Factors Impacting on Leadership Styles of IS Project Leaders
Introduction
Context, personal
attributes (e.g. behaviour) of the leader, the attitudes, needs, and other
personal characteristics of the followers as well as the characteristics (its
purpose, structure and nature of tasks) of the organization are some of the
factors that could impact on the leadership style of the IS project leader.
1. Behaviour
One of the factors that impact on leadership styles is behaviour.
In fact, research effort on the effectiveness of diverse leadership behaviours
in varying contexts of change is on the ascendancy (Higgs and Rowland, 2003).
According to Dulewicz & Higgs (2005), leadership behaviours can be classed
into three wide categories, and thus three types of leadership styles:
The first is Goal-oriented
leadership style. This is a set of behaviours in which the leader sets
direction and as well as plays an important role in directing others to meet
the goals fundamental to the performance required. Here, behaviours are
strongly leader-centric.
Involving leadership style: This is the second behavioral
category. Though here the leader’s focus continues to be on providing a strong
sense of direction, the leader also makes it a point to significantly increase
the extent to which he involves
others in both determining direction and, to a larger extent, defining how set goals
will be achieved. This particular set of behaviours is less in leader-centric
as against that of Goal-oriented.
Engaging leadership style: this is the third category. Here leadership
behaviours in this category are focused on facilitation, with the leader being more
concerned with developing the capacity of others to achieve “than with the
close direction of the enterprise” (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005). This category
of behaviour seems to agree with the aforementioned “human relations first”
theory of technological leadership.
2. Context
Another factor that influence the
type of leadership style assumed by an IS project leader is the context in
which s/he is operating in. This notion has its basis in contingency theory
proposed by Fiedler (1964).
The relationship between leader and
organisation is potentially a dynamic one. For instance, diverse organizational
strategies may necessitate alterations in leadership behaviours. However, there
is also the possibility that a change in leadership behaviour may lead to a
different strategic approach being adopted by the organisation (Higgs and
Dulewicz, 2002). In essence, changes in context require changes (in leadership
style).
Higgs and Rowland (2003) report the findings of a study of over seventy change
stories from ten firms in which leadership behaviour categories were assessed
for effectiveness in a wide range of change contexts. They found that as
complexity of the context increased, a more facilitative style of leadership
became necessary for success. A leader-centric or directive style was found to
be inappropriate and ineffective in such context. However, such a style was
found to be more common (and indeed dominant) in relatively simple and
straightforward contexts.
Table 2 below shows how leadership
styles change with changing context. For example, the most appropriate
leadership style in a context with low change is a goal oriented type of
leadership style, whereas this same leadership style is a total misfit for a
context or environment of high change.
Table2: Matching leadership styles
and change context.
Leadership styles
|
Change context
|
||
Low change
|
Moderate change
|
High change
|
|
Goal oriented
|
V
|
(v)
|
-
|
Involving
|
(v)
|
V
|
(v)
|
Engaging
|
-
|
(v)
|
v
|
v = good fit; (v) = a degree of fit (Source:
Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005)
In a nut shell, leadership styles don't exist in a vacuum, but rather are impacted by certain factors and we've just discussed two of these - context and behaviour.
You Might Also Like:
Food for Thought 1.0.1
The Impact of Culture on Employee Motivation in Public Sector Organization
References
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2005). Assessing leadership styles and
organisational context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2),
105–123. doi:10.1108/02683940510579759
Feilder,
F. E.(1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, USA.
Higgs,
M. J. and Dulewicz, V. (2002). Making Sense of Emotional Intelligence, 2/e.
NFER-Nelson, Windsor.
Higgs,
M. J. and Rowland, D. (2003). Is change changing? An examination of approaches
to change and its leadership. Henley Working Paper 0313, Henley Management
College, Henley, available at: www: henleymc.ac.uk
.webp)
No comments: