The importance of an organizational leader in fostering high performance within a team has become an increasingly intriguing topic for research. High workplace performance has traditionally been linked to variables such as work systems and human resource management methods such as hiring recruitment and in-house training, among others. In addition, classic theorists believe that the type of employee has a substantial impact on workplace performance.
However, current research indicates that this is not sufficient for achieving high-level performance. Consequently, the position of a team or organizational leader has come into prominence. Numerous hypotheses have attempted to establish a connection between team leadership and excellent workplace performance. However, this essay focuses on team leadership with a particular emphasis on leadership style influence. Beyond a combination of human resource management strategies, excellent workplace performance has been related to a certain leadership style, specifically participative leadership.
It is believed that participative leadership has a substantial impact on high-level performance inside an organization because it not only empowers individuals but is also forward-thinking. It also empowers employees to manage their own work and make their own decisions. Employees are held accountable for their activities in this manner. Certain behaviors must be present in a leader in order for participative leadership to be effective. For instance, a participative leader must be sympathetic and capable of fostering strong team relationships.
Moreover, great communication skills are required. However, these actions would be mainly ineffectual without boldness and initiative. The most essential benefit acquired by an assertive team leader is getting positive perception from team members. In addition to bolstering a leader's confidence, a proactive personality enables a team leader to move the team ahead.
Human resource practitioners and scholars appear to have reached a consensus after more than 30 years of studies, surveys, and research on high workplace performance that human resource management and practices have a direct effect on the level of workplace performance. As a result, several ideas on the impact of human resource practices on workplace performance have been offered. Numerous concepts, such as HPWS, have been developed within these theoretical frameworks. High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) is a frequent term for a series of complicated human resource management strategies aimed at enhancing employee performance.
This is accomplished by improving employee skills, abilities, proficiencies, and talents. HPWS is a broad concept that encompasses a variety of performance-enhancing actions, spanning from hiring to employee evaluation to training. Within the HPWS concept, a heavy focus has been placed on employee motivation through a variety of strategies and the creation of more chances for employee engagement in the workplace as a key influence on employee performance (Messersmith, Patel and Lepak, 2011).
The mention of human resource practices implies that human resource professionals play a crucial role in enhancing workplace performance. In fact, human resource practitioners are viewed as having a leading role in not only ensuring that the most successful human resource practices are applied, but also in empowering employees to utilize available resources to enhance workplace performance.
This further implies that human resource professionals should not just operate as managers in the workplace, but also as leaders whose primary objective is to guide coworkers toward the achievement of the organization's goals. As stated elsewhere in this paper, HPWS is a complex concept that has also been subjected to multiple tests. However, the present literature provides scant evidence of studies examining the mediating mechanisms between HPWS and enhanced employee performance (Messersmith, Patel and Lepak, 2011).
Messersmith, Patel, and Lepak's (2011) ostensible lack of sufficient scientific evidence on the mediators between HPWS and improved employee performance impedes the comprehension of mediatory elements between HPWS and improved employee performance and appears to be a key flaw in their work. However, multiple research have adequately addressed this topic. Messersmith, Patel, and Lepak (2011) infer inferentially that leadership greatly improves the workplace performance of employees.
Sauer (2011), on the other hand, is more direct and implicates team leadership as considerably boosting workplace performance, with particular reference to intra-team interactions and the prevalent leadership styles. Teams are the key organizational units through which the achievement of an organization's goals are modeled in contemporary corporate management. These teams are hierarchically arranged, with power and authority increasing as one ascends the team leadership hierarchy.
According to Messersmith, Patel, and Lepak (2011), opinions of the relationship between human resource practices and employee performance vary, a notion that is generally supported by Sauer (2011). Moreover, Sauer (2011) states that while intra-team interactions have a substantial impact on the performance of individual team members, the perception of employees about the team leader also has a big impact on team performance. In this argument, Sauer (2011) contends that a team member's impression of the team leader is heavily influenced by the desired leadership style.
According to Goleman (2000), there are six fundamental leadership styles that result in enhanced workplace performance: coaching, participatory, directive, affiliative, pacesetting, and visionary. A great team leader must not only comprehend each of the six leadership styles, but also recognize when each is appropriate. Each of these leadership styles does not emerge spontaneously, but rather depends on the presence of specific leadership activities. The leader must therefore comprehend and emulate each of these traits. Goleman's (2000) assertions, as well as those of Ning, Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011), imply that a leader should be proactive in determining the leadership-appropriate behavior. When leaders proactively exemplify the proper leadership behaviors, people demonstrate exceptional workplace performance.
