Nature of Management Work - Essay Example

Part I: A. Nature of Management Work Pursuant to Uhl-Bien et al’s (2007) complexity leadership theory, the nature of management work is centred around the “knowledge era” which “is characterized by a new competitive landscape” fuelled by “globalization, technology, deregulation and democratization” (p. 300). Thus management is constructed around a bureaucratic system in which leadership is “adaptive, administrative and enabling” (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 305). Thus the nature of management work is to enable “the learning, creative, and adaptive capacity of complex adaptive systems (CAS)” for the purpose of facilitating an organization that produces knowledge (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 298). The nature of management work is to bring together the three forms of leadership: adaptive, administrative and enabling. The bringing together of these three forms of leadership, the interaction between the “bureaucratic, administrative functions of the organization and the emergent, informal dynamics of CAS” are reflected (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 298). In this regard, management works overseas adaptive leadership which refers to adapting to, being creative and learning to act within and from the CAS interactions for the purpose of adjusting to changes within and outside of the organization. Administrative leadership organizes roles within the organization. The nature of management work under the guise of enabling leadership functions to “catazlyze the conditions in which adaptive leadership” may exist and management interactions among all aspects of leadership (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 305). B. Delegation and Empowerment Delegation and empowerment follows from the complexity leadership theory’s entanglement of three leadership operatives. Thus, the delegated power falls to CAS or “complexity adaptive emergent forces” (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 305). Ideally, adaptive leadership (the delegated power) functions together with the administrative leaders or can resist administrative leadership. In other words, the adaptive leadership may cooperate with administrative leadership with a view to augmenting its strategies or it can resist administrative leadership or it can function as an independent arm of the organization (Uhl-Bien et al 2007). What emerges is Network dynamics which refers to the “contexts and mechanisms that enable adaptive leadership ((Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 307). What occurs is an “interactive ambiance” in which complicated “dynamics occur” accompanied by patterned conduct the “produce complex outcomes” (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 307). The fact is delegated power reflects an interaction between leadership and followers so that the exchange of ideas, knowledge and solutions are shared across a broad spectrum of the organization (Uhl-Bien 2007). C. Power and Influence In Uhl-Bien et al’s (2007) leadership complexity theory power is necessary for facilitating, orchestrating and sharing innovation and results within the entire organization. This is because formal constructs can act as barriers for “innovation-to-organization transference” (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 313). Thus power and influence is organized so that a “pro-innovation” strategy is adopted. The idea is that relying solely on networking of power on an individual basis is incompatible with innovation strategies. It is best to proceed on an “organization-system base of power” (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 313). Essentially, complexity leadership theory distinguishes leadership from leaders. It is within this context that power and influence is constructed and conceived. Thus leaderships is perceived as an “emergent, interactive dynamic” that is compatible with optimum outcomes particularly in the area of creativity and innovation (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 299). Leaders are therefore individuals whose activities as individuals that influence the emergent, interactive dynamics and influence the production of optimal outcomes. Therefore power and influence is systematically informed by the complex dynamics of leadership and leaders and the entanglement of these dynamics. These dynamics create the organization power and thus influence the functioning of the organization as a whole. D. Implementing Change The framework for the organization subject to the complexity leadership theory is such that leadership is not perceived as autonomous. Rather it is looked upon as “an emergent, interactive dynamic” creating a “complex interplay from which a collective impetus for action and change emerges” when leadership and its various delegated powers are entangled so that they “produce new patterns of behaviour or new modes of operating” (Uhl-Bien et al 2007, p. 299). Ultimately, complexity leadership theory models an organization that is poised for change and is thus flexible and adaptable. The adaptive leadership functions to ensure implementing change. Uhl-Bien et al (2007) describes adaptive leadership as: Adaptive, creative, and learning actions that emerge from the interactions of the CAS as they strive to adjust to tension (e.g., constraints or perturbations) (p. 305). Adaptive leadership is further described by Uhl-Bien et al (2007) as the vehicle of change within the organization. Specifically, Uhl-Bien et al (2007) espouse the view that although people are involved in adaptive leadership, it is “a complex dynamic” and “arguably, the proximal source of change in an organization” (p. 306). Thus change is not implemented bu is a naturally occurring result of the functioning of adaptive leadership. E. Ensuring Ethical Behaviour The top-down hierarchal structure of the organization under the complexity leadership model automatically commands that ethical behaviour is assured. The assurance of ethical behaviour is implicit in the complex networking system which reflects “hierarchal dynamics and emergent adaptive systems” (Uhl-Bien 2007, p. 306). Complexity leadership theory makes provision for an “overarching framework that describes leadership, adaptive leadership and enabling leadership” and as such facilitates “entanglement among the three leadership roles” and specifically facilitates entanglements “between CAS and bureaucracy” (Uhl-Bien 2007, p. 306). Thus the constant and persistent entanglement of leadership necessarily provides for a check on ethical behaviour. Essentially, the network dynamics