Реферат: Различные стили лидерства на примере одного отеля


Leadership is one of the mostmysterious phenomena that occur in our society. Leaders appeared in the ancient times and since then the necessity inleadership has increased. Our society has become more complicated. Today thereare a lot of social units on different levels that need leaders to functioneffectively. But it has been a difficult task to understand how leadershipoccurs. Leaders are different, their tasks vary, as well as the way they leadtheir teams. Being an effective leader in one organisation does not presupposethe same success in other organisation. There are many “but” in this field ofstudy, leadership raises lots of questions. No wonder that there are severalapproaches to leadership.

The aim of this paper is to assessthe applicability and value of different approaches using a serviceorganisation as an example.  I havechosen Quality Arcticus Hotel in Harstad and three of its leaders as a fieldfor my research. I work at this organisation, so I know the personnel and I haveobserved the style of their work for some period. Now I will use my knowledgeand the method of interview to go deeper into the question. Quality ArcticusHotel is a typical service organisation that offers lodging and catering. Therestaurant and the café belonging to the hotel are both very popularamong the citizens of Harstad. The hotel itself is the second best in the town,following Røkenes Gjestegård (which takes the first place due toits exclusiveness) Such success of Arcticus Hotel would be impossible withouteffective leadership.

My work consists of theoretical andpractical parts. In the theoretical part I describe the approaches that we havebeen introduced to.

In the practical part I take a lookat the structure of the Quality Arcticus Hotel and try to apply differentapproaches to leadership to understand the style of work of the three leadersthat I have chosen as the subject for my study. I describe what, in my opinion,helps these three persons to be effective leaders (if they are so in reality)

2. Theory aboutleadership.2.1 Definitions ofleadership

Definingleadership has been a complex and elusive problem largely because the nature ofleadership itself is complex. A lot of studies have emerged from everydiscipline “that has had some interest in the subject of leadership:anthropology, business administration, educational administration, history,military science, nursing administration, organizational behaviour, philosophy,political science, public administration, psychology, sociology, and theology.”(Rost, J. C. Leadership for the Twenty-first Century, p. 45)

JosephRost — and many others, including James MacGregor Burns, Warren Bennis, andHenry Mintzberg — goes on to argue that the entire history of modernleadership studies has been seriously flawed. First, because while everyonetalks about leadership, no-one has satisfactorily defined what it actually is.Like art, we seem to know it only when we see it. (www.infinitefutures.com)

We cansee how definition of leadership changed:

1927: “...the ability to impress thewill of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, andcooperation.” (Steward, in Moore, 1927)

1930’s: “…interaction betweenspecific traits of one person and other traits of the many, in such a way thatthe course of action of the many is changed by the one.” (Bogardus, 1934)

“Leadershipmay be broadly defined as the relation between an individual and a group builtaround some common interest and behaving in a manner directed or determined byhim.” (Schmidt, 1933, page 282, quoted in Rost, page 48)

1940’s:“Leadership…is the art of influencing…people by persuasion or example to followa line of action. It must never be confused with drivership…which is the art ofcompelling…people by intimidation or force to follow a line of action.”(Copeland, 1942)

1950’s: “...the process (act) of influencing the activities of anorganized group in its efforts towards goal setting and goal achievement.” (Stogdill,1950/1958)

1960’s: “…acts by persons which influence other persons in a shareddirection.” (Seeman, 1960)

1970’s: “…a process in which an individual takes initiative to assist agroup to move towards the production goals that are acceptable to maintain thegroup, and to dispose the needs of individuals within the group that compelledthem to join it.” (Boles and Davenport, 1975)

Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus intheir book “Leaders” said that “Leaders lead by pulling rather than pushing; byinspiring rather than ordering; by creating achievable, though challenging,expectations and rewarding progress toward them rather than by manipulating; byenabling people to use their own initiative and experiences rather than bydenying or constraining their experiences and actions. (Bennis, W.,Nanus,B.,1985:225)

In 1993 Joseph C. Rost definedleadership for the twenty-first century: “Leadership is an influencerelationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflecttheir mutual purposes.” Four essential elements must be present:

1. The relationship isbased on influence.

The influencerelationship is multidirectional;

the influence behavioursare no coercive.