Similarly, Sauer (2011) discusses several leadership styles but mostly attributes strong workplace performance to participative leadership. Participative leadership is viewed as a style of leadership that permits the active engagement of all team members not just in discovering solutions to current organizational challenges, but also in decision-making. Through participative leadership, employees are not only enabled to be proactive, but also to own the process of work management.
In this instance, employees can select how they wish to work and reach predetermined goals. Sauer (2011) contrasts participative and directive leadership styles and argues that directive leadership is likely to harm workplace performance since it requires providing team members with reversible instructions. The basis of directive leadership is the leaders' position and the authority that comes with it. Consequently, team members are inclined to obey leaders due to the authority associated with that position. This suggests that a directive leader may lose his or her personal attraction with team members.
Moreover, a directive leadership style fails to motivate team members to perform above and beyond normal expectations. Consequently, team members are likely to develop negative attitudes toward directive team leaders. This has a detrimental effect on individual performance and contributes to bad team performance as a whole. However, according to Goleman (2000), while directional leadership has the potential to create friction and unrest within a team, it is useful in times of crisis or when the need to make firm and seemingly unpopular management decisions arises. Therefore, regardless of leadership style, leaders play a key role in boosting performance.
To date, it has become abundantly evident that the leadership style is less important than the leader's capacity to recognize when and how to employ a certain leadership style. In light of this, it is essential to note that both Goleman (2000) and Sauer (2011) concur that directed leadership is more difficult and risky to implement, as well as potentially detrimental to team morale and overall perceptions of the team leader.
Therefore, a directive approach is more likely to negatively impact team performance. In addition, Goleman (2000) and Sauer (2011) concur that participative leadership is better than directive leadership when it comes to boosting team performance. A participatory leader, according to Sauer (2011), not only provides the team members with the essential cues to take personal initiative, but also allows individuals to be accountable for their actions and those of the team.
Moreover, a participative leader is most effective when serving as a moderator as opposed to an initiate. While Messersmith, Patel, and Lepak (2011) believe that the combination of workplace structures and leadership affects performance, Goleman (2000) and Sauer (2011) argue that leadership alone determines individual and team success. Therefore, team leaders should recognize that they are completely responsible for team performance and apply the most effective leadership style.
The standing of a leader influences the success of the desired leadership style, according to Sauer (2011). It must be stated that the effectiveness of either directive or participatory leadership is inversely proportionate to the leader's standing. Despite this, and as Goleman (2000) explains, there are certain leadership behaviors that make effective leadership feasible. Self-awareness is one of the most important traits of a participative leader, according to Reilly and Karounos (2009).
An effective leader must recognize that his actions have an effect on his followers. As a result, leaders must be conscious of their behavior toward subordinates and the organization, as well as the message such behavior conveys. In addition to self-awareness, Goleman (2000) identifies empathy, the ability to develop lucrative interpersonal relationships, and effective communication skills as essential qualities that model participative leadership skills.
A leader must be able to genuinely understand the emotions of every team member. This sets the tone for establishing good interpersonal relationships, which makes teamwork possible. Moreover, an affiliative leader should exhibit strong communication skills. Goleman (2000) defines effective communication as the capacity not only to convey the intended messages but also to avoid misinterpretation. In addition, effective communication skills necessitate the capacity to listen attentively in order to get the appropriate messages from subordinates.
While these actions represent the proper characteristics of a participative leader, Sauer (2011) and Goleman (2000) argue that assertiveness trumps them since it not only impacts a leader's efficacy but also how team members perceive the leader. Through assertiveness, team members form a favorable opinion of the leader's leadership skills. Consequently, team members are likely to respect and positively respond to a leader who is assertive and engaged. In addition, Sauer (2011) makes a feeble attempt to link assertiveness to the growth of a leader's self-confidence.
Participative leadership is founded on the affective components of intragroup interactions. Even though participative leadership is generally thought to have a beneficial effect on team performance, when the leader loses control, it can be detrimental. To maintain authority inside the group, a participative leader must be aggressive and exude self-assurance. A leader not only projects high-performance talents through self-confidence and the other characteristics listed above, but also infects team leaders with comparable attributes. Since the team can now operate as a technical and emotional one, this considerably improves the team's performance.
According to Sauer (2011), Reilly and Karounos (2009), Goleman (2000), and Messersmith, Patel, and Lepak (2011), the ability of the leader to be proactive is the sole determinant of workplace performance enhancement. According to Sauer (2011), relationships within a team play a crucial role in determining its degree of performance.
