levels of concern for both the task and people. This is seen as the most effective style, with the potential for high achievement.
• Middle-of-the-road management – moderate levels of concern for the task and people.

This achieves a balance between task and performance but is likely to perpetuate the status quo rather than achieve notable success.

William B. Reddin’s 3D theory

Reddin (1970) also focused on concern for the task and concern for people, which he defined as task orientation (TO) and relationship orientation (RO). He introduced the idea that particular styles might be more appropriate in some contexts than in others. Starting from four basic styles – related (high RO), integrated (high RO and TO), dedicated (low RO) and separated (low RO and TO) – he added a third dimension, depending on how appropriately and therefore efficiently the style was used.

The Tannenbaum and Schmidt leadership continuum

Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt took a different approach in the late 1950s. They looked at the extent to which a manager exerts authority or control and the extent to which subordinates have freedom to act on their own initiative. They represented a range of possibilities along the continuum and identified seven styles: tells, persuades, shows, consults, asks, shares and involves.

They further suggested that a good manager would be able to judge the capabilities of the team and move between points on the continuum accordingly. Over time, as abilities develop, the manager may choose to accord a greater level of freedom while retaining overall responsibility for the work.

Situational leadership

Writing in the late 1980s, Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard further developed the idea that different situations require different types of leadership. They saw the willingness and ability of subordinates to carry out the tasks allocated to them as the main factor in selecting the most appropriate leadership style:

• telling/directing when they are both unwilling and unable
• selling/coaching when there is some competence but a lack of commitment
• participating/supporting where they are competent but unwilling or insecure
• delegating where competence and commitment are both high.

For more on the Tannenbaum and Schmidt leadership continuum and on situational leadership, see the ‘Understanding leadership styles’ checklist, pages 23–5.

Action checklist

1 Know yourself

Looking at the models described above, ask yourself where you fit in. Think about which styles you feel most comfortable with. What are your preferred ways of working? What motivates you? How do you communicate with your colleagues and team members?

You may, at this stage, wish to complete a diagnostic test or assessment (testing through HR, using a professional model, is generally recommended) or consult with colleagues you can trust, using the models described here to support your insight and judgement.

2 Look at your work habits

• How do you manage your time?
• How do you set work priorities?
• How organised are you?
• Do you focus on formal team and one-to-one meetings or do you prefer to manage by wandering (or walking) about?

3 Think about how others see you

Reflect on how your colleagues and team members interact with you. How do they react when you ask them to complete a task or comment on their performance? Look at times when things have gone well or badly and try to identify how your own behaviour contributed to the outcome.

4 Consider the context in which you work

What motivates your team members? What do they expect from you? The answers may vary depending on their age, educational level or cultural background as well as experience and familiarity with the work. What may be an acceptable management style for one person may not be acceptable for another. Consider also the organisation you work for:

• What kind of management structure is in place?
• How are objectives set and how is performance managed across the organisation?
• What are the accepted behavioural and cultural norms?
• Do you work in a high-pressure environment or are things more informal and relaxed?
• How well do you think you are fitting in?

5 Identify areas for adjustment or development

Think about your strengths and weaknesses and any problems that have become apparent. Are there any areas where you need to develop your skills, adjust to the team you are leading, or adapt to the wider culture of your organisation? Consider what you need to work on and decide how you will go about this:

• Can you get advice from your line manager or can you find a mentor with whom you can talk things through?
• Would structured training in skills such as time management, communication or presentation be appropriate?

As a manager you should avoid:

• trying to imitate others or squeezing yourself into a mould that works for others
• taking an inflexible approach to management and leadership
• riding roughshod over the accepted style and culture in your organisation.

 

Understanding leadership styles

Leadership style is the general manner, outlook, attitude and behaviour of a leader, particularly in relation to his or her colleagues and team members. This can be expressed in various ways, including:

• what a leader says
• how they say it
• the example they set
• their body language
• their general conduct and character.

Although there are numerous suggested leadership styles, the need to be authentic as a leader and to have a style that suits you, your personality and the people you lead is widely accepted. Adopting an appropriate style is likely to build a good relationship between leaders and their team members, helping to establish rapport, trust and respect. Conversely, leaders who adopt or display an inappropriate style are unlikely to be successful in their job. Some employees may become disenfranchised, disengaged and uninspired when faced with a leader who lacks the self-awareness and know-how to pick the right kind of leadership style. Reflecting on how you lead is an essential aspect of being a good leader.

