Leadership and HR strategy
Approaches of leadership in my private organization and my colleagues’ organization
The culture and goals adopted by our different organization result in the use of different leadership approaches. At my organization (AR), the managers use the autocratic nature of leadership. They make choices and decisions based on their judgment and rarely accept advice from the mid and junior employees. in addition to their tyrannical kind of administration, the leaders at AR are not good role models to their juniors. Some of the managers assume their duties and consequently their subordinate adopt and mimic their behavior. For example, line managers could fail to attend their training session due to their busy environment, and evidently, the employees under the leader also fail to attend the same training sessions in future. The leadership at AR is also very hierarchical and consists of multiple levels of management. The administration is layered from the executive management level to the junior subordinate level. The hierarchical nature of leadership at AR results in the “telling” kind of leadership where the employees at a higher level tend to dictate over those below them. The leaders at AR are individuals who are very ambitious and have the urge to be in positions of authority. However, they somehow don’t trust their staff, and this is because most of the leaders have never been in the current situation of the employees. One major drawback facing the leadership at AR is the leadership is not dynamic to incorporate new goals and visions. This is attributed to the fact that most leaders grew up at the AR and they still hold on to the old AR’s perception. Despite most leaders being mean and harsh, there are a few who are kind and portray some effective leadership skills.
There exist some similarities and differences between the leadership approach taken by AR and RNB. The main similarity is that RNB also considers using a hierarchical form of leadership. The leadership is also layered in a similar structure like the one used at AR. Decisions are made in order of the structure. However, they are different forms of leadership at SK. Some leaders use the coercive leadership approach while others use the content theories to motivate their subordinates. The managers who use coercive leadership approach dictate are authoritative and utilize the “do as I say” phrase. The employees at RNB are not ineffective nor is the company under crisis and the use of coercive leadership is not is only as a result of lack of leadership skill by the managers. As a result of this kind of leadership, the employees at RNB work under a lot of pressure However other managers motivate their juniors and encourage them to work more efficiently. They make use of the content theories on staff to consider some of the factors that will motivate the staff. For example, the managers will hold motivational talks with the staff, take the subordinates for coffees in the morning and drinks after work. The main difference between the leadership approach at AR and RNB is that in AR most of the leaders use the autocratic nature of leadership while in SK the leaders use different approaches such as coercive leadership and motivational leadership.
-
Employee attitudes
The employees at AR and RNB react differently to the different approaches of leadership taken by the organizations. At the AR the executive management and the top employees are happy with the working environment they have created. However, the mid and junior subordinates are very unhappy. The working environment at AR is very unhealthy for the mid and junior subordinates since they are always working under pressure. The leadership at AR also sets very high targets and reputation over the servicing of clients, yet they provide inadequate resources to the employees. The fact that you have to make a lot of sacrifices and work extremely hard to get to a position of authority is not taken kindly by most of the employees at AR. The employees consider balancing life and work as the best option. Despite the fact that, the leadership is strong and comprises of well-connected individuals, the lack of well-defined goals and values the productivity of employees drastically decreases. Also, the lack of a clear vision develops high attrition among the employees which is as a result of the breakdown of the contract between the employee and the employer. The employees at RNB react differently to their leadership. Most of the employees are happy to for the cause that company presents. However, at the operational staff at RNB is affected by their administration and their productivity has evidently reduced. There are significant concerns about the performance and capability of these employees.
My organization offers us a very great bonus system that attracts very many people to come and work for the company. However, the bonus is losing their motivational power. The organization is reducing the number of bonus each employee receives and this effect has dramatically reduced the productivity of AR. The initial aim of the bonus was to motivate the employees, but currently, the bonus is demotivating them, and the business is at a point where it should reconsider the bonus system for revolution. At RNB, motivation is not offered to all the employees. Only some teams are motivated by their leaders. The teams which are being motivated are more productive compared to the other groups. My colleague at RNB strongly encourages her manager to make clarity goals in agreement with her employees and motivate to create a healthy working environment. My colleague at the SK strongly believes that rewards, benefits, and appreciations have a crucial impact on the behavior of an employee. At the SK there are a few benefits and a yearly performance bonus paid at the end of every financial year. The primary motivational schemes at the SK does not have an impact on motivating the employees to increase productivity.
At the AR employees are very proud of the company. The pride is attributed to the company’s “big” name and reputation. In addition to the fame, the company runs pulse survey at monthly intervals, unit specific away days and a yearly away day for the whole company that influences the employees to be proud of AR. Other engagement activities that the AR holds include weekly team meetings and intense onboarding where all starters, senior group forum, and graduate group forum are introduced to teams and clients. Annual surveys also help to and to the employee’s satisfaction as every employee feels that he or she plays an essential role in the company. The annual review is used to measure the level of engagement of the employee in the company’s activity. The RNB is currently working on introducing an employee forum that will ensure every employee will contribute to the company’s success. The company is introducing the panel with the aim of influencing their attitude towards the company and improve communication between the employees and the leadership of the company. At the IS the employees are happy and satisfied. The company’s website state’s that its continued growth and success is as a result of the continuing growth in employee engagement. Similarly, the employees at SK are satisfied with the quarterly staff engagement offered by the company.
-
Links between leadership and employee attitudes
Every leadership style has both positive and negative impacts on employee’s behavior. The effects of leadership styles on the employee’s attitude are visible in my organization and my colleagues’ organization. The leadership in our different companies has resulted to the different employee’s attributes discussed above. At the AR the employees developed a negative attitude towards the management of the company due to the authoritative nature of leadership. Also the pacesetting method of administration at my organization where the leadership where the leadership sets high extremely high standards and targets make the employees think that the managers do not trust them to do their way. This results in the employees spending long hours trying to prove the management wrong. The form of leadership at AR makes the leaders think they are the most competent and the employees tend to react very negatively. The leadership at RNB also affects the employees at the company. However since the company adopts different methods of leadership, employees attitude is also modified differently. The coercive leadership approach has a negative impact on people. The strictness and dictatorship nature of the management make the employees feel as if they are being used as machines. Their efforts are also not valued and appreciated, and people develop a negative feeling towards their workplace. The coercive type of leadership used the RNB has developed a negative attitude among the employees to the extent some of the creative and talented employees plan to leave the organization. The affiliative and authoritative leadership methods applied by some of the leaders at RNB has very positive effects on the people. The employees who are lead by managers applying the two modes of leadership feel valued, supported and protected by their leader. The affiliative form of leadership attracts the use of employee-friendly mechanisms such as motivation, and as a result, the employees develop positive attitudes towards the business (Berman 2012, p.102).
-
Lessons for my own profession development.
From the above analysis, I have noted that a leader can create or destroy a healthy working environment. The style of leadership applied makes the difference, and it’s the role of every leader to know the kind of leadership to deliver. For example, coercive leadership is very applicable after a disaster or when working with inefficient employees and even in these conditions it should be applied sparingly. I have also noted that affiliative and authoritative modes of leadership are the most effective and works in almost all sets of an organization. The most important thing that leaders can do is to nature more than one style. They should develop a method that they apply where every employee works best and feels most comfortable and another one to use as the situation demands (Voon 2011, p.93). The study has also revealed to me that any organization that sets very high targets, it should adequately motivate its employees and provided the required resources (Leblebici 2012, p.40). Employee’s attitude also adds to the knowledge I acquired from this study. The employee’s perspective is the backbone of every institution, and yet it is very delicate and can be destroyed by very meaningless and unheroic leadership measures. Employee’s attitude affects their creativity, respect to the organization’s leadership, commitment to the job, enthusiasm, and productivity. Employee engagement also plays a crucial role in determining the success of an organization. Organizations should use the correct employee engagement survey and hold managers accountable for their subordinates engagement. Organizations should also ensure that their employees are properly motivated. The financial status of an organization should not prevent the institution from motivating its employees. To motivate employees, institutions should provide supportive leadership, eliminate dissatisfaction, encourage teamwork and create a positive working environment.
Bibliography
Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), pp.24-32.
Binney, G., Williams, C. and Wilke, G., 2012. Living Leadership: A practical guide for ordinary heroes. Pearson UK.
Berman, E.M., Bowman, J.S., West, J.P. and Van Wart, M.R., 2012. Human resource management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems. Sage.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J. and Baer, J.C., 2012. How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of management Journal, 55(6), pp.1264-1294.
Khan, W. and Mufti, E.O., 2012. Effect of compensation on motivating employees in public and private banks of Peshawar. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(5), pp.4616-4623.
Leblebici, D., 2012. Impact of workplace quality on employee’s productivity: case study of a bank in Turkey. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 1(1), pp.38-49..
Mohammad, J., Quoquab Habib, F. and Alias, M.A., 2011. Job Satisfaction and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: an Empirical Study at Higher Learning Institutions. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16(2).
Pink, D.H., 2011. Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin
Voon, M.L., Lo, M.C., Ngui, K.S. and Ayob, N.B., 2011. The influence of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia. International Journal