Ning, Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011) adopt an interactionist perspective and argue that interpersonal interactions are necessary for teams and organizations to achieve high performance. In this study, Ning, Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011) argue that interpersonal contacts between team or organization members enable employees to develop the proper attitudes, learn new behaviors, and acquire new knowledge. This enables individuals to not only adapt to the job environment, but also achieve organizational objectives.
The learning of novel attitudes, behaviors, and information is not automatic. For this to occur, staff must be actively engaged. Therefore, the employee’s proactive involvement is not automatic, but rather preceded by particular personality attributes, such as personal stability, decisiveness, and personal motivation. These allow an individual to take the initiative in a variety of tasks without external influence. Such a person has a proactive disposition and is able to sustain a high level of performance regardless of situational limits.
Within this reasoning, problems might arise in how proactive personality bears on leadership and high-level performance. According to Ning, Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011), organizational insiders, i.e., managers, supervisors, and regular employees, are valuable sources of vital information that can help employees, particularly newcomers, enhance their workplace performance. The ability to access this important information resource is contingent on two variables: the kind of interactions within the company and a proactive personality.
It has been noted that the ability to communicate effectively is one of the most coveted leadership qualities (Goleman, 2000). In light of Goleman's (2000) findings, Ning, Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011) assert that the degree of performance is mostly determined by the type and source of feedback. It is more probable that comments from supervisors will be taken seriously than feedback from coworkers. This can be explained by the fact that strong leaders have a greater impact on employees than their peers.
According to Ning, Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011), employees must actively seek out knowledge that enables them to perform their job responsibilities. It is probable that not every employee is proactive. Some of them are probably passive and await instructions from their supervisors. This is when proactive leadership characteristics come into play. A leader who is proactive is able to recognize opportunities for boosting workplace performance and act on those impulses. Since participative leaders serve as moderators of teams (Goleman, 2000), their primary responsibility is to provide as much input as possible and enable action on the. However, as previously indicated, high-level performance is contingent on the sort of feedback provided.
There are a variety of supervisor-to-employee feedback kinds, including performance feedback, appraisal feedback, and developmental feedback. Ning, Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011) argue, however, that developmental feedback is the most effective supervisor-to-employee feedback for enhancing workplace performance. This is due to the fact that developmental feedback focuses on delivering essential information that facilitates the development of new work-related abilities.
As such, developmental feedback focuses on learning and growth. Since developmental feedback is focused on learning and growth, team leaders should proactively select the information that supports learning, rather than returning large amounts of worthless data. This depicts the proactive attitude of a leader as the mediator between the sort of feedback provided and strong workplace performance. Therefore, proactive leadership entails not only finding opportunities and acting upon them, but also providing people with selective feedback.
As a result of the failure of established ideas for improving team performance, scholars and other professionals have recognised the necessity to assess innovative methods. The apparent influence of a team or organizational leader on team performance has been largely neglected by scholars in the past. Recent research indicate, however, that for a very long time, the inappropriate emphasis has been placed on workplace systems and personnel characteristics as the primary determinants of workplace success.
This means that situational restrictions, such as harsh and unattractive work conditions, have a negative impact on workplace performance, as traditional theories do not give practical solutions for overcoming such obstacles. Modern approaches, however, have recognized that the position of a team leader has a substantial impact on guaranteeing high-quality performance. Scholars such as Goleman (2000), Ning, Harris, Boswell, and Xie (2011), and others argue that leadership does not inevitably result in high-level performance; rather, it depends on the leadership style and the leader's characteristics.
According to this notion, a successful leader may ensure a team's high-level performance regardless of the situational limits that exist. This cannot occur, however, unless it is mediated by particular components. Personality and a certain leadership style are examples. Unless the leader is assertive, participative leadership is ineffective. Moreover, if the leader has a proactive attitude, participative leadership sustains high levels of performance. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that companies aiming to sustain high-level performance can only do so through participative leadership in which the leader is both proactive and forceful.
Bibliography
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that is productive. Web-based Harvard Business Review.
J. Messersmith, P. Patel, and D. Lepak (2011). Exploring the relationship between high-performance work systems and productivity Journal of Applied Psychology, volume 96, number 6, pages 1317-1327.
Ning L., B. Harris, and W. Boswell (2011). The impact of developmental feedback and proactive personality on the performance of newcomers: an interactionist perspective. 96(6) Journal of Applied Psychology 1317-1327
A. Reilly and J. Karounos (2009). Examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective cross-cultural leadership. International Business and Cultural Studies Journal. Web.
Sauer, S. (2011). Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. 574–587. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3).
[supanova question]