Your leadership style is largely to do with how you deal with people, particularly those reporting to you within your organisation. In his 2002 book, Leadership Styles, Tony Kippenberger suggests that in a less deferential and more egalitarian society there is a need for leaders to actively assess and improve their style in order to engage followers.

A shift away from manufacturing and heavy industry towards knowledge and service-based industries in the economies of many developed countries over the past few decades has also influenced leadership style. More collaborative and coaching styles are seen to be effective in encouraging the motivation and customer focus on which service industries depend.

You are likely to have to adapt your leadership style to a certain degree throughout your career depending on the type of organisation you are employed by, your colleagues and your working environment. An awareness of differing leadership styles can help you decide which is appropriate for you and your organisation. This checklist describes some of the most popular theories of and approaches to leadership styles before going on to explore how being aware and thinking about leadership styles can be useful in practice.

Some models of leadership styles

The Tannenbaum and Schmidt leadership continuum

An early contribution to the literature on leadership styles was made by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt in the 1950s. They proposed the idea of a ‘leadership continuum’ consisting of seven stages, each of which involves a decreasing use of managerial authority alongside an increasing level of subordinate freedom. The continuum progresses from stage one, where the manager makes all the decisions and announces them to the team, to stage seven, where the manager permits team members to function and make decisions within pre-designated limits. The seven stages of the continuum are:

• make a decision and announce it
• ‘sell’ a decision
• present ideas and invite questions
• present a tentative decision subject to change
• present problems, get suggestions and make a decision
• define limits and ask the team to make a decision
• permit subordinates to function within limits defined by a superior.

These stages effectively describe different leadership styles. Typically, leaders will move through the continuum, giving more responsibility to their subordinates over time – assuming the subordinates are willing to follow the direction of the leader and are performing at a suitable level. Tannenbaum and Schmidt acknowledged that style will vary depending on the leader, those who are led and the situation, and leaders need to bear this in mind when choosing their style from the continuum.

Leaders may lose some degree of control as they move through the continuum, but it is important to remember that the leader is always ultimately accountable for the actions of the team. Therefore, moving through the continuum requires a significant level of trust between the leader and the team members. Contemporary leaders are unlikely to regularly adopt the first command-and-control style or stage, and in most cases it should be used only as a last resort.

Situational leadership

The need to take account of the context or specific situation within which a leader is operating was explored in more detail by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard. Their situational leadership theory followed on from the work of William Reddin, who developed a 3D model of management style, and has been updated and refined several times.

As the name suggests, situational leadership theory states that different situations call for different leadership styles. Leaders need to be ready to adjust their style to suit the context. This relates largely to the competence and development level of other team members.

Figure 1: Situational leadership styles

Source: Pathways Plus, Strategic Management and Leadership, Level 7, ‘Being a Strategic Leader’ and ‘Strategic Leadership Practice’, Chartered Management Institute, revised 2010, page 69. Reproduced by permission.

Four leadership styles (directing, coaching, supporting and delegating) are classified according to the level of supportive and directive behaviour required in that situation. Supportive styles of leadership tend to involve two-way communication. Concepts such as social and emotional support, praising and listening are important. In contrast, directive styles of leadership tend to involve one-way communication from the leader to their colleagues and the focus is on providing clarity, goals and direction.

Further work on situational leadership by Peter Cumpstey and Philip Lindsay redefined the four styles as: instructing, participating, (non-directive) coaching and delegating. Figure 1 shows how these four types of leadership are affected by supportive and directive behaviour and the development level of followers.

Action-centred leadership

This is another situational approach to leadership made famous by John Adair. Action-centred leadership is perhaps more of an approach than a style, but it is widely taught and used by leaders globally, particularly in the UK.

Adair suggests that leaders need to be attentive to task needs, group needs and individual needs. The most effective leaders balance all three areas, as demonstrated by the Venn diagram in Figure 2. However, the leader may need to vary the degree of emphasis given to each of the three components in response to the situation at any point in time.

Figure 2: Action-centred leadership

Transactional leadership

In the 1970s and 1980s the transactional model of leadership was dominant. This is based on an exchange between leader and follower where the interests of both parties are served. The efforts made by followers to achieve organisational aims are exchanged for specific rewards, which may be financial or non-financial.

The idea of transactional leadership may lack the dynamism of other approaches, but it probably accurately describes the leadership practice in many workplaces. This kind of leadership can be particularly effective in emergency or conflict situations when all parties are able to see a tangible benefit.

