Visshal Natarajan | 1005254 | Leaders & Followers
Final Case Study
Question 1
The authors put forward a new management model focused on a three-dimensional shift
involving power, skills and structure propelled by the four waves of innovation: process
reengineering, digitalisation, agile movement and flexible work (Gherson & Gratton, 2022). In the
article, the authors provide examples of the transformative shifts (building new skills at scale,
rewiring processes and systems and splitting the role of managers) across three industries which
orbit around this ‘new approach to management’ (Gherson & Gratton, 2022). I agree with the
claim that the new leadership theory proposed is an amalgamation and re-packaging of existing
leadership theories. I will support the claim by drawing parallels between the newly proposed
leadership theory and existing literature.
The authors in their article emphasise how their theory enables a power and skill shift
which encourages focusing on serving the team by supplying coaching, inspiration and emotional
support instead of serving themselves. This theory exhibits faucets of existing leadership theories,
which treat leaders and followers as relational entities where the focus is on the relationship
between the leader and each subordinate irrespective of the group (Markham, Yammarino, Murry,
& Palanski, 2010). Apart from this, proponents of servant leadership, which emphasises the notion
of the servant leader whose job is to sense and attend to the need of his followers (Block,1993),
are visible. The theory also borrows from two of the four critical dimensions of a transformational
leader: individualised consideration and inspirational motivation (Bono & Judge, 2004).
Individualised consideration focuses on addressing individual concerns and serving as a mentor
or coach when appropriate(Johns & Saks, 2013); this is compounded with inspired motivation,
which encourages leaders to communicate their vision, thereby inspiring those under them(Bono
& Judge, 2004).
The IBM case study highlights a major change from performance management to
performance development centred around feedback (Gherson & Gratton, 2022). A direct parallel
can be drawn to the leadership framework put forward by Ancona, built on the core assumption
that leadership is personal and developmental. Herein leadership develops over time through
practice, reflection and feedback (Ancona, 2005). The notion that leadership is personal and
developmental focuses on striving to improve and expand one’s capabilities. This serves as the
direct rationale behind the accreditation program introduced by IBM, which is considered the
enforcing template of skills shift. The skills shift also focuses on employing sensemaking, coined
by Karl Weick (1995), which encapsulates the process of trying to understand the context in which
a manager operates. Sensemaking, along with relating, visioning and investing, is part of
Ancona’s iterative leadership framework, which equates with several components of the new
leadership theory.
The duality framework put forward in the Telstra case study is an implementation of the
structural shift, which underlines the significance of a fluid workspace. This can be compared with
models of teams working in complex, dynamic situations, which suggest that a small core often
collectively takes on leadership responsibilities (Ancona, Bresman, and Kaufer, 2002). Thereby,
different members handle different roles ranging from product-oriented to team-oriented roles,
which elaborates that leadership is both an individual and collective capacity. Consequentially,
the duality framework can be considered a subset of the collective capacity of leadership
introduced in theories prior to it.
The theory of leadership introduced by the authors is the product of the theories preceding
it re-packaged to convey a similar message. This claim is supported by demonstrating evidence
of similarity from existing theories such as servant leadership and transformational leadership.
(571 Words)
Question 2
I disagree with the claim that the 'new models' can be implemented without formal power.
Interpersonal relationships are inconceivable without power (Rennison,2018). In the case studies
of Standard Chartered, IBM and Telstra, we observe that the traditional scope of managerial
power has been redefined to serve a more fluid structural dynamic (Gherson & Gratton, 2022).
However, the underlying hierarchy still exists wherein managers are equipped with some formal
power to hold their team accountable and implement the changes. Furthermore, managers often
depend on many people (and things) whom they do not directly control and who are not
cooperating (Kutter, 1977). The absence of formal power would make it difficult for managers to
communicate changes and engage in a productive relationship with those under them. One could
counterargue that there is an increasingly limited demand for managerial leadership (Blom &
Alvesson, 2013), which can be interpreted as a decline in the need for fixed roles with formal
power. However, the weakness of the argument would be the continued utilisation of managers,
equipped with formal power, in major organisational structures across all industries. Thereby the
‘new models’ can only be implemented with formal power.
On the issue regarding the impact of the 'new models', I agree with the claim that these
models do help make the manager's job easier. The Gartner survey of 75 HR leaders found that
68% of HR leaders believe managers are overwhelmed, indicating that the existing framework is
not equipped to deal with the changes in skill, power, and structure (Gherson & Gratton, 2022).
Managers are expected to expand the scope of their role to coach, support, and guide
priorities and provide performance feedback amidst a more fluid organisational structure. The
'new model' emphasises coaching and skill development and equips managers to serve their
team better. This was accomplished via the accreditation programs, which helped streamline their
learning, thereby boosting managers' overall performance in the evaluation metric. Further, there
was also an increase in employee engagement. These positive changes indicate the model's
success in empowering the managers to handle the dynamic shifts in power, skills and structure,
thereby making their jobs easier.
However, the 'new model' does not account for all aspects of being a manager. Virtual
teams that cut across boundaries boast an increasingly diverse workforce. Consequently, leaders
also need to have the capability to function effectively in different cultures and be able to cross
language, social, economic, and political borders (Gregersen, Morrison & Black,1998). The global
leadership theory encapsulates this, wherein success is measured by the leader's ability to have
a global mindset, tolerate high ambiguity, and exhibit cultural adaptability and flexibility (Javidan,
Dorfman, de Luque & House, 2006 ). Another essential aspect unaccounted for is the unique
nature of every individual leader. The model generalises across all managers regarding coaching
techniques and evaluation metrics centred on feedback. However, it can be made more
comprehensive by including particular aspects of Ancona's leadership framework, which focuses
on the change signature. It is the unique way that each individual leads change. The manager's
change signature determines how the new model's aspects are implemented within the team.
In conclusion, the new management model based on coaching and metrics proposed by the
authors, while elaborate and robust in its own right, can be improved upon by incorporating
elements from other leadership theories to better manage the dynamic 21st-century workplace.
(559 Words)
References
Ancona, D. (2005). Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty. MIT Leadership Center: Research Brief.
https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Leadership/Ancona_Leadershipin
anAgeofUncertainty-researchbrief.pdf
Ancona, D., Bresman, H., & Kaeufer, K. (2002, April 15). The Comparative Advantage of XTeams. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-comparative-advantage-of-xteams/\
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901–910.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901
Blom, M., & Alvesson, M. (2013, December 8). Leadership on demand: Followers as initiators and
inhibitors of managerial leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management. Retrieved July 1, 2022,
from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956522113001176
Gherson, D., & Gratton, L. (2022, February 17). Managers Can’t Do It All. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2022/03/managers-cant-do-it-all
Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998, October 15). Developing Leaders for the
Global Frontier. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/developing-leaders-for-the-global-frontier/
Johns, G., & Saks, A. M. (2013). Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and Managing Life at
Work (9th Edition). In Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and Managing Life at Work (9th
ed., pp. 304–337). Pearson Canada.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the Eye of the Beholder:
Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410
Kutter, J. P. (1977, July). Power, Dependence, and Effective Management. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved July 10, 2022, from https://hbr.org/1977/07/power-dependence-and-effectivemanagement
Markham, S. E., Yammarino, F. J., Murry, W. D., & Palanski, M. E. (2010). Leader–member
exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of analysis do matter. The
Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.010
Rennison, B. W. (2018). Theories of Leadership. Journal of Leadership and Management, 3(13).
Retrieved from http://www.leadership.net.pl/JLM/article/view/139