of complexity leadership theory ties together leadership and leaders who are responsible for leading the organization and ensuring that the organization not only meets its objectives, but also is able to adjust to changes. The functioning of leadership and leaders in this way automatically commands a degree of transparency that ultimately puts leaders and leadership under constant scrutiny. With leadership and leaders constantly under scrutiny and constantly interacting with each other, ethical behaviour is not only assured, but virtually guaranteed. Moreover, the competition generated by a knowledge oriented organization, also requires transparency in operations and therefore ethical behaviour. Part II. Uhl-Bien et al’s (2007) complexity leadership is in some respects consistent with what one might expect to be effective for the successful operation of an organization. For instance the idea that delegated authority such as that delegated to adaptive leadership can either cooperate with the administrative authority or resist that authority and make its own decisions can be applied realistically. Yukl (2010) suggests that the decision-making process is among the most significant “functions performed by leaders” (p. 132). The fact is, both administrators and managers are involved in “making and implementing decisions” and also “planning the work”, resolving difficulties, choosing “subordinates”, “determining pay increases”, assigning jobs among many other functions (Yukl 2010, p. 132). Looked at in this way, the dynamics of adaptive leadership and administrative leadership and its constant and persistent entanglement will often call for collaboration. However, the various decisions that each will have to make independently relative to all the functions outlined by Yukl (2010) command that some of these decisions will have to made without collaboration and in many cases decisions will have to be made spontaneously or on an urgent basis. This is particularly true for the adaptive leadership who are engaged in the process of responding to and ensuring that the organization is adaptable to tensions and change. In this regard, this aspect of Uhl-Bien’s (2007) complexity leadership theory is practical and consistent with the reality of organizational operations. The framework proposed for an organization that adheres to the complexity leadership theory in relation to the delegation of power also has merit and is possible to apply in practice. As Yukl (2010) explains, delegation is a “distinct and meaningful” decision-making process (p. 133). By virtue of delegation management confers upon an individual or a group “the authority and responsibility for making a decision” although there are some constraints in that “prior approval” may be required (Yukl 2010, pp 133-134). Uhl-Bein et al’s (2007) complexity leadership model necessarily acknowledges and accepts delegation of authority and decision-making among the different leaders and leadership types. Essentially, complexity leadership theory adheres to agency conceptualization in which power and authority are delegated without limitations. This is implicit in the idea that the adaptive leadership may choose to work with administrative leadership or may work alone or rebel against administrative leadership. Prior approval would appear to be a wise prerequisite for the delegation of power in an organization. In a democratic organization, prior approval will only come about by virtue of open and frank communication. If adaptive leadership is convinced that a specific decision is imperative they may be able to convince administrative leadership to approve their decision. For practical reasons, permitting delegated leadership to rebel against administrative leadership will create unnecessary tension and distraction within the organization and cannot be conducive to the effective functioning of the organization. Therefore in this regard, the complexity leadership theory is inconsistent with the reality of organization functioning and thus impractical. Noticeably absent in the complexity leadership theory are explanations for how the leadership and the leadership entanglements are meant to motivate subordinates in a manner consistent with the path-goal theory (Rickards and Clark 2005). Complexity leadership emphasizes systems rather than individual or personal attributes and as such does not take account of the individual characteristics of leaders and the persons comprising leadership. As Rickards and Clarke (2005) explain, charismatic leaders tend to have a more motivational influence on their respective subordinates. Moreover the path goal theories of leadership commands attention to leadership styles that take account of the way that they relate to, interact and influence their respective coordinates. Rowe and Guerrero (2010) explain that the path goal theory of leadership “is about how leaders motivate subordinate to accomplish designated goals” (p. 205). Thus the path goal theory of leadership takes account of the organization realistically. It acknowledges that the organization is a system of individuals and that the employees are assets of the organizations. It also recognizes that employees need to be motivated to produce and to work positively and in a way consistent with promoting the goals of the organization (Rowe and Guerraro 2010). Complexity leadership theory essentially dehumanizes the organization and relies instead on systems and dynamics. The theory merely acknowledges that these systems and dynamics consist of individuals but tends to dismiss the individual characteristics of the leaders and leadership. There is virtually no attention to subordinates and certainly no reference to motivation. Thus complexity leadership theory depends entirely on systematic functioning and entanglements of systems rather than entanglements of individuals. This is unrealistic since organizations are made up of individuals and the individuals that manage and lead the organization depend on subordinates to ensure that the goals or objectives of the organization are met. Thus individual leadership styles are important for achieving organizational goals. Bibliography Rickards, T. and Clark, M. (2006). Dilemmas of Leadership. London, UK: Routledge. Rowe, W. G. and Guerrero, L. (2010). Cases in Leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Uhl-Brien, M, Marion R, and McKelvery, B. (2007) Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era The Leadership Quarterly, 18, (2007) 298-318. Yukl, G (2010) Leadership in Organisations, Global Edition (7th Edition) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice-Hall inc. Read More