organisation
behaviour
some organisational influences on
leadership behaviour
by LIZ CLARKE
Management Development Adviser,
CAP/ITB
Much of the writings on leadership have
emphasised the personality of the leader as
having the major influence on organisational form
and behaviour. Liz Clarke describes in this article
some of the organisational determinants of
leadership behaviour, but goes on to emphasise
the leader's role in influencing and changing these
factors in controlling the boundary between the
organisation and its environment.
THE QUESTION, CRUDELY PUT, OF WHETHER INDIVIDUAL
leaders determine organisations or organisations mould
leadership behaviour is one of those chicken and egg argu-
ments beloved of so many disciplines. In the geographical
sciences one argues between 'determinism' - the extent to
which man creates his environment and 'environmentalism'
which sees man as a reactive animal. In the social sciences we
debate heredity versus environment. The argument is of
course, as tantalisingly irrelevant as estimating the number of
angels who can stand on a pin head. It is not difficult to find
just as many examples of how individual entrepreneurs have
created and changed organisations as we can identify
organisational determinants of leadership.
Most managers are far more familiar with the idea of leader-
ship as a determining variable. Managers are paid to make
things happen and the accent on the individual leader and
what he can achieve is emotionally more appealing than a
consideration of organisations. It is easier to grasp the concept
of leadership than it is to understand and in any way use the
idea of such a vague entity as an organisation. Indeed, if
organisational studies are to have any practical value to the
manager we must do much more to help him identify and
manipulate the factors impinging on him. It is also true that
series editor
PAT TERRY
examples of leadership influence on organisations are
historically well documented, we all need heroes, and
managerial literature is full of the exploits of men like Sloan,
Ford and Watson. Even the academic studies of the be-
havioural sciences viewed leadership as the determining
variable well into the 50's when the work of Argyris, Fiedler
and others began to show a different perspective.
In the training of managers to become better leaders it has
long been standard practice to distinguish between leadership
functions (the 'content' portion) and leadership style. The
actions which a manager needs to take for successful leadership
are thought to be relatively common to any situation,
including defining objectives, planning, communicating,
controlling and evaluating. Taylor and Fayol in their
emphasis on functional management were producing such
checklists before the turn of the century. Even now, some of
the most useful modern frameworks for leadership training
like Action Centred Leadership1, concentrate on a similarly
'functional' approach.
However, as the old song goes, 'It's not what you do, it's the
way that you do it' and those researchers who have been
looking at the medium rather than the message - leadership
style rather than functions, have tended to be more useful in
373
organisation behaviour
indicating possible determinants of leadership behaviour
such as:
• the leader's ability, motivation and personality
• the leader's relationships with his staff
• his power base
• the nature of the task
• capacities of team members
• the situation - organisational influences
Fiedler2 emphasised task and group interactions as a main
influence on leadership, Tannenbaum and Schmidt3 dis-
cussed the effect of the manager, subordinate and situation
on leadership style and McCleeland4 in his writing and
training packages stressed the leader motivation (achievement
motive) as being the major determining factor. In this article
we shall concentrate on looking at some of the ways in which
organisations influence leadership behaviour. The model
used for identifying organisational factors is that used in an
earlier article5 which identified the five main elements of:
• environment
• task
• technology
• people
• structure
environment
The environment surrounding an organisation includes its
customers, suppliers, competitors, the government, tech-
nology and society in general. Over the past couple of years,
continuing into the present recession, there has been a high
degree of instability in the environment which has threatened
the survival of many companies. Although in one sense top
management has become more inward looking in it's concern
for retrenching and implementing cost cutting measures, there
is a growing awareness of the environment' and an increasing
need for leaders to diagnose and interpret their situation and
adapt the organisation accordingly. In boom times, with a
seller's market, it may be good enough to adopt a reactive
role, in present times opportunities must be created and those
companies who believe that they will respond when the
economy recovers will be too late. There is a need for inno-
vative rather than administrative leadership just as Janowitz6
demonstrated in the extreme conditions of warfare. Let us
take two simple examples. Most companies are having to face
a supplier situation which provides a much tighter constraint
in terms of availability of required raw materials, increase in
costs and less generous credit arrangements. If you sell
Chrysler cars perhaps it's time to look around for other
suppliers. Again, the majority of companies are coping with a
declining order book in a siege economy. Innovative leader-
ship is essential to maintain, let alone increase, sales either
by increasing market share in a particular field or finding new
customers.
374
Another environmental factor which most obviously appears
as a constraint on leadership behaviour, but which we
supposedly should view optimistically as an opportunity, is
government thinking and legislation on industrial relations.
