Organization:

A deliberate arrangement of people to accomplish some specific purpose.

Distinct Deliberate
Purpose Structure
Figure
People

Organizational Performance:
Companies with a spirit of high performance. Emphasize achievement & excellence
.Have a results-oriented culture Pursue policies & practices inspiring people to do their
best. Desired outcome - Produce extraordinary results with ordinary people . Emphasize
an intense people orientation .Belief in worth of the individual .Treat employees with
dignity & respect .Willingness to train each employee. Strong commitment to job security
& promotion from within .Encourage employees to use initiative & creativity .Set clear
performance standards. Emphasize an intense people orientation .Utilize rewards &
punishment to enforce high performance standards .Hold managers responsible for
employee development .Grant employees autonomy to excel & contribute .Make
champions out of people turning in winning performances.

Leadership:
Leadership is about setting a vision or direction and achieving results. It is unlikely that
persons with low self-esteem and poor interpersonal skills will rise to positions of
leadership. The climate of the formative years is thus very critical in enhancing
leadership potential.

Influencing and directing the performance of group members towards the achievement of
organizational goals.
The ability to lead, including inspiring others in a shared vision. Leaders have clear
visions and they communicate these visions to their employees. ...
A leader is one who conducts, precedes as a guide to others in action or opinion, one who
takes the lead in any enterprise or movement, one who is ‘followed’ by disciples or
adherents, the most eminent member of a profession, a person of eminent position and
influence, leadership is evidenced by effective attempts to influence others. Theories of
leadership attempt to explain why some individuals are more effective than others at
influencing. Theories have focused on differences in behavior, style, and personal
attributes.
Coping with change, focusing on objectives, developing strategies and inspiring the
organization to move in the same direction. Demonstrates a positive attitude toward the
organization, other staff, and its constituents. Serves as a role model.
mentoring, coaching, example and other processes for guidance of Self and Other in
action; link-theme between physical dimension and emotional dimension.” is a process
that takes place in groups in which one member influences and controls the behavior of
the other members toward some common goal.

Styles of leadership
Leadership Style is most often viewed as a dependent variable where the focus is on how
does leadership style influence individual behavior and attitudes, and group or
organizational performance. The Determinants of Leadership Style approach asks what
factors influence a given leader's dominant style or how is leadership style developed.
There are many ways to lead and every leader has his or her own style. Some of the more
common styles include autocratic, bureaucratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.
In the past several decades, management experts have undergone a revolution in how
they define leadership and what their attitudes are toward it. They have gone from a very
classical autocratic approach to a very creative, participative approach. Somewhere along
the line, it was determined that not everything old was bad and not everything new was
good. Rather, different styles were needed for different situations and each leader needed
to know when to exhibit a particular approach.
Four of the most basic leadership styles are:
--Autocratic
--Bureaucratic
--Laissez-faire
--Democratic
This article will briefly define each style and describe the situations in which each one
might be used.
Autocratic Leadership Style

This is often considered the classical approach. It is one in which the manager retains as
much power and decision-making authority as possible. The manager does not consult
employees, nor are they allowed to give any input. Employees are expected to obey
orders without receiving any explanations. The motivation environment is produced by
creating a structured set of rewards and punishments.
This leadership style has been greatly criticized during the past 30 years. Some studies
say that organizations with many autocratic leaders have higher turnover and absenteeism
than other organizations. Certainly Gen X employees have proven to be highly resistant
to this management style. These studies say that autocratic leader
--Rely on threats and punishment to influence employees
--Do not trust employees
--Do not allow for employee input
Yet, autocratic leadership is not all bad. Sometimes it is the most effective style to use.
These situations can include:
--New, untrained employees who do not know which tasks to perform or which
procedures to follow
--Effective supervision can be provided only through detailed orders and instructions
--Employees do not respond to any other leadership style
--There are high-volume production needs on a daily basis
--There is limited time in which to make a decision
--A manager’s power is challenged by an employee
--The area was poorly managed
--Work needs to be coordinated with another department or organization
The autocratic leadership style should not be used when:
--Employees become tense, fearful, or resentful
--Employees expect to have their opinions heard
--Employees begin depending on their manager to make all their decisions
--There is low employee morale, high turnover and absenteeism and work stoppage

