Expert answer:PSY-832 Defining Organizational Leadership

Solved by verified expert:Details:Having an individualized definition of organizational leadership will prove to be helpful when having to explain the concept to upper-level managers and stakeholders. It is also important to understand how your worldview influences your definition so you are able to defend your position. This assignment will allow you to develop your own definition based on the working definitions being used in the field and incorporating a Christian worldview.General Requirements:Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.Use academic sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, government reports, and other instructor-approved texts.Include a minimum of five scholarly topic-relevant sources (majority of articles should be published within past 5 years).You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.Directions:Write a paper (1,000-1,250 words) that addresses the following issues:Discuss the conceptual differences between Transformation-Transactional Leadership and the visions of future developments in leadership Warren Bennis was predicting.Using the guidance of both leadership theorists and applied behavioral scientists, compose your basic definition of organizational leadership that is functional in organizations you know.Drawing from tenets of the Christian worldview related to organizational leadership, compare the key points of that guidance with two key elements of organizational leadership.Support your comparisons with substantive documentation for each of the two key elements of current theories.I have attached 3 articles related to this assignment but you will have to locate an additional 2. Please read all the information regarding this assignment to ensure it is done correctly. I have also attached the rubric for your reference. Please let me know if you have any questions.
a_stakeholder_model_of_organizational_leadership_article.pdf

managing_the_dream_waren_bennis_article.pdf

transformational_transactional_leadership_article.pdf

rubric_for_assignment.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

A Stakeholder Model of Organizational
Leadership
Marguerite Schneider
New Jersey Institute ofTechnology, School of Management, University Heights, Newark, New Jersey 07102-1982
mschneid@adm. njit. edu
Abstract
Organizations are evolving from the bureaucratic form based
upon hierarchy to the new-form or radix organization that has
the value chain as its relatively fluid foundation. This article
explores the relationship between the radix organization and
leadership, viewed through an organization-environment coevolution framework. It explicates the changes in the leader’s
role-sets and relationships brought about with the evolution
from bureaucracy to the radix organization, developing a model
of leadership that is referred to as the stakeholder model of
organizational leadership. Stakeholder theory provides the appropriate theoretical basis for this model, as it offers the flexibility to accommodate various leader relationships. The stakeholder model of organizational leadership helps to predict
leader effectiveness in organizations characterized by fuzzy organizational boundaries, flattened hierarchies, and work relationships sometimes brought about through contracts instead of
employment.
(Leadership, Stakeholder Theory, New Business Practices; Complexity; Effectiveness)
Organizatiotis are experiencing an unprecedented rate of
environmental change due to such forces as globalization,
rapid transformation and dissemination of technologies,
and movement toward market-based socioeconomic systems. According to early organization-environment theories based on the principle of requisite variety (Ashby
1952), an organization’s survival depends on its adaptation to environmental changes. More recent theorizing
transcends this view, highlighting that organizations also
effect environmental change (Lewin et al. 1999, Pfeffer
and Salancick 1978). Specifically, through their exploration activities (March 1991) individual firms develop
new practices that may infiuence various levels of their
environments (Dijksterhuis et al. 1999).
One of the manifestations of organizational change is
movement from bureaucracy toward a new organizational
form, referred to here as the radix organization or the
1047-7039/02/1302/0209/$05.00
1526-5455 electronic ISSN
radix. This term, which means root or foundation in
Latin, provides a meaningful critical contrast with bureaucracy. Radix stresses the organization’s foundation
which must meet the challenges of fiuctuating vertical,
lateral, and extemai demands, while bureaucracy has
come to connote a more narrow emphasis on relatively
less fiuctuating vertical demands. Just as bureaucracy is
an umbrella term encompassing a wealth of related organizational forms, so too is the radix organization. Its
related forms share a conceptualization of the organization’s foundation as a value chain, the primary and support activities that create value for customers (Denison
1997). The magnitude of the change associated with the
radix has not been seen since the industrial revolution and
the emergence of bureaucracy (Victor and Stephens
1994).
This article revisits Daft and Lewin’s (1993) challenge
for theory regarding the new-form organization. It addresses the research question: How do recent changes associated with the new-form or radix organization affect
the practice of leadership? Leadership theories have assumed that the leader has power over those being led,
specifically institutionalized power or authority. Changing business practices have blurred the concept of authority and the distinction between management and nonmanagement personnel. Can an organizational leader be
effective with no reliance on institutionalized power or
authority? Indeed, can one be an organizational leader but
have no authority? It has also been assumed that the domain of organizational members is largely intemal, and
that relatively few members are in boundary-spanning
roles (Thompson 1967). However, many members in the
radix organization are in boundary-spanning roles. Can
an organizational leader’s institutionalized power extend
to those outside the leader’s hierarchical domain, including those outside the leader’s organization?
In the attempt to answer these questions, recent theorizing regarding the radix organization is reviewed. A
model is developed in which organizational leadership is
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, © 2002 INFORMS
Vol. 13, No. 2, March-April 2002, pp. 209-220
MARGUERITE SCHNEIDER
Stakeholder Leadership Model
shown to both respond to, and induce, environmental
change. Stakeholder theory is drawn upon as the basis for
the new nonhierarchical conceptualization of leadership,
referred to as the stakeholder model of organizational
leadership, as stakeholders may include those inside the
firm or outside of it, with no assumption of managerial
authority over stakeholders. A review of business practices associated with the radix is next presented, from
which it is determined that we are witnessing the relative
decline of traditional managerial authority in leader relationships and a concomitant increase in alternate types
of authority. In the radix organization, authority tends to
mean power to guide cooperation for task accomplishment, rather than power to direct the actions of a predefined group of persons within the organization. This is a
change from “power-over” or authority of command, to
“power-to,” the ability to implement (Ackoff 1993, p. 26).
Propositions are developed regarding leader effectiveness, based on the changes in the leader’s role-sets and
relationships that occur with migration to the radix organization.
The stakeholder model of organizational leadership
contributes to the management literature. It is aligned
with ongoing organizational trends in which leaders increasingly rely on nonhierarchical relationships, and in
which leaders may or may not be managers. The model
extends the application of stakeholder theory, which has
traditionally been applied at the firm’s executive level, to
individual leaders at various organizational levels. The
model also incorporates and extends research regarding
leader complexity to the radix organization.
Leadership and the Coevolution of
Organizations and Environments
Leadership is one of the most widely studied constructs
in the management field (Bass 1981, Yukl 1994), and has
many definitions. It will be defined here as ” . . . influential
increment over and above mechanical compliance with
routine direction of the organization” (Katz and Kahn
1966, p. 302), connoting leadership with organizational
change. This article will focus on the relatively unexplored relationship of organizational leadership with supraorganizational change, through adaptation of the coevolution framework (Lewin et al. 1999).
The coevolution framework transcends previous theories. While theories such as population ecology and
resource-based theory contribute to our understanding,
they are single-themed and fragmented, placing insufficient emphasis on how environmental change may
emerge from the organizational level (Lewin and Volberda
210
1999). Organizational change may indeed beget environmental change—and organizational leadership is instrumental in this process. The environmental force of information technology can be traced to firms such as Apple,
Microsoft, and AOL, whose influence is inextricably
linked to the leadership of Jobs, Gates, and Case, respectively. Globalization intensified through the transformational leadership of Branson of Virgin, Barnevik of ABB,
and Simon of British Petroleum (Kets de Vries and
Florent-Treacy 1999). And Toyota’s production system,
spearheaded by its leadership, came to serve as a model
for Japanese industry and the world (Womack and Jones
1996).
The new-form or radix organization reflects the transition from the industrial to the postindustrial or
knowledge-based age. The industrial age was characterized by the conventional wisdom that land, labor, and
capital were the factors of production. The transition to
the postindustrial age has brought to the forefront a factor
of production—knowledge—which is critically different
from the others. Land, labor, and capital are subject to
diminishing retums; i.e., the output associated with
greater use of the factor increases at a decreasing rate.
Knowledge is not subject to decreasing retums; output
associated with it instead increases at an increasing rate
(Reich 1992). This implies that we have little experience
upon which to understand this factor; indeed, our experience with other factors may be a hindrance here.
Due to automation, a better-educated workforce, and
other determinants, in advanced economies the human
factor of production is largely shifting from labor, those
who are employed to do as told, to human capital, those
who are employed to think (Pfeffer 1996). The earlier
distinction between managers/leaders and other employees has disappeared somewhat with the migration to the
postindustrial age. For example, quality circles and other
new practices are based upon the assumption that those
who perform a function are capable of thinking about how
to improve the function, and should be empowered to do
so for the benefit of the organization. An implication,
which is similar to that of the point above, is that relationships between manager/leaders and other employees
have changed, and that use of industrial-age models may
exacerbate rather than alleviate current problems.