2. Leaders and followersare the people in this relationship.

The followers are active;

there must be more thanone follower, and there is typically more than one leader in the relationship;

the relationship isinherently unequal because the influence patterns are unequal

Thedefinition given by Rost comprises all the previous attempts to defineleadership, as it includes the elements reflected in the other definitions.However, most of the scholars considered some elements to be more importantthan others, so we have a number of approaches to leadership. We will describethe major ones in the next chapter.

2.2 Leadership evolution

Our world is changing and thesechanging surroundings need new leaders. When the world used to be stable, thetasks of the leaders were to control and predict. Further, as the world wasgetting more chaotic, leaders faced new tasks. This model shows the evolutionof leadership:

<img src="/cache/referats/17269/image002.jpg" v:shapes="_x0000_i1025">

Figure 1.Source: Richard L. Daft: Leadership: theory and practice. (1999, p

Different approaches to leadershipconcentrate on different eras or types of leaders.

2.3 Trait approach toleadership.

Early efforts to understandleadership success focused on the leader’s personal traits. In the 1990’s the“great man” theories appeared. They tried to figure out who is born tolead. They studied the great leaders of the past such as Caesar, Napoleon, andRichard III. Those days the world was stable and predictable, the societieswere not so complex, the groups were few and small. The leaders acted on“macro” level and were associated with heroes. Later researches (1940’s-1950’s) tried to find the universal traitscommon to all leaders. There was a sense that some critical leadership traitscould be isolated. There was also a feeling that people with such traits couldthen be recruited, selected, trained and installed into leadership positions.In their studies some traits did appear more frequently than others: technicalskills, friendliness, intelligence, general charisma, drive, task motivation,application to task, social skills, emotional control, administrative skill,group-task supportiveness.

The problem with the trait approachlies in the fact that almost as many traits as studies undertaken wereidentified. Stogdill examined over 100 studies based on the trait approach.(Daft, R., 1999:65) He uncovered that the importance of a particular trait wasoften relative to another factor- the situation. Indeed, when we look at suchleaders as Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Martin LutherKing, Jr., John Kennedy, Margareth Thatcher, do they have any traits in commonall together? Having failed to identify the leader’s traits, the researchersunderstood that leadership is usually a more complicated process.

2.3 Behaviour approaches

Theresults of the trait studies were inconclusive. Researchers changed the focusfrom the “great men” to small groups and their leaders. Researchers turned toan examination of leader behaviours. Rather than concentrating on what leadersare, as the trait approach urged, the behavioural approach forced looking atwhat leaders do. This approach (1950’s-60’s) says that anyone who adopts theappropriate behaviour can be a good leader. (Daft, R., 1999:69) Behaviouralpatterns can be learned in contrast with traits that must be possessed.

Thestudies of <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:PlaceName w:st=«on»>Iowa</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>State</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>were a precursor to behaviour approach. They recognised autocratic versusdemocratic leadership styles.

Themost prominent studies were those undertaken by the <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st=«on»>Michigan</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>and by <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:PlaceName w:st=«on»>Ohio</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>State</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>.Interestingly, both studies concluded that leadership behaviours could be classifiedinto two groups.

       <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:PlaceName w:st=«on»>Ohio</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>State</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>               <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st=«on»>Michigan</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>           

— Initiating Structure                          — Production Centered       task-oriented

-Consideration                                   — EmployeeCentered          people-oriented

Likert(the <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st=«on»>Michigan</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>) found thatemployee-centered leader behaviour generally tended to be more effective. Blakeand Mouton of the <st1:place w:st=«on»><st1:PlaceType w:st=«on»>University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st=«on»>Texas</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> went into thesame direction and suggested the two similar dimensions: concern for people andconcern for results. But they worked out the leadership grid and suggested fiveleadership styles:

1.1<span Times New Roman"">  

ImpoverishmentManagement (minimal degree of each concern). The less effective leadership.

9.1Authority-Compliance Management (maximal degree of concern for results, minimaldegree of concern for people)

5.5Middle-of.the-Road- Management (average degree of both concerns)

1.9Country Club Management (minimal degree of concern for results, maximal degreeof concern for people)

9.9  Team Management (maximal degree of eachconcern). This was considered to be the most effective leadership style.

Thisapproach goes further that trait approach by trying to group leaders intoseveral categories instead of finding something common to all leaders. Still,leaders were supposed to have “either-or” style.

2.4. Situational(contingency) approach

Unable to determine which particularbehaviour patterns consistently resulted in effective leadership, researchesthen attempted to match behaviour patterns that worked best in specificcontexts or situations. The previous researches studied two dimensions: leadersthemselves and their relationships with followers. The central focus of the newresearch was situation in which leadership occurred. The most important pointis that the components of leadership style, subordinate characteristics andsituational elements impact one another. Fiedler’s contingency model, Herseyand Blanchard’s situational theory, the path-goal theory, and substitutes forleadership each describe that different situations need different styles ofleadership behaviour so that it was an effective leadership.

According to Fiedler, leaders candetermine if the situation is favourable to their leadership style.Task-oriented leaders tend to do better in very easy or very difficultsituations, while person-oriented leaders do best in situations of intermediatefavourability. Hersey and Blanchard say that leaders can adjust their task orrelationship style to accommodate the readiness level of their subordinates.The path-goal theory states that leaders can use a style that either clarifiesthe path to desired rewards or increases the rewards so that the followerswould display increased effort and motivation. (Daft, R., 1999:114) We willhave a closer look at two of these theories in our practical part.

The limits of this paper do notallow us to analyse other theories as dyadic theory, integrate and alternativeapproaches. But all these theories took into consideration the fact thatleadership is a complex phenomenon and its effectiveness depends on manyfactors.

3. Implementation of thetheory in practice.3.1 Presentation ofQuality Arcticus Hotel

Quality Arcticus Hotel is a typicalservice organisation. It is an equivalent of a four-star hotel, and a member ofa hotel chain Choice Hotels. Here is an organisation plan of the hotel.


Executive Committee





restaurant chief







<img src="/cache/referats/17269/image003.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_s1031 _x0000_s1030 _x0000_s1033 _x0000_s1034 _x0000_s1035 _x0000_s1037 _x0000_s1038 _x0000_s1036 _x0000_s1039 _x0000_s1040 _x0000_s1041 _x0000_s1042 _x0000_s1043 _x0000_s1044 _x0000_s1045 _x0000_s1046 _x0000_s1047 _x0000_s1048 _x0000_s1049 _x0000_s1050">

As an action company, it has acommittee, consisting of 5 persons who were chosen by the personnel. In thehotel we can see a vertical power structure. One can observe three levels of leaders here:

Strategic level – the hotel manager (administrative director)

Middle level – the economy chief

Operative level – the restaurant chief, the bar chief, the chief-cook,the reception chief, and the selling manager.

I have chosen three leaders for myresearch: the hotel manager, the economy chief and the restaurant chief. I workat this restaurant, so I know the restaurant chief’s work best out of theoperative leaders.