The legitimised shift in the balance of power from employee
to trade unionist, limitations on the right to fire, probably
legislation on disclosure of company accounts and worker
participation are all exerting strong pressure on the manager
to adopt an approved leadership style. As most research has
been unable to identify a 'right' style of leadership it seems
slightly odd that such a strong influence should be sweeping
in for consultative management. The social pressure brought
to bear against those who do not 'play the game' can be quite
strong. When Ladbrokes recently (early July) dismissed 400
striking workers there was an outcry from Labour MPs
pressing the government to withdraw betting licences from the
company. As one MP said, 'Ladbrokes are acting like
employers of 1875 and not 1975'.
Another interesting environmental influence on leadership at
present is the social and economic re-definition of company
purpose. Leaders are concerned with 'getting results through
people' and the results, as we all know, should lead to profits.
Yet it is becoming much more difficult to measure results
in this way. The criterion of profit has become less meaningful
in a period when inflation has been running at a higher level
than most companies can achieve in terms of return on capital
employed. The previously fashionable concept of return on
investment, as a measure of company performance has
become irrelevant. Few people are concerned with investment
measures, such as share price, ratios and yields and the major
criterion has become liquidity. Working capital, cash flow and
survival are the words of today. The attitude of the public
towards companies has become increasingly censorious in
terms of what are considered 'excessive' profits and both the
government and public feeling influence how the leader can
deploy his resources. The government, of course, uses tax
and other company law regulations to manipulate levels of,
for example, capital investment. Investors themselves, par-
ticularly institutional ones, can make loud noises about
company decisions, as they recently did with the Coats Paton
decision to pay no dividend.
Organisational analysis has never had a greater contribution
to make than now when political, social and economic factors
impinge so directly on the manager that even the historically
'closed systems' of institutions like the banks and insurance
companies are having to enter into purposeful negotiation
with the outside world.
task
The way in which an organisation defines its overall purpose
in relation to customers, markets and products, is likely to
affect the leadership style necessary to cope. A company, for
example which has always considered itself to be in the
business of brewing beer will require a very different sort of
leadership to the brewery which has redefined itself as being
in the 'leisure' industry. Many breweries are the traditional
preserve of the 'gentleman' manager whose style tends
towards the paternalistic and who is likely to find himself
considerably at sea in a world of discotheques and restaurant
management, which demands a younger, more aggressive
style of leadership.
The nature of day-to-day tasks in an organisation, particularly
their routineness or otherwise, helps to influence the appro-
priate leadership style. It is perfectly true as Robert
Townsend7 says that 'Most people in big companies today
are administered not led'. The more routine and predictable
tasks are, as for example in the clerical work of large insurance
companies, the more we see officers rather than leaders, that
is people who regulate work within a closely prescribed
framework.

technology
When we talk, sometimes confusingly about the technology
of an organisation we are really thinking of the company as a
black box into which we can identify inputs of raw materials,
employees and machinery and from which can be seen an
output in terms of some products or service. Technology
refers to the conversion process that takes place within the
box.
The influence of technology has become most familiar to
managers through the work of Joan Woodward 8 whose
research showed that given the system of production or
technology in a company one can predict its probable
organisation. Technology was shown to influence the relative
importance of leadership functions so that in unit production
one needed to get centralised coordination of functions, in
mass production extensive specialisation and delegation, and
in process industry integration within functions.
With a scattered work group, as for example in teams of
salesmen, it is difficult for a Sales Manager to communicate
with, supervise and coordinate activities. However, unlike
the production-line manager, he may have less trouble in
motivating his 'self-starters'. The sophistication of the tech-
nology, as for example in a medical research group, affects
the degree of necessary or even possible supervision. The
technology of teaching a class of thirty school children
demands a very different teaching style from that of the
Oxbridge tutor.
However, the most well documented and interesting examples
of the influence of technology and leadership style are those
of the production line. In a production line the pace of work
is set and controlled by the technology not the individual,
tasks are simple, repetitive and involve 'doing something to
something' rather than a whole job and the production line
worker is not responsible for his own errors. There is little
inherent opportunity for the job satisfaction of responsibility
and achievement, so the result is frustration and boredom
expressing itself, notably in the car industry, in sabotage,
work restrictions and extreme militancy. Under such con-
ditions it is almost impossible for management to adopt a

375
organisation behaviour
consultative sharing style of leadership without changing the
technology. Even something as simple as getting people
together to run briefing groups will necessitate stopping the
production line. Management is inevitably forced into the
style of negotiation and confrontation with which we are now
so familiar.
people
It may seem remarkably tardy to have left so long a dis-
cussion of the influence of people within an organisation on
leadership style. After all, whilst an organisation has a reality
independent of the particular individuals who make it up, the
only language of an organisation is the relationships of people
within and outside it.