Bernard M. Bass felt that effective leaders needed to exercise two transactional elements: contingent reward and management by exception. Contingent reward refers to the agreed exchange process between leaders and followers (e.g. leaders giving a salary or a bonus in exchange for the efforts and hard work of their followers); management by exception is characterised by corrective criticism and giving feedback when things go wrong.

Transformational leadership

The term ‘transformational leadership’ was first used by James V. Downton in 1973 and was popularised by James MacGregor Burns in his 1978 book, Leadership. It remains the predominant leadership approach in the literature and has also had a significant impact on the way that modern leaders behave.

Transformational leadership involves the engagement of followers and therefore transformational leaders are often charismatic. Accounts of such leaders differ, but most focus on how they can fulfil the development needs of their followers. In uncertain times, it has been suggested, employees want to feel inspired and empowered by their leaders, so transformational leadership fits well with the modern age.

A huge amount of writing has been devoted to transformational leadership over the past two or three decades, so the focus here is on the main thinkers.

Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio

Echoing Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s work, Bass devised a leadership continuum, from transformational leadership to laissez-faire leadership, with transactional leadership in the middle. For Bass, transformational leadership involved four factors:

• Idealised influence/charisma. Leaders are strong role models whom followers seek to emulate. They have strong moral and ethical principles and as a result are well-respected.
• Inspirational motivation. Followers are encouraged to do more than the bare minimum through the inspirational communication and high expectations provided by the leader.
• Intellectual stimulation. Leaders encourage followers to be creative and innovative, and to challenge their own beliefs and those of the organisation.
• Individualised consideration. A supportive climate is provided with coaches and advisers assisting followers. Delegation is encouraged to support the development of employees.

James M. Kouzes and Barry S. Posner

Kouzes and Posner describe five factors of excellent leadership that they believe anyone can learn to incorporate into their leadership approach:

• Model the way – be clear about your values and philosophy
• Compelling vision – create a vision that followers can use to guide both their day-to-day behaviour and their own dreams and visions
• Challenge the process – be willing to challenge the status quo and innovate
• Enable others to act – collaborate, trust and encourage others
• Encourage the heart – authentic reward and recognition are seen as important.

Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus

Bennis and Nanus identified the qualities of transformational leaders as:

• having a clear vision for the future
• being ‘social architects’ for their organisations – communicating a direction and form for their organisations that others can follow
• creating trust through consistency and clarity – making their position clear and standing by this
• having positive self-regard – having an awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, but concentrating on what they are good at rather than dwelling on their weak points.

All these authors see transformational leadership as being characterised by certain competencies and qualities. Common themes of these qualities include having a vision, having emotional intelligence, having charisma and being consistent and clear.

Authentic leadership

Recent corporate, financial and governmental scandals and misconduct have led to a growing interest in the related idea of authentic leadership. This focuses on being genuine, honest and trustworthy in your leadership style. For their followers to see them as authentic, such leaders must ‘live their values’, showing that they practise what they preach. An important aspect of an authentic leadership style is self-knowledge, although there is also a strong emphasis on knowing others and knowing your organisational culture. This enables you to strike the right balance between being an authentic, true version of yourself and fitting in to your company or organisation. Writers on authentic leadership include Rob Goffee, Gareth Jones and Bill George.

Action checklist

1 Know yourself

There are numerous questionnaires and tests that organisations and individuals can use to evaluate leadership styles. One of the most famous is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), developed by Bernard Bass, but there are many others available online and in printed form. For an in-depth evaluation of your leadership style, consider discussing your style with a trusted colleague or coach for a second opinion.

2 Know your team

Consider what kind of style would suit each member of your team. Their time in post and experience will influence how much support and guidance they need. Are they happy to be delegated tasks or do they need a lot of direction? If you are new in your leadership post, you may find that your team is used to working autonomously or that it needs a lot of guidance. Consider whether what has been done before is the best way forward, and which style will help the team with any new challenges or changes that are on the horizon.

You must be careful not to prejudge people, but at the same time take into account that there may be generational or cultural differences in some cases. For example, it has been argued that members of Generation Y (a term often used to refer to individuals born in the 1980s and 1990s) have different expectations of the workplace than the generation that preceded them (Generation X). It has been suggested that they are typically seeking fulfilment at work – not just a pay cheque – and therefore prefer leaders and managers who put time and effort into their development through coaching and mentoring. Today employees of all ages are likely to be less accepting of a command-and-control style and to want some input and a voice in decision-making.