While knowledge is created by the firm’s human capital, individual employees are not the sole influence in
knowledge creation. Knowledge might instead be the
property of a collective, such as a team, in which it is
generated and shared across members. The firm’s social
capital, based upon its trusting relationships or networks.
ORGANIZATION SCIENCEA’^ol. 13, No. 2, March-April 2002
MARGUERITE SCHNEIDER
Stakeholder Leadership Model
also influences knowledge creation. Indeed, the acquisition and exploitation of knowledge are predominately social processes (Kogut and Zander 1992). The firm’s ability to generate social capital, and thus generate collective
knowledge, is related to its structure, culture, and processes, its intangible assets or resources. These resources
are particularly critical to the firm’s strategic position, as
they may be firm-specific and socially complex, rendering
them difficult to imitate by others (Bamey 1991). The
implication is that a firm’s ability to sustain competitive
advantage by creating value for customers is increasingly
based upon its treatment of human capital and its generation of social capital, as well as its ability to discem and
influence environmental forces.
The radix organization is a reaction to bureaucracy, the
organizational form of the industrial age, and attempts to
overcome bureaucracy’s tendencies toward excessive
size and hierarchy through implementation of marketbased techniques within the firm (Ackoff 1993). Its primary focus is the customer, who may be a global customer.
Accordingly, organizational design should facilitate customer relationships that are seamless across multiple
products and regions (Galbraith 2000). Some of the common characteristics of the radix are flexibility and agility
(Volberda 1996), fluid and permeable boundaries (Kanter
1990), and emphasis on lateral relationships across functions, business units, and geographic regions (Galbraith
1994). These characteristics reflect that the new-form is
intentionally underdetermined (Denison 1997), rendering
it more responsive and adaptive than bureaucracy
(Wheatley 1992).
The radix organization utilizes the collective resources
of several firms located along the value chain, recognizing that multiple value chains may exist and that shifts in
value chains based on evolving core competencies may
represent strategic opportunities. Thus, the radix organization acknowledges the unique competencies of other
organizations, and tends to link them into its value chain.
This reconfiguration of the value chain offers the firm the
advantages of greater flexibility and speed, and lower
risk, compared to the other strategic options of confiscating the competencies through takeover activity, or attempting to replicate them through intemal expansion to
achieve vertical integration.
The coevolution framework makes use of multidirectional causality and multiple environments in explaining
new organizational forms. Multidirectional causality is illustrated in the previous examples of how organizational
leadership influences, as well as is influenced by, environmental forces (See Figure 1). The framework’s multiple
environments consist of extrainstitutional, institutional,
and industry. As noted above, the extra institutional forces
ORGANIZATION SCIENCEA’OI.
13, No. 2, March-April 2002
of technological advances and globalization facilitate evolution toward the radix organization. Managerial logic,
with recent movement from a modem to postindustrial
logic, supports the radix and its relative emphasis on exploration of the new rather than exploitation of the existing.
The institutional environment reflects differences in
regulation, capital markets, and govemance. These differences help to explain variation in organization form
across countries (Whitley 1994), and the relative acceptance of, or resistance to, the radix organization. In tJie
third aspect of the environment, industry, new hypercompetitive strategies emphasizing speed encourage a
more adaptive and flexible organization form (Ilinitch et
al. 1996). Intemal organizational aspects of the coevolution framework include managerial action, strategic intent, organizational adaptation (exploitation and exploration), and leadership.
As the radix organization is primarily organized laterally across a flexible value chain, and the generation of
social capital is viewed as critical to knowledge creation
and competitive position, its leaders are involved in a
multitude of intra- and interorganizational relationships.
Accordingly, the ontological basis for the leader’s roleset, historically the leader’s hierarchical position, should
be changed. Stakeholder theory contributes the needed
theoretical basis for organizational leadership in the radix
organization.
Applying Stakeholder Theory to
Organizational Leadership
Stakeholder theory conceptualizes the firm as a series of
groups with different respective relationships to it. Stakeholders consist of intemal organizational members, including employees, managers, and board members; extemai members, such as owners, customers, suppliers,
and competitors; and hybrid members engaged in interorganizational cooperative activity with the firm. While
a primary focus of stakeholder theory has been the ethical
principles guiding management, Mitchell et al. (1997)
conclude that normative concems alone are necessary but
insufficient criteria for addressing stakeholder interests.