In connection with this paper I aminterested in what kind of leader styles these three persons practice. Iconsider their work as very effective. To this point, the hotel has not hadserious economical problems or conflicts with the personnel. I should mentionthat it is a small hotel, and it can be considered a family organisation.<span Times New Roman",«serif»;mso-fareast-font-family:«Times New Roman»;mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:NO-BOK;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[1]Moreover, all the three were not elected to their positions and in reality cantake their leader positions as long as they wish to. Such relations give morepower to the leaders. However, their relationship to the personnel is verygood. Their subordinates call them democratic bosses. I would like to find outwhat helps these leaders work effectively and keep such a good reputation.  I am going to use the leader theories that Ihave talked about in this paper. I want to find out whether those theories arerelevant when explaining the success of these three leaders.

Now I want to look closer at thetasks of these three leaders. The hotel manager works with daily leadership andstrategic planning. Since it is a little hotel with few departments, most ofthe leaders have additional responsibility. Quality Arcticus Hotel does nothave a marketing department and the hotel leader has marketing as an additionaltask to his main tasks. This leader has a number of tasks which he handlesalone, e.g. problems outside the hotel: the marked, competition, promotion. Hecan take decisions alone, having consulted the economy chief if it is possibleto put his ideas into reality. In my opinion, this fact that he can solve someproblems by himself helps him to avoid possible conflicts with thesubordinates. Actually there are fields where he does not need to lead a team.

The economy chief takes charge ofeconomy and budget, this is her main responsibility. Her additionalresponsibility is the personnel. Her tasks are more management tasks thanleadership, as she works mostly with calculating and controlling, and this isthe work that she handles alone. Still, she also works with the personnel,deciding who and how much is going to work in different situations.

The restaurant chief takesresponsibility for the personnel in the restaurant and for the budget. She alsotakes charge of the arranging, marketing and selling of all the products thatthe restaurant can offer.

3.2 Trait approach inpractice

First, I want to find out if thesethree leaders have some traits that explain their success. I have interviewedthe leaders and asked what particular traits help them in their work, in theiropinion. I have asked their subordinates as well to describe these persons aschiefs. At last I have tested the three leaders, using the questionnaire fromthe book “Leadership”, to find out if these persons have potential leadershipqualities. The test showed that all the three of them may have such qualities,especially the restaurant chief. On my question, if they could be leaders of abig concern/company, the economy chief answered “no”, the restaurant chiefanswered “yes” and the hotel chief was not sure. The restaurant chief was veryexcited of the thought to lead a big company, which, to my mind, means that shehas qualities and abilities necessary for a leader.

Among the qualities the hotel chiefpossesses his subordinates mentioned: democratic, flexible, not so demanding,motivating, honest, social, result-oriented, fair, friendly, well-organised,purposeful. He himself means that what helps him in work is an ability tolisten to other people and to foresee the situation.

The economy chief was characterisedas fair, polite, well-organised, nice, understanding, with sense of humour,flexible, democratic, precise, consequent, hardworking, and motivating. Sheherself considers the most important for her success is being social, friendlyand co-operative.

The restaurant chief got a varietyof characteristics from her subordinates: flexible, understanding, drive,motivating, demanding, obliging, stressful, funny, purposeful, open, helpful,optimistic, active, with a sense of humour, charismatic, absent-minded, messy,enthusiastic, precise, co-operative, concerned about quality. She herselfpointed out such traits as open, helpful, purposeful, tough, and a bitautocratic.

As we can see all the three leaderspossess a number of qualities that many researchers consider having great valuefor leaders, such as drive, honesty, friendliness, and motivating. Still, allthe three possess different qualities, what does not prevent their success.Such traits as messy and stressful, for example, can be an obstacle in handlingsituations that demand responsibility and self-confidence. To my mind, thisapproach does not go deep enough to explain the success of the leaders.

3.3Behaviour approach in practice

Further, I have tried to find outwhat kind of behaviour these three leaders practise. I have tested all of them,using two questionnaires from the book “Leadership”. I have also interviewedboth the leaders and their subordinates.

One of the approaches, which I havedescribed above, recognises autocratic versus democratic leadership styles. Thehotel chief is a democratic leader. All his subordinates pointed it out. Thecharacteristics he got from the personnel, such as flexible, fair, friendly,not so demanding, indicate his democratic relations with the subordinates. Inthe interview the hotel chief explained that although the organisation has ahierarchic structure, in practice he and his subordinates is one team, workingtogether. When there is a problem to lose, he is on one line with the otherleaders. Everyone has the right to say what they mean.

One of the tests I have used wasdesigned to assess aggressive, passive and assertive behaviour. According tothe test, the hotel chief’s behaviour is assertive. This behaviour isconsidered to be the most effective for leadership. Assertive people ask forwhat they believe, and stand up for their rights in a way that others canaccept. The quality of assertiveness means being straightforward yet open tothe needs of others. Assertiveness strikes the correct balance between beingtoo dominant and too “soft”, which are not effective ways to influence others.

Another test shows if a person ispeople-oriented or task-oriented. The hotel chief is task-oriented according tothe test, but only with a one point’s difference.

The economy chief is also ratherdemocratic than autocratic. All her subordinates named her socialcharacteristics.  She delegates authorityto others, encourages participation and relies on her subordinates.

However, the test showed that shepractises passive behaviour, which is not effective for leadership. She prefersconflict avoidance, suppressing her own needs, being inhibited and submissive.

She is also more people-orientedthan task-oriented. She trusts her colleagues and asks their opinion. Forexample, is there are too many rooms to clean, she never insists on cleaningall of them the same day. Satisfied room-maids are more important for her than100% done work.

The restaurant chief is bothdemocratic and autocratic. Her subordinates mentioned her social qualities aswell as her concern for work, e.g. demanding, drive etc. She is a person whoalways helps her subordinates, asks for their opinion, in some cases fullydelegates authority to the team of waiters and lets them decide how to completethe tasks. But in some cases, especially demanding to represent the restaurantat its best, she becomes autocratic and tells how to do the work. In such casesperfectly-done work is more important for her than satisfied subordinates. Whena new waiter/waitress is being trained up, she pays much attention to everydetail in doing the everyday tasks, such as laying up the table, talking to theguests and so on. When she lets her subordinates do the job without hersupervision, every worker knows how to do the tasks so that the chief would likeit. It is obvious that she is more task-oriented than people-oriented. Shecharacterises her relationship with the subordinates as good, but she is awareof the fact that some persons are discontent with her pressure and a great dealof work which she expects to be done.

Another test showed her assertivebehaviour, which is considered the most effective for leadership. (Daft..)

3.4 Situational approachin practice

All the three leaders behave indifferent ways. It is interesting that the hotel chief, having serious tasks,allows higher degree of democracy than the restaurant chief. To my mind thedifference is the situations they work in. Both the hotel chief and the economychief have a number of tasks they can handle alone and the number of their subordinatesthey work with on the other tasks is little. <span Times New Roman",«serif»;mso-fareast-font-family:«Times New Roman»;mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:NO-BOK;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[2]The restaurant chief has around 20 waiters under her charge. And there isalmost no task she can do alone without any help. Moreover, she needs toco-operate with the kitchen. Her working surroundings are more conflictable andshe needs to be firm. I think it is incorrect to say that some behaviour ismore effective than other, without taking into consideration in what situationthe leader work. The leader effectiveness is in other words contingent on thesituation.

The situational theory of Hersey andBlanchard focuses on the characteristics of followers. According to this theoryI can say that the restaurant chief has telling style, as she gives explicitdirections about how tasks should be accomplished. And this is an appropriatestyle in her situation if we take into consideration the fact that 50% of thesubordinates are not professional waiters. Half of the waters started to workwithout any knowledge about the specificity of the job, many of them workpart-time. So, not all the waiters show high degree of readiness. Letting themdecide and giving them responsibility is not the right thing to do. 

On the opposite, the hotel chief andthe economy chief work with a team that has high readiness and shares the goalsof the organisation. The department chiefs can take responsibility for theirown task behaviour. The hotel chief prefers delegating and participating stylesof work. The economy chief has delegating style.

Fiedler takes more factors into considerationthan just the characteristics of the followers. He also means that taskstructure and the degree of leader power are important. Here is the tableshowing different situations the leaders can work at.

        <img src="/cache/referats/17269/image005.jpg" v:shapes="_x0000_i1027">

Figure 2.

Source: Richard L. Daft: Leadership: theory andpractice. (1999: 97)

Knowing the situation we can saywhat is more effective for a leader: being people-oriented or task-oriented.

The leader-member relations are goodwith all the three leaders in our case. The task structure is high. There arelittle ill-defined tasks or researches, the hotel chief and the economy chiefhandle such tasks alone. At the restaurant it can be a challenge to work withnew unexpected tasks, here we have work that sometimes needs creativeness. Thetask structure at the restaurant is lower. I would place the restaurant chiefin the situation with unstructured tasks.

The formal position power is strongwith all the three leaders. Although the hotel chief and the economy chief preferto work on one line with their subordinates, formally they have power toevaluate, reward or punish.

I can conclude that the hotel andeconomy chiefs work in a favourable situation, while the restaurant chief- inan intermediate. In both cases task-oriented leaders perform better. As I havefound out before, the hotel chief and the restaurant chief are task-orientedleaders, while the economy chief is more people-oriented. But as she is aspopular as a chief and does her work successfully, I presume she can allowbeing people-oriented in her situation as well. The tasks for her subordinatesare so clear and routine, and the relations with her team are so favourablethat she does not need focus on tasks.



In this paper we have tried toanalyse different approaches to leadership and implement them in practice usingQuality Arcticus Hotel as a model. I think that all the three approaches arerelevant to some extent. All the three leaders possess traits that arenecessary to succeed in a leading position. The leaders in my analysis possessdifferent behaviour styles but it is understandable. If a leader has to handlewith tasks demanding high degree of responsibility from the subordinates he ismore task-oriented. To be a hotel chief is a responsible work, the leadershould be more task-oriented than people-oriented. On the operative level aswell there are a lot of daily tasks which need to be performed with highquality. All the goals that the leaders on the upper levels set up for theorganisations shall be realised on the operative level. We can judge the workof the hotel by the work of the departments on the operative level (reception,kitchen, restaurant, bar, selling department). That is why it is more natural,to my mind, for these leaders to focus more on the tasks than on theirsubordinates.

Situational approach takes morefactors into consideration and that is why I think it is a more applicabletheory to find out the best style of leadership. Leadership is a complexphenomenon and it can not been explained with simple concepts. I do not mean tosay that contingency approaches are the best in explaining success inleadership. There are many theories about this phenomenon. But out of the threeapproaches analysed it gives more concrete answers on the question, why exactlythis leader performs well in exactly these surroundings.


 LiteratureYukl, <st1:City w:st=«on»><st1:place w:st=«on»>Gary</st1:place></st1:City>  Leadership in organisations, fifth edition, 2002

<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">

Daft, Richard L.  Leadership: theory and practice, 1999<span Arial",«sans-serif»;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">

<span Arial",«sans-serif»; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">

<span Times New Roman",«serif»;mso-fareast-font-family:«Times New Roman»; mso-ansi-language:NO-BOK;mso-fareast-language:NO-BOK;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[1]

The hotell manager is married tothe economy chief and one of the operative leaders is their son-in-law.

<span Times New Roman",«serif»;mso-fareast-font-family:«Times New Roman»; mso-ansi-language:NO-BOK;mso-fareast-language:NO-BOK;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[2]

The hotel chief normally handlesproblems with the economy chief and the five operative leaders. The economychief has two persons working with economy under her supervision. Besides shetakes charge of the 8 room-maids.
еще рефераты
Еще работы по иностранным языкам. психологии, общению, человеку