Our research indicates that of the six leadership styles, the visionary one is most
effective, driving up every aspect of climate. Take clarity. The authoritative leader is a
visionary; he motivates people by making clear to th
em how their work fits into a larger vision for the organization. Authoritative leadership
maximizes commitment to the organization's goals and strategy. When he gives
performance feedback, whether positive or negative, the singular criterion is whether or
not that performance furthers the vision. The standards for success are clear to all, as are
the rewards. Finally, visionary leaders give people the freedom to innovate, experiment,
and take calculated risks.
Because of its positive impact, the visionary style works well in almost any business
situation. But it is particularly effective when a business is adrift. A visionary leader
charts a new course and sells his people on a fresh long-term vision. But the style will not
work in every situation. It fails, for instance, when a leader is working with a team of
experts or peers who are more experienced than he is; they may see the leader as
pompous and out of touch. And if a manager trying to be authoritative becomes
overbearing, he can undermine the egalitarian spirit of an effective team.

Bureaucratic Leadership Style

Bureaucratic leadership is where the manager manages “by the book¨ Everything must be
done according to procedure or policy. If it isn’t covered by the book, the manager refers
to the next level above him or her. This manager is really more of a police officer than a
leader. He or she enforces the rules.
This style can be effective when:
--Employees are performing routine tasks over and over.
--Employees need to understand certain standards or procedures.
--Employees are working with dangerous or delicate equipment that requires a definite
set of procedures to operate.
--Safety or security training is being conducted.
--Employees are performing tasks that require handling cash.
This style is ineffective when:
--Work habits form that are hard to break, especially if they are no longer useful.
--Employees lose their interest in their jobs and in their fellow workers.
--Employees do only what is expected of them and no more.

Democratic Leadership Style

The democratic leadership style is also called the participative style as it encourages
employees to be a part of the decision making. The democratic manager keeps his or her
employees informed about everything that affects their work and shares decision making
and problem solving responsibilities. This style requires the leader to be a coach who has
the final say, but gathers information from staff members before making a decision.
Democratic leadership can produce high quality and high quantity work for long periods
of time. Many employees like the trust they receive and respond with cooperation, team
spirit, and high morale. Typically the democratic leader:
--Develops plans to help employees evaluate their own performance
--Allows employees to establish goals
--Encourages employees to grow on the job and be promoted
--Recognizes and encourages achievement.
Like the other styles, the democratic style is not always appropriate. It is most successful
when used with highly skilled or experienced employees or when implementing
operational changes or resolving individual or group problems.
The democratic leadership style is most effective when:
--The leader wants to keep employees informed about matters that affect them.
--The leader wants employees to share in decision-making and problem-solving duties.
--The leader wants to provide opportunities for employees to develop a high sense of
personal growth and job satisfaction.
--There is a large or complex problem that requires lots of input to solve.
--Changes must be made or problems solved that affect employees or groups of
employees.
--You want to encourage team building and participation.
Democratic leadership should not be used when:
--There is not enough time to get everyone’s input.
--It’s easier and more cost-effective for the manager to make the decision.
--The business can’t afford mistakes.
--The manager feels threatened by this type of leadership.
--Employee safety is a critical concern.

As a whole this style is ideal when a leader is himself uncertain about the best direction
to take and needs ideas and guidance from able employees. By spending time getting
people's ideas and buy-in, a leader builds trust, respect, and commitment. By letting
workers themselves have a say in decisions that affect their goals and how they do their
work, the democratic leader drives up flexibility and responsibility. And by listening to
employees' concerns, the democratic leader learns what to do to keep morale high.
Finally, because they have a say in setting their goals and the standards for evaluating
success, people operating in a democratic system tend to be very realistic about what can
and cannot be accomplished. Even if the leader has a strong vision, the democratic style
works well to generate fresh ideas for executing that vision.
However, the democratic style has its drawbacks such as endless meetings where ideas
are mulled over, consensus remains elusive, and the only result is scheduling more
meetings. Some democratic leaders use the style to put off making crucial decisions. In
reality, their people end up feeling confused and leaderless. The democratic style makes
much less sense when employees are not competent or informed enough to offer sound
advice, and consensus building is wrongheaded in time of crisis.

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style

The laissez-faire leadership style is also known as the “hands-off¨ style. It is one in which
the manager provides little or no direction and gives employees as much freedom as
possible. All authority or power is given to the employees and they must determine goals,
make decisions, and resolve problems on their own.
This is an effective style to use when:
--Employees are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.
--Employees have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.
--Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used
--Employees are trustworthy and experienced.
This style should not be used when:
--It makes employees feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager.
--The manager cannot provide regular feedback to let employees know how well they are
doing.
--Managers are unable to thank employees for their good work.
--The manager doesn’t understand his or her responsibilities and is hoping the employees
can cover for him or her.
Charismatic Leadership

A charismatic leadership style can appear similar to a transformational leadership style, in

that the leader injects huge doses of enthusiasm into his or her team, and is very energetic
in driving others forward. However, a charismatic leader tends to believe more in him- or
herself than in their team. This can create a risk that a project, or even an entire
organization, might collapse if the leader were to leave: In the eyes of their followers,
success is tied up with the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic
leadership carries great responsibility, and needs long-term commitment from the leader.

People-Oriented Leadership or Relations-Oriented Leadership

The style of leadership is the opposite of task-oriented leadership: the leader is totally
focused on organizing, supporting and developing the people in the leader’s team. A
participative style, it tends to lead to good teamwork and creative collaboration.

In practice, most leaders use both task-oriented and people-oriented styles of leadership.

Servant Leadership

This term, coined by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, describes a leader who is often not
formally recognized as such. When someone, at any level within an organization, leads
simply by virtue of meeting the needs of his or her team, he or she is described as a
“servant leader”.

In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic leadership, as the whole team
tends to be involved in decision-making.

Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest it is an important way ahead in a world
where values are increasingly important, in which servant leaders achieve power on the
basis of their values and ideals. Others believe that in competitive leadership situations,
people practicing servant leadership will often find themselves left behind by leaders
using other leadership styles.

Task-Oriented Leadership

A highly task-oriented leader focuses only on getting the job done, and can be quite
autocratic. He or she will actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in
place, plan, organise and monitor. However, as task-oriented leaders spare little thought
for the well-being of their teams, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic
leadership, with difficulties in motivating and retaining staff. Task-oriented leaders can
use the Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid to help them identify specific areas for
development that will help them involve people more.
Transactional Leadership

This style of leadership starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader
totally when they take on a job: the “transaction” is (usually) that the organization pays
the team members in return for their effort and compliance. You have a right to “punish”
the team members if their work doesn’t meet the pre-determined standard.

Team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction under transactional
leadership. The leader could give team members some control of their income/reward by
using incentives that encourage even higher standards or greater productivity.
Alternatively a transactional leader could practice “management by exception”, whereby,
rather than rewarding better work, he or she would take corrective action if the required
standards were not met.

Transactional leadership is really just a way of managing rather a true leadership style as
the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative
work, but remains a common style in many organizations.

Transformational Leadership

A person with this leadership style is a true leader who inspires his or her team constantly
with a shared vision of the future. Transformational leaders are highly visible, and spend a
lot of time communicating. They don’t necessarily lead from the front, as they tend to
delegate responsibility amongst their team. While their enthusiasm is often infectious,
they generally need to be supported by “details people”.

In many organizations, both transactional and transformational leadership are needed. The
transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably, while the
transformational leaders look after initiatives that add value.

The transformational leadership style is the dominant leadership style taught in the "How
to Lead: Discover the Leader Within You" leadership program, although we do
recommend that other styles are brought as the situation demands:

Using the Right Style – Situational Leadership

While the Transformation Leadership approach is often highly effective, there is no one
“right” way to lead or manage that suits all situations. To choose the most effective
approach for you, you must consider:

• The skill levels and experience of your team

• The work involved (routine or new and creative)
• The organisational environment (stable or radically changing, conservative or
adventurous)
 • You own preferred or natural style.

A good leader will find him- or herself switching instinctively between styles according to
the people and work they are dealing with. This is often referred to as “situational
leadership”. For example, the manager of a small factory trains new machine operatives
using a bureaucratic style to ensure operatives know the procedures that achieve the right
standards of product quality and workplace safety. The same manager may adopt a more
participative style of leadership when working on production line improvement with his
or her team of supervisors

Varying Leadership Style

While the proper leadership style depends on the situation, there are three other factors
that also influence which leadership style to use.
1. The manager’s personal background. What personality, knowledge, values, ethics, and
experiences does the manager have. What does he or she think will work?
2. The employees being supervised. Employees are individuals with different
personalities and backgrounds. The leadership style manager use will vary depending
upon the individual employee and what he or she will respond best to.
3. The company. The traditions, values, philosophy, and concerns of the company will
influence how a manager acts.

Leadership's Impact
The research tested each executive's immediate sphere of influence for its climate.
"Climate" is not an amorphous term. It refers to six key factors that influence an
organization's working environment: its flexibility, that is, how free employees feel to
innovate unencumbered by red tape; their sense of responsibility to the organization; the
level of standards that people set; the sense of accuracy about performance feedback and
aptness of rewards; the clarity people have about mission and values; and finally, the
level of commitment to a common purpose.
We found that all six leadership styles have a measurable effect on each aspect of climate.
Further, when we looked at the impact of the climate on financial results, such as return
on sales, revenue growth, efficiency, and profitability, we found a direct correlation
between the two. Leaders who used styles that positively affected the climate had
decidedly better financial results than those who did not. That is not to say that
organizational climate is the only driver of performance. Economic conditions and
competitive dynamics matter enormously. But our analysis strongly suggests that climate
counts for nearly a third of results. And that's simply too much of an impact to ignore.
 RESEARCH MODEL

Transactional Leadership
Strong
Attitudes

Leadership **
Organizational Culture

Transformational
Leadership

Beliefs Shared
culture
Performance

Productivity Weak
Effectiveness Top to Bottom

Overview of Pakistani Organizations

Domestic organizations in Pakistan have been riding a rough tide for well over a couple
of decades. Organizational problems aggravated as external economic and political
factors came to impact heavily on their Performance in Pakistan. While most
organizations elsewhere in the world assimilated principles of strategic management to
continue to steer ahead successfully despite heavy turbulence in the external
environment, Pakistani organizations have yet to appreciate the importance of
management of external environmental factors as an essential function of operations in a
rapidly changing environment
One of the factors responsible for the slow response of Pakistani organizations to external
environment is the lack of ability and willingness of the internal environment to
appreciate, understand, and capitalize upon the external environmental opportunities or
avert the threats by treating them as major management challenges (Fatima, 1996). In
order to do so, however, Pakistani organizations need to bring about a quantum change in
the internal environment of their organizations. The change methods need adaptation
from Western prescriptions for domestic application as a body of knowledge for
application in the domestic setting is yet to be developed. Hence, there is a dire need of
change in conventional style of management and cultural building efforts.

Employing the lenses of organizational behavior, leadership and cultural diversity, the
proposed research will explore a model of organizational collaboration and reform for the
practices of administration and its effectiveness at the Pakistani organization, which can
be a help to organizational reform movements in comparative environment.
Improvements in behaviors and effectiveness could be achieved with clear understanding
of potential cultural differences and the way they impact management practices in
different organizations. A key to identifying generalizabel influences of culture on
management practices in other Organizations is to first understand how culture influences
management practices.

The purpose of the proposed research is not merely to explore relationship between
leadership behaviour their attributes situational factors with effectiveness of
Organizational leadership serving across organizations, but it rises to find out the
similarities and dissimilarities between the findings of descriptive and qualitative
information may be undertaken to redesign the administrative process and procedures for
both the contexts to capitalize human resource and its development for organizational
effectiveness.

Culture free variables may be helpful in finding out common elements of leadership
behavior, attributes, situational factors and effectiveness in both the contexts. This in turn
will help to develop international guidelines for effective leadership in the business
organizations. Because of the diversity in organizations, the convergence of findings
across inquires will lend considerable credibility to conclusions about leadership impact
on organizational milieu.

Policy makers, administrators and leaders all work in with and through organizations in
an effort to achieve individual and social goals. Yet organizations seem to display a
perverse genius for distorting policies, subverting purposes, and frustrating needs. Thus,
the demand for effective leadership in organizations is great. The proposed research will
focus on those in leadership positions and the problems, dilemmas, and opportunities they
face in business organizations. Particular attention will be paid to issues of business
leadership in diverse organizations and implications of the research findings for action.

The thematic issue will encourage the efforts, of other researchers who share in the
importance of culture in business leadership but who may have found little attention from
the field of business administration, at large. The time has come for researcher,
administrators, scholars, practitioners, trainers and policy-makers to examine the cultural
avidity at their workplaces. This represents one of the veins of intellectual exploration
that holds great potential for yielding rich results in near future.

Leadership and Performance

A three-factor, repeated-measures experiment tested the effect of leadership style

(charismatic, structuring, and considerate) on performance improvement on a
manufacturing task over four trials. Findings from a repeated-measures multivariate
analysis of variance indicated that individuals exposed to considerate leadership had
superior initial performance but that this difference faded over time. Further analysis
indicated that self-efficacy fully mediated the relationship between leadership style and
performance.

Performance, in the context of organizations, is not only broad concept which has been
used synonymously with productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, and more recently,
competitiveness, it has also been subject of study for social scientist from wide range of
disciplinary perspective.

In a review of studies investigating leadership style and performance, that research has
yielded an impressive array of empirical findings supporting the relationships between
these variables.
Impact of Leadership Style on Organizational Performance:
Leadership influence in large complex organizations, though commonly assumed to be
greatly significant, is normally not studied in terms of the variance accounted for in
organizational performance. The leadership effect is viewed here as a product of an
organization's environmental constraints and its leadership variance. Based on sales,
earnings, and profit margin data for 167 large corporations over twenty years, we
compare the impact of leadership changes with yearly, industry, and company influences.
Industry and company account for far more of the variance in two performance variables
than does leadership, but not for profit margins after lag effects are considered. It appears
that the importance of external restrictions, and hence the maximum possible leadership
influence, may range widely between specific performance criteria. The second phase of
the study considers industry characteristics that appear to be associated with high and low
leadership influences. These results suggest a perspective on organization performance
that may be applied to the leadership influence in other large organizations and political
bodies, like cities, states and nations.

Due to the difficulty in identifying universally effective leadership styles, a host of

contingency theories were developed to try to explain what behaviors are effective in
what specific contexts. For example, situational leadership theory path-goal theory and
the normative decision model all created different classifications of leader behaviors that
could lead to either positive or negative performance, depending on workplace variables,
follower characteristics, and individual and team processes. Thus, all of these views
suggest that the degree of fit between leader behavior and work context should enhance
performance via specific individual and group-level processes. However, these views
disagree on what specific leadership behaviors impact performance under different
conditions. For example, the leadership match theory focuses on task structure and
managerial position power, Path-Goal theory implicates subordinate perceptions
regarding expectancy and instrumentality of effort, and the normative model focuses on
characteristics of decisions that may require more or less input from subordinates.
Interestingly, despite disagreements about the conditions under which specific leader
behaviors are optimally effective, all of these views converge to highlight the importance
that task-focused and socially-oriented leadership behaviors play in supporting and
enhancing processes key to organizational performance, such as worker motivation and
team dynamics. Thus, although these theories disagree on when specific leadership styles
are most effective, they agree that leadership is likely to have an impact on organizational
processes that may be more directly linked with performance. Taken as a whole, the prior
leadership literature depicts a complex relationship between leaders' task and social
behaviors and firm performance and suggests that neither task nor social behavior is
 likely to have a direct effect on the firm's ability to produce sustainable competitive
advantage across a range of contexts, as would be evidenced by superior performance
over time. Thus, we predicted that leadership would be unlikely to show a significant,
direct relationship with the superior performance of the simulated firms used in the
current study.
The current research examines the nature of the relationship between leadership and
superior performance. Does leadership directly affect performance? Or does leadership
indirectly influence performance through group process resources, such as team
cohesion? The major purpose of the study was to examine the possibility that leadership
has an indirect effect on superior performance that operates via cohesion. Specifically, we
sought to empirically examine the following relationships: (a) the relationship between
leadership and the superior performance of simulated firms, (b) the relationship between
team cohesion and superior performance, and (c) the relationship between leadership

References:
http://www.changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/six_emotional_styles.htm
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/leadership_styles.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership check out
http://www.essortment.com/all/leadershipstyle_rrnq.htm
http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl-
leadershipquiz.htm?questnum=6&aa=1901&bb=2855&cc=2850&dd=4275 quiz
http://www.essortment.com/all/leadershipstyle_rrnq.htm
www.tetradian.com/glossary" Michener, DeLamater and Schwartz (1990) in (Denmark 1993,
p. 343)
THE IMPACT OF LEADER AND TEAM MEMBER CHARACTERISTICS UPON
SIMULATION PERFORMANCE: A START-UP STUDY
Walter J. Wheatley, The University of West Florida
Terry R. Armstrong, The University of West Florida
E. Nick Maddox, Stetson University
http://www.humanlinks.com/manres/hbr3.htm
• Leadership and Organizational Performance: A Study of Large Corporations
• Stanley Lieberson and James F. O'Connor
• American Sociological Review, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 1972), pp. 117-130 (article consists of 14
pages)
Published by: American Sociological Association