The expectations, ability and motivation of individuals and
groups within a company are a powerful force on leadership
style. At an individual level, most managers are perfectly
aware of the need to vary their approach to deal with
differing personalities, one employee who resents inter-
ference and is highly capable will need to be given his head,
an older, less confident person may need more mothering and
gentling along. It is however, far more difficult to deal with
the expectations of leadership behaviour which grow up over
generations of employees within a company. A new manager
will either have to conform to this general expection of how
he will behave or risk the inevitable resistance and possibly
even bewilderment if he changes the pattern. It is quite
possible that the organism - for that is how the company is
now working, will reject him as an anti-body. How often
have we read of saviours being heralded into a company only
to be ignominiously expelled too soon afterwards to be
anything other than a clash of style? The history of leadership
in Oxfam?)
Experiments in changing corporate leadership style have
shown how very difficult it is to do. When, for example, one
area of the Coal Board made a conscious effort to change the
leadership style of pit deputies from the dictatorial towards
the consultative there was considerable initial resistance from
employees who might have been expected to welcome the
change. In fact, they felt threatened, insecure and suspicious
rather like a chicken having its head stroked by a farmer
about to wring its neck! Even on a more local level many
managers will know how difficult it is, having recognised
weaknesses in leadership to change one's style in the face of
contrary expectation. After developing a friendly, involved,
pub-drinking style of management, how does one break away
from employees who are beginning to rely on one too much?
structure
There are various aspects of the structure of organisations
which exert a direct influence on the nature and success of
leadership. We are not just talking about the formal hierarchy
for, as Etzioni9 has shown, leadership is dependent on the
type of power used in the organisation, both the informal
power of personal authority and the formal power derived
from office. The realities of the formal and informal structures
376
are crucial in determining the effectiveness of an appointed
leader, particularly if the informal leader and groupings are
strong and his own personal power weak.
The stage of growth of an organisation very much affects
leadership style. As Professor Lievegold and Christopher
Schaefer10 argued in a recent article there are three stages in
the development of an organisation: the pioneer phase, the
phase of differentiation and, they hoped, a stage of integra-
tion. In the pioneer phase of a young organisation, leadership
is entrepreneurial in responding creatively to market needs,
clear in its direction, structured shallowly in terms of hier-
archy and likely to give high involvement and motivation to
employees.
As the organisation grows, it begins to set up necessary
administrative machinery which turns the focus of leadership
attention inwards towards the scientific management of
standardising, specialising, coordinating, defining jobs and
developing hierarchies. This is a differentiated structure where
the leaders plan, organise and control and the employees
carry out. In the third phase, which few companies have
reached, the leadership style changes again to compensate for
the rigidity and alienation of the differentiated organisation
by concentrating on human development and freedom.
conclusion
This article has tried to outline some of the organisational
influences in leadership behaviour. However, to adopt an
organisational perspective is not to argue for a passive
management who merely react to their situation. Indeed,
perhaps one of the greatest threats of the present recession is
the apathy and resignation of managers who are sitting back
waiting for things to improve, without realising that unless
they create the opportunities now they may not be around to
enjoy the good times. A leader who is not aware of organisa-
tional influences is not in a position to do anything about
them. Although he cannot control the environment he can at
least reorganise, interpret and plan positively to deal with the
facts and probabilities as he sees them.
references
1
ADAIR, John, Training for Leadership, MacDonald.
2
FIEDLER, Situational Factors Relating to Leadership Effective-
ness, McGraw-Hill.
3
TANNERBARM and SCHMIDT, How to Choose a Leadership
Pattern, (HBR) Haarlem, Netherlands.
4
McLELLAND, David, The Achieving Society. Out of print.
5
NUFFIELD, David, The Use of Organisational Analysis for
Measuring Individual and Organisational Effectiveness, Industrial
and Commercial Training, Vol 7 No 5.
6
JANOWITZ, Morris, The Professional Soldier, Free Press, USA.
7
TOWNSEND, Robert, Up the Organisation, Hodder and
Stoughton.
8
WOODWARD, Joan, Industrial Organisation: Theory and Prac-
tice, Oxford University Press.
9
ETZIONE, Amatai, Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisa-
tions, Free Press, USA.
10
LIEVEGOED, BCJ and SCHAEFER, Christopher, Organisa-
tion Development and Equal Rights, BGA, Vol 5 No 1.