3 Consider the context

A number of factors are likely to be crucial when considering the right leadership style for your organisation, such as:

• Is it a private company or a not-for-profit voluntary or governmental organisation?
• Is it currently doing well financially and/or succeeding as a company?
• Is it currently undergoing a lot of change?
• Is it a small start-up or a huge multinational conglomerate?

Many other factors are also likely to influence the kind of leadership style to adopt.

4 Share best practice with your team

Other people in your team may already be leaders or may aspire to a leadership position in the organisation. Even those with no leadership responsibilities or plans to take a managerial role at your organisation may be able to act as leaders, even in junior positions. Openly discussing the right kind of leadership approach to take and sharing your knowledge of leadership styles will be beneficial to everyone. You may be surprised by what the members of your team say they are looking for in a leader. Open discussion can also help clarify what people can expect from you as a leader and build rapport between yourself and your team.

5 Continue to evaluate your leadership style

Whichever leadership style you adopt, you are unlikely to stick with that style throughout your career. Take some time every few months to review your leadership style and consider whether it can be adjusted or changed for the better. Be prepared to vary your style according to the situation, rather than using the same one all the time. One of the most important aspects of leadership is the ability to reflect honestly and question yourself, so effective evaluation of your leadership style should contribute to better leadership practice.

As a manager you should avoid:

• failing to reflect upon the effect of your style on your colleagues
• sticking to one style rigidly regardless of situation and context
• not being authentic and true to yourself in whichever style you adopt.

 

Henry Mintzberg

A great generalist

Introduction

Often regarded as an iconoclast and a rebel, Henry Mintzberg (b. 1939) has certainly challenged many traditional ideas. But he does not attack people with whom he disagrees; he just quietly, simply and with devastating clarity sets about proving them wrong. In his writing, which is the product of a career devoted single-mindedly to understanding how people actually manage, he resists every temptation to pontificate about how anyone ought to manage.

Life and career

Mintzberg was born in Canada, and has spent virtually all his working life in that country. He studied at McGill University, and after further study at MIT, returned to Canada to take up an appointment at Canadian National Railways in 1961. In 1963 he moved into the academic world and by 1968 was back at McGill University as a professor, a post he still holds. He is also director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Organisation at McGill and has held several important posts at other management institutions, including that of visiting professor at INSEAD, a French business school. He has been a consultant to many organisations throughout the world and from 1988 to 1991 was president of the Strategic Management Society.

Mintzberg’s major impact on the management world began with his book The Nature of Managerial Work, published in 1973, and a seminal Harvard Business Review article, ‘The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact’, written two years later. Based on detailed research and thoughtful observation, these two works established Mintzberg’s reputation by showing that what managers did, when successfully carrying out their responsibilities, was substantially different from much business theory.

Key theories

Unlike so many gurus, Mintzberg’s contribution to management thinking is not based on one or two clever theories within some narrow discipline. His approach is broad, involving the study of virtually everything managers do and how they do it. His general appeal is further enhanced by a fundamental belief that management is about applying human skills to systems, not applying systems to people, a belief that is demonstrated throughout his writing.

How managers work

In his Harvard Business Review article, Mintzberg sets out the stark reality of what managers do:

If there is a single theme that runs through this article, it is that the pressures of the job drive the manager to take on too much work, encourage interruption, respond quickly to every stimulus, seek the tangible and avoid the abstract, make decisions in small increments, and do everything abruptly.

Mintzberg uses the article to stress the importance of the manager’s role and the need to understand it thoroughly before attempting to train and develop those engaged in carrying it out:

No job is more vital to our society than that of the manager. It is the manager who determines whether our social institutions serve us well or whether they squander our talents and resources. It is time to strip away the folklore about managerial work, and time to study it realistically so that we can begin the difficult task of making significant improvements in its performance.

In The Nature of Managerial Work, Mintzberg proposes six characteristics of management work and ten basic management roles. These characteristics and roles, he suggests, apply to all management jobs, from supervisor to chief executive.

The six characteristics are as follows:

• The manager’s job is a mixture of regular, programmed jobs and unprogrammed tasks.
• A manager is both a generalist and a specialist.
• Managers rely on information from all sources but show a preference for that which is orally transmitted.
• Managerial work is made up of activities that are characterised by brevity, variety and fragmentation.
• Management work is more an art than a science and is reliant on intuitive processes and a ‘feel’ for what is right.
• Management work is becoming more complex.

Mintzberg places the ten roles that he believes make up the content of the manager’s job into three categories:

1 Interpersonal

• Figurehead – performing symbolic duties as a representative of the organisation.
• Leader – establishing the atmosphere and motivating the subordinates.
• Liaiser – developing and maintaining webs of contacts outside the organisation.

2 Information

• Monitor – collecting all types of information that are relevant and useful to the organisation.
• Disseminator – transmitting information from outside the organisation to those inside.
• Spokesman – transmitting information from inside the organisation to outsiders.

3 Decision-making

• Entrepreneur – initiating change and adapting to the environment.
• Disturbance handler – dealing with unexpected events.
• Resource allocator – deciding on the use of the organisation’s resources.
• Negotiator – negotiating with individuals and dealing with other organisations.

The structure of organisations

In his 1979 book The Structuring of Organisations, Mintzberg identified five types of ‘ideal’ organisation structures. The classification was expanded ten years later in Mintzberg on Management and the following more detailed view of organisation types drawn up:

• The entrepreneurial organisation – small staff, loose division of labour, little management hierarchy, informal, with power focused on the chief executive.
• The machine organisation – highly specialised, routine operating tasks, formal communication, large operating units, tasks grouped under functions, elaborate administrative systems, central decision-making and a sharp distinction between line and staff.
• The diversified organisation – a set of semi-autonomous units under a central administrative structure. The units are usually called divisions and the central administration referred to as the headquarters.
• The professional organisation – commonly found in hospitals, universities, public agencies and firms doing routine work, this structure relies on the skills and knowledge of professional staff in order to function. All such organisations produce standardised products or services.
• The innovative organisation – this is what Mintzberg sees as the modern organisation, one that is flexible, rejecting any form of bureaucracy and avoiding emphasis on planning and control systems. Innovation is achieved by hiring experts, giving them power, training and developing them and employing them in multidisciplinary teams that work in an atmosphere unbounded by conventional specialisms and differentiation.
• The missionary organisation – it is the mission that counts above all else in such organisations, and the mission is clear, focused, distinctive and inspiring. Staff readily identify with the mission, share common values, and are motivated by their own zeal and enthusiasm.

Strategy and planning

The relationship between strategy and planning is a constant theme in Mintzberg’s writing and his views on the subject are perhaps his most important contribution to current management thinking. In his 1994 book The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Mintzberg produces a masterly criticism of conventional theory.

His main concern is with what he sees as basic failings in our approach to planning:

• Processes – the elaborate processes used to create bureaucracy and suppress innovation and originality.
• Data – ‘hard’ data (the raw material of all strategists) provide information, but ‘soft’ data, Mintzberg argues, provide wisdom. ‘Hard information can be no better and is often at times far worse than soft information.’
• Detachment – Mintzberg dismisses the process of producing strategies in ‘ivory towers’. Effective strategists are not people who distance themselves from the detail of a business ‘but quite the opposite: they are the ones who immerse themselves in it, while being able to abstract the strategic messages from it’.
• Strategy – Mintzberg sees this ‘not as the consequence of planning but the opposite: its starting point’. He has coined the phrase ‘crafting strategies’ to illustrate his concept of the delicate, painstaking process of developing strategy – a process of emergence that is far removed from the classical picture of strategists grouped around a table predicting the future. He argues that while an organisation needs a strategy, strategic plans are generally useless as one cannot predict two or three years ahead.

Mintzberg further explores strategy in his co-authored 1998 book Strategy Safari. In an attempt to define what strategy is, ten schools of strategic thought are outlined with a discussion and critique of each.

In perspective

Mintzberg remains one of the few truly generalist management writers, and he has applied his ideas to management education, which he believes is in great need of reform. In 1996 he helped set up an International Masters in Practising Management, which sought to change the way in which managers are educated.

His work is so wide-ranging that different readers see him as an expert in different areas. For some people he is an authority on time management, providing some of the most thoughtful and practical advice on this subject; for others he is the champion of hard-pressed managers surrounded by management theorists telling them how to do their jobs; and for yet another group he is a leading authority on strategic planning.

For most people, however, Mintzberg is the man who dared to challenge orthodox beliefs and, through the scholarly presentation of research findings and some truly original thinking, changed our ideas about many business activities.