Literature Review essay: Perspectives on Effective Leadership Practices

Literature Review essay: Perspectives on Effective Leadership Practices

Anonymous

As a project manager, I have always been fascinated with what made leadership effective, namely; the effects of personality, circumstances, culture of the organisation and/or ethical conduct of leaders. In this paper, I reviewed three perspectives on leadership; May, Chan, Hodges & Avolios (2003) paper on moral capacity and authentic leadership, Padilla, Hogan & Kaisers (2007) paper on destructive leadership and finally, Alvessons (2017) work that reviews the fundamental flaws in the study of leadership.

May et al. (2003) attribute the overall success of an organisation and well-being of staff, to the moral and ethical ideology held by the leader. They make this link by asserting that leaders who have a strong system of core values have the ability to recognise moral dilemmas, whereby their decision will benefit some and hurt others. Leaders can then weigh the costs and benefits, act in a manner that is ethical, and in the long term benefit the organisation overall. The researchers take the viewpoint that by understanding this decision-making process in detail, organisations can use their findings to replicate these outcomes.

They acknowledge that authentic leadership isnt just limited to a leader and follower, but is a function of the overall moral capacity of the leader and the wider relationship with other leaders whose ethics are also aligned. By providing a detailed case study of one leaders moral dilemma and their interactions with other leaders and followers in their organisation, May et al. (2003), provide detailed insight into the complex relationships at play in ethical leadership. The case study, which is interwoven throughout their paper, reviews the choices and the ethical actions required by a leader. It also addresses the fears and challenges in making those choices to provide a practical framework.

Whilst May et al. (2003) are true to their mission by presenting moral decision making in all its complexity, their limited sources confines their ability to present a balanced view on authentic leadership, as their case study is only from the viewpoint of the one leader. This limits our understanding, as the perspectives of the others in the organisation are not considered (Ciulla; 2020). For instance, worker wellbeing and work related anxiety of followers being linked to authentic leaders (Fu, Long, He, & Liu, 2020), isnt discussed. Comparatively, Padilla et al. (2007) take a more balanced view point when it comes to reviewing the conditions, personality traits, definitions and outcomes of destructive leaders.

Using a wide range of peer-reviewed journals and research, Padilla et al. (2007) critically review gaps in research with regards to destructive leadership studies, and present a clear and thorough definition which provides a range of factors narcissistic leader, susceptible followers and conducive environment that in combination, can either hinder or foster a destructive outcome for those who arent in power. They attribute the interaction of these factors to yield destructive outcomes. In their paper, whilst they give other examples, they substantiate their perspective with a detailed breakdown of Fidel Castros influence, rise to power, follower circumstances and the right environment.

One of the strengths of their paper, is that they successfully separate salient personality / ethical traits to the predictability of leadership outcomes. Through the comparison of Mother Theresa and Hitler, it is clear that leaders and leadership outcomes arent fixed. Most research, even as outlined in Alvesson (2017), often associate leadership with the positive connotations, i.e. morally corrupt leaders arent leaders, but dictators. Padilla et al, (2007) unravel that overly simplified concept by asserting that leaders arent one dimensional, and behave in response to and in line with in social norms.

They take the viewpoint that the toxic triangle of personality traits and charisma have the power to influence destructive outcomes, if they are also supported by susceptible followers and a conducive environment that is unstable, requires leadership, etc. This viewpoint is consistent with more recent research, whereby individual characteristics and situations interact in determining leadership emergence (Park, Arvey, & Tong, 2011). Padilla et al. (2007) provide recommendations for organisations, leaders and followers to moderate the conditions, to steer away from destructive leadership outcomes by reviewing all three components.

In contrast, Alvesson (2017), reviews eight fundamental flaws in the field of leadership studies in lieu of providing a singular perspective on effective leadership. Alvesson (2017) clearly breaks down some of the fundamental challenges in this field that often leads to misinformation, biases and popularity in leadership studies. One of the clear and consistent challenges highlighted is in the inconsistencies, is in the definition of leadership, with some studies portraying leaders as heroes, moral ideals or being synonymous with good and others only focusing on the leader-member exchange, therefore, limiting the field to only positive outcomes.

Whilst I agree with Alvessons (2017) assessment of the emphasis and over simplification of leadership in popular psychology, his article is limited by the range of sources to support his point of view. As he often cites his own previous work, he may not be taking a balanced viewpoint and challenging the credibility of the source. Another key challenge in Alvessons (2017) work is that the paper does little by way of offering a remedy to these challenges, in fact suggesting that the field is too far gone for a reasonable solution. In contrast, the very fact that the field is so diverse is seen as an opportunity and celebration according to Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney & Cogliser (2010). This is consistent with my experience as both a team member and a leader. The very complexity of the field is what makes each of the variables (People, Principals, Process, and Outcomes) worth exploring.

In summary, comparing the perspectives outlined in all three studies, it is clear that effective leadership is not solely determined by any one factor. Alvesson (2017) highlights the importance of questioning the biases and common pitfalls in the field, Padilla et al. (2007) highlight the systems paradigm thats needed to view the outcomes of leadership and May et al. (2007) highlight the opportunity to review and train future leaders to ensure an ethical outcome of leadership.

Essentially, keeping destructive traits in line (Padilla et al. 2007), ensuring that the organisation and other leaders have strong, ethical shared values (May et al. 2007), and ensuring that the followers/members and systemic biases also taken into consideration (Alvesson 2017) can be strategies to yield effective leadership outcomes.

References

Alvesson, M. (2017). Waiting for Godot: Eight major problems in the odd field of leadership studies.Leadership,15(1), 2743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715017736707

Ciulla, J. B. (2020). Ethics and effectiveness: The nature of good leadership.The Search for Ethics in Leadership, Business, and Beyond,50(1), 332. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38463-0_1

Fu, J., Long, Y., He, Q., & Liu, Y. (2020). Can ethical leadership improve employees well-being at work? Another side of ethical leadership based on organizational citizenship anxiety.Frontiers in Psychology,11(1). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01478

Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review of the leadership quarterlys second decade, 20002009.The Leadership Quarterly,21(6), 922958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.003

May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership.Organizational Dynamics,32(3), 247260. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(03)00032-9

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments.The Leadership Quarterly,18(3), 176194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001

Simonsson, C. (2018). LeaderFollower perspectives.The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication,1(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0098