Clarkson (1995) offers that stakeholders are defined in
terms of a focal social actor, permitting the theory to be
applied appropriately to individuals as well as organizations. Thus, the theory is rendered suitable for integration
with literature regarding organizational leaders’ domains.
Stakeholders have the potential to influence or affect
the firm, and/or be influenced or affected by it (Freeman
1984). They influence the firm through their words and
deeds, through covert signals and overt protests, and most
211
MARGUERITE SCHNEIDER
Figure 1
Stakeholder Leadership Model
A Stakeholder Model of Organizational Leadership
Institutional Environment
Extra Institutional Environment
– Regulation
– Capital Markets
– Govemance Structure
– Globalization
– Technological Advances
– Management Logics
Components of Leadership
Industry
Environment
Organizational Context
of Leaderslup
– Competitive
Dynamics
– Radix Practices
-Teams
– Contingent Workers
– Strategic Alliances
– Outsourcing
– Leader Role-Sets
– Decrease in traditional vertical
dovmward stakeholders
– Increase in other intraorganizational
stakeholders
– Increase in interorganizational
stakeholders
– Leader Relationships
– Less use of managerial authority
– More use of other types of authority
– Match of type of authority to
relationship
importantly, through their ability to help or hurt the firm’s
ability to create value. Stakeholders are conceptualized
here as the various parties along the firm’s value chain
configurations that influence its value creation. They
might contribute to, or benefit from, the value creation,
or they might hurt or suffer from it. Their bargaining
power influences their ability to appropriate the rents associated with value creation (Coff 1999). Some stakeholders may not be supportive, which may justify a defensive reaction. However, effective leaders will tend
toward cooperative stakeholder relationships, to maximize their potential benefits (Hooijberg and Schneider
2000). For example, a competitor may present the opportunity for a cooperative alliance into a new market,
and compensating employees at above-market wages
may lead to greater commitment and a high performance
culture.
In keeping with much leadership theory, the stakeholder model of organizational leadership has leader effectiveness as its dependent variable (see Figure 1). It is
defined as the collective sense of the leader’s efficacy,
based on the perceptions of multiple stakeholders. This
definition follows and extends measures employed in previous research, in which perceptual data have been used
to measure leader performance (Denison et al. 1995). As
few leaders are able to gain reputational effectiveness
212
Leader
Efffectiveness
I
Leader Attrihutes
– Cognitive Complexity
– Social Complexity
– Behavioral Complexity
concurrently from multiple constituencies (Hart and
Quinn 1993, Tsui 1984), this criterion is a critical test of
the leader. Effectiveness reflects stakeholders’ narrow assessment of how the leader is performing in terms of their
respective expectations, and broad assessment of the
leader’s overall effectiveness across stakeholder groups.
This approach is related to Hooijberg’s (1996) conceptualization of leader effectiveness, which includes multiple perceptions and measures of the leader’s performance.
In order to delineate the independent variables within
the model, the next two sections specify how practices
associated with the radix organization both influence, and
are influenced by, leadership. The sections correspond to
two major areas of study within the leadership literature:
leader role-sets and relationships. (See Figure 1.) Each
section brings forth how evolution to the radix organization has affected the practice of leadership. The section
on leader role-sets develops a proposition regarding the
breadth of the leader’s role-set and leader effectiveness.
Immediately following is the section on leader relationships, which includes a discussion of the various types of
authority. Propositions are developed regarding the
breadth of the leader’s repertoire of authority types, the
leader’s tendency to engage in the specific authority
type(s) that are most appropriate for a given relationship.
ORGANIZATION SCIENCEA’OI.
13, No. 2, March-April 2002
MARGUERITE SCHNEIDER
Stakeholder Leadership Model
and leader effectiveness. The section that immediately
follows, on leader attributes, culminates in a final proposition regarding the leader attributes positioned to be
particularly critical to leader effectiveness.
Leader Role-Sets Within the Stakeholder
Model of Organizational Leadership
The Literature on Leader Role-Sets
The management field has historically tended to link and
confound the constructs of leadership and management.
The seminal Ohio State studies emphasized leadership behaviors within the manager-subordinate relationship (Bass
1981), and leadership has been viewed as an interpersonal
managerial role having to with motivating subordinates
(Mintzberg 1973 …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades