Leadership Management
Comparison of the Contingency Theories of Leadership
Similarities
The contingency theories of leadership hold on the ideology that an organization is a constraint to both the external and internal factors. As a result, there is no single system of leadership that applies across all situations (Tsolka, 2020). Some of the constraints held by the contingency theories include technologies, managerial strategies, size of the organization, and adaption of an organization to the business organization. It is thus held that an organization ought to ensure a fit of the subsystems to business organizations. Besides, the style of management needs to suit the nature of both the tasks and works of the groups within the organization. Due to the presence of the constraints therefore the model of leadership is subject to the particular situation. There is thus no certain contingency theory that is postulated.
Differences
Fiedler’s theory is based on both the behavioral and trait models since it holds on the accountability of collective performance on the psychology of leadership (Fuller, 2019). The constraints of contingency, in this case, are identified to include the positions of power, structure of tasks, and group atmosphere. The performance of an organization is in this case based on both the favorableness of a situation and the style of leadership. Hersey and Blanchard’s theory of the contrary derives from both Reddin’s management style and Moutons and Blake Managerial grid. It thus extends the impact of leadership to be based on the dimension of readiness on top of the existent dimensions of a task as well as notions of relationships. Eventually, the Normative decision theory emphasis the extent of the effectiveness of a decision making process. As a result, a decision making ought to be based on the acceptance and quality of the decision made, acceptability of the decision an autocratic decision by the subordinates as well as the amount of data held by both subordinates and the management as to arrive at a decision.
Comparison of Charismatic and Transformational Leadership
Similarities
Both the charismatic and transformational leaders use the collective will of the people to drive attention. The charismatic leaders in this case utilize the attention and charm to the followers to derive loyalty. The transformational leaders, on the other hand, target a transition in both the social systems and individual thoughts through attribution of group goals (Shapira, 2019). The main aim of the leaders is to achieve the collective welfare of the organization by acting as role models hence rallying the rest of the members. The leaders thus understand both the weaknesses and strengths of their followers hence streamline them to the optimal performance of the organization.
Differences
A charismatic form of leadership is based on an absolute endorsement of the leaders’ beliefs. The followers are thus required to embrace what is believed as extraordinary or heroic abilities of leadership. The leader, in this case, thus bears a vision that can drive them to take a personal risk of defending while taking into account the needs of the followers. Unlike the charismatic form of leadership, transformational leadership aims at making the followers the leaders. The leadership thus targets a positive transformation of the system. A set of organizational goals is in this case put forward. As a result, the leader is in a capacity to entice the followers to put forward the extra effort to achieve the outlined goals. The main emphasis, in this case, is both collective action and team collaboration as a measure to achieve organizational needs (Shapira, 2019). Eventually, the organizational interests come first while personal interests come as a result. The two forms of leadership however experience a series of challenges. Whereas charismatic leadership may help achieve some organizational goals, it drives much focus on the leaders’ image thus deviating attention. Transformational leaders might on the other hand come across followers who are not motivated enough to take up the challenge. Such a leader would thus eventually give up on the pre-determined goals thus collapse of the system.
Dysfunctional Charismatic Leadership: ‘Astro Airlines- Burton’
Burton exhibits charismatic leadership based on effective communication skills. He thus takes advantage of affirming his vision of establishing Astro Airlines in 1980. The entire organization is in this case required to function to achieve the vision of Burton which includes reduced travel cost, exemption of frill services for the customers, and unleashing of innovation of the employees. The initial operations of the company thus saw an optimistic rally of the employees behind the pre-determined goals. One of the key elements of implementation was a reduction in the bureaucracy of management by establishing only three levels of management while employing fewer staff. The workers were besides organized into teams that shared responsibilities while aiming at achieving their goals embedded towards the organizational goals. Besides, the recruitment process was strict to target the hiring of the young, innovative individuals while the permanent employees were required to partake in the organizational ownership. Other measures aimed at reducing operational costs included the purchase of additional crafts at bargained prices as well as strategic ticketing and scheduling of frights.
Despite the set measures, Burton’s leadership failed by establishing a one-way line of decision making. The managers in this case were required to merely provide advisories rather than dictate decisions. The employees were also required to elect their representatives in the advisory teams hence they would not participate in decision making. The structure of work as cautioned by Lowe & Bathula (2019) was also interfered with based on lack of specialization as managers would be seen taking regular work like typing of letters hence interrupting their managerial tasks. The employees as compared to the normal flight industry were offered reduced salaries an aspect that would lead to demotivation hence increased turn over. Despite the measures to reduce the costs of transport for the employees, the frills services were charged rather than included in the fare charges. Such a move would paralyze the organizational operations due to the embrace of inequity.