Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The definition of leadership is an ever-evolving theory. This report aims to critically discuss Vicere and Fulmers (1997) suggestion that it is a new world for strategic leadership development and identify whether this statement remains true in the current business world through the lens of the national health service (NHS). In order to understand where leadership is heading, it is important to understand its past and how some theories can be relevant today. In fact, it is suggested by Northouse (2016) that different scenarios need different leadership styles. Situational leadership provides a framework which allows different responses for differing scenarios (Blanchard, Zigarmi & Zigarmi, 2013) (appendix 1). Druckers 1955 (Van Seters & Field 1990) outdated notion on the qualities and traits approach to leadership, where leaders are born and not made is a stark contrast to Van Seters and Field (1990) who embrace the future of leadership and how it is evolving into a more fluid era. Whilst reviewing the evolutionary tree of leadership (Van Seters & Field 1990) it is evident that we have evolved from the personality era (Great man and Traits theory) and the coercive techniques, it suggests that all theories converge in the transformational era. This would indicate that to have a visionary leader is essential for success. Ates, Tarakci, Porck, van Knippenberg & Groenen, (2019) argue that visionary leadership is a double edged sword. Whilst visionary leaders are aligned to the companys core values, it was positive. However, when the visionary leader strays from the company values, it serves as a negative force and creates barriers, for example, Steve Jobs (Apple). Van Seters & Field (1990) argue that in order to be effective, a new leader must be a visionary, be able to take risk and be highly adaptable to change. They go onto suggest that leaders must also be able to delegate responsibility and places an emphasis on innovation which lends itself to leadership by design.
According to Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, Angwin & Regner (2017) leadership is the process of influencing an organisation (or group within an organisation) in its efforts towards achieving an aim or goal. As discussed above, leadership has evolved quite substantially since the Personality era (Van Seters & Field, 1990), however when looking into the evolutionary stages of leadership (Van Seters & Field, 1990, Northouse 2016) it can be suggested that each era adds further to an existing theory. Thus, leadership today can find many relatable qualities with past and present leadership styles. An example would be the NHS. Rather than focusing on the individual, earlier adaptations of leadership theory such as traits and behaviors, the NHS tends to take a more proactive approach such as the Transformational era (Van Seters & Field, 1990). Northouse (2016) suggest that transformational leadership has been the most adapted and widely used approach in recent times. He goes on to suggest that it gives more emphasis on the charismatic, effective and proactive elements of leadership. Northouse (2016) cites that transformational leadership has many strengths and is particularly appealing for its visionary leadership and advocating change for others. However, Northouse (2016) also mentions that due to is broad nature it can lack conceptual clarity, can be difficult to measure and it can be treated as a personality trait rather than a behavior that can be learnt.
As leadership develops, organisations need to be more adaptable. Building on to the transformational leadership style where it sets a broad generalisation of what leadership is (Northouse, 2016), a learning organisation takes many factors into account. Vicere and Fulmer (1997) identify three scenarios, Maintenance learning, shock learning and anticipatory learning which all lead into leadership development. They go on to discuss the traditional paradigm for leadership development which they state is identified at an early stage in the individuals career. There are four stages identified in the traditional paradigm: Learning the ropes, rotational assignments, becoming a general manager and foundation for the future. According to Vicere and Fulmer (1997) each stage is expected to take ten years and focuses on the leader as an individual.
The learning organisation also looks to facilitate learning for its members and the organisation itself. Although the time at each stage is reduced, developing strong future leaders is essential to provide sustainability within the marketplace and future proof the organisation against an aging workforce. This is evident within the NHS through its Graduate Management Training Scheme, it allows people to gain the skills, knowledge and confidence to lead departments and organisations (‘The Scheme – NHS Graduates’, 2019). Roger Gill (2011) suggests that experience is crucial for developing leadership so going through the four stages of the learning organisation (Vicere & Fulmer 1997) provides invaluable experience for future leaders to utilise in practice.
The churn of senior leaders in the NHS is a significant problem. Eight per cent of NHS trust executive director posts are vacant and there are challenges in recruiting chief operating officers and strategy directors (Anandaciva, Ward, Randhawa & Edge, 2019). Anandaciva, Ward, Randhawa & Edge, (2019) goes onto suggest that greater recognition of the importance of systems leadership is needed in appointing future leaders. A coalition of national bodies has come together to develop a new national framework: Developing people improving care (Anandaciva, Ward, Randhawa & Edge, 2019), to guide NHS leadership development and talent management.
Amin Rajan (cited Gill, 2011) suggests four favoured leadership development strategies: Coaching, Learning from peers, Experience and Skills training. However, there are constraints that must be address when it comes to barriers to successful leadership development (Gill, 2011) such as organisational culture, time, Self-awareness for the need to change, adapt to the environment and emotional intelligence. Norman Dixson (cited Gill, 2011) suggests there are five elements that provide a barrier to leadership development. Low self-esteem, lack of self-confidence, fear of failure, cognitive restriction (thinking inside the box) and stress. Gill (2011) also argues that natural talents can be impaired rather than improved by training.
Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, Angwin & Regner (2017) suggest that strategic leaders are individuals whose personalities, positions or reputations make them central to the strategy development process. These could be individuals who are a founder or owner of the organisation e.g. Richard Branson at Virgin or Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook. Johnson, Whittington, Scholes, Angwin & Regner (2017) goes on to suggest 4 types of strategic leadership. Strategic leadership as command, as a vision, as decision making and as the embodiment of strategy. Gill (2011) goes on to discuss that leadership can be taught at an intellectual level, but the emotional intelligence needed can only be honed through feedback, application and practice.
There are many other forms of leadership that have been studied and developed such as the authentic leader, servant leadership and the psychodynamic approach to leadership which is a human centric approach focusing on relationships (Schwartz. M, 2019, Northouse 2016). However, why are these important? These theories help to underpin strategic leadership. In order to have successful strategic leadership development, the individual must be in line with the organisations vision, mission, values and business strategies (Gill 2011). To align leadership with organisational strategies is difficult but this can be done through a leadership by design process. Martin (2009) utilises the Knowledge Funnel (appendix 2) to help with the design thinking process. He argues that it allows for a more sustainable leadership strategy. It allows organisations to create beautiful things that work properly.
As we move into a more globalised economy it is essential to draw upon strong collaborative, adaptive and empathetic leadership styles and to utilise tools to navigate the complexities of the emerging markets. Leadership is no longer about the individual but rather a more collaborative approach using tools to aid in decision making. Design thinking is a great tool to aid leaders. It is an iterative process in which we seek to understand the user, challenge assumptions and redefine problems to identify alternative strategies and solutions. At the same time design thinking provides a solution-based approach to solving problems by looking at business validity, technology feasibility and people desirability (Service Design Thinking, 2019) (appendix 3).
Leadership is an ever-evolving theory however, Deloitte (2019) states that Leadership by design is the connection between business strategy and leadership strategy. Why is leadership important? It is because leadership matters. Leadership is a driving factor for great business performance and the absence of leadership creates risk. ‘Leadership is the ability to get people together to solve wicked problems’ (Deloitte, 2019).
To become a design thinker, you must develop the stance, tools and experience that facilitate design thinking (Martin, 2009, pg 30). Martin (2009) sees leaders as people who utilise models to help organise, experience to develop skills and a stance that provides validity to actions, even in the face of opposition from the organisation. Martin (2009) argues that design thinking allows the individual to see past the here and now and forecast the trends of the future. By analysing the past, leaders can make judgements to steer organisations in the right direction. Deloitte (2019) argues that organisations lack the connective tissue between business strategy and leadership strategy and suggest that for success, organisations need to treat them both as one system for vitality and robustness. This in turn would develop a more sustainable leadership development process and allow the future leaders to emerge. Deloitte suggest that by having a clear definition about what leaders are wanted, it makes it easier to identify.
Van Seters and Field (1990) go onto suggest that leaders must also be able to delegate responsibility and places an emphasis on innovation this further lends itself to the concept of leadership by design. Martins (2009) take on design thinking is one of pragmatism seeking a balance between reliability, validity, science, art, intuition, analytics, exploration and exploitation. He states that a design thinking organisation should apply abductive reasoning to problem solve as it is the most crucial tool. Lockwood (2009) believes that design thinking is essentially a human-centric innovation process. Involving customers, designers and businesspeople in an integrative process. Empathetic approach utilising customer insight. Collaboration between the end users allowing the company to make radical innovation rather than incremental improvement. The NHS have generated their own design thinking process in order to identify and address new ways to work. NHS Improvement (2019) have developed a program called Quality, service improvement and redesign (QSIR) (appendix 4). This course teaches people how to embrace design leadership and to develop services for improvement, thus helping to develop new leaders.
When we discuss the design thinking processes a lot is mention around the environment and whether it is conducive to a creative atmosphere (Dam & Siang, 2019) We think about the tools that aid leaders and teams to make decisions, we think of how it is implemented into organisations and what the benefits are. As we move forward in innovation it is important that these factors are addressed, and leaders and teams are given the creative freedom to think outside of the box and away from the day to day stresses of the organisation (Dam & Siang, 2019). Within that bubble of innovation, great things are created. A common argument against design thinking is that it dilutes design into a structured, linear and clean process. Critics argue that real design in messy, complex and nonlinear, it isnt derived from a stack of post-it notes and a few brainstorming sessions (Ketterman, 2019).
There are many tools which feed into strategic leadership and the decisions made such as PESTEL and VUCA (‘What VUCA Really Means for You’, 2019, ‘VUCA World – LEADERSHIP SKILLS & STRATEGIES’, 2019, Oxford College of Marketing, 2016). These tools allow leaders to view the markets from a macro perspective and allow them to strategically steer organisations into the future aiding design thinking and creative solutions. The market is never a stagnant place and change is inevitable. It is how we deal with the change and how we adapt our leadership styles that will make or break an organisation. Without addressing the changing environments and markets, organisations face a strategic drift which could result in companies or products failing, for example the blackberry phone.
Leadership development within organisations has an impact on whether they are successful or not. It is imperative that organisations work to create sustainable strategic leadership that can grow, adapt, facilitate and thrive in a complex modern business world.
Van Seters and Field (1997) set out leadership definitions that have clearly evolved since great man theory as we have moved from the individualised approach to leadership where the leader knows all to a more collaborative approach. Northouse (2016) further identifies emerging leadership approaches: Authentic, spiritual, servant and adaptive leadership. Although there is no one size fits all approach to leadership styles this report agrees with Vicere and Fulmer (1997) that it is indeed a new world for strategic leadership and we must embrace change as it comes and adapt to the changing faces of modern business.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.