4.0 Guest Speaker three: Tony Hughes: Summary
Tony never set out to become a senior leader in the Police force, in fact he stated that he only joined the Police at age 21 so could have Wednesdays off to play rugby. However, after starting his career as a constable ‘on the beat’, Tony’s passion for his work and natural drive to succeed allowed him to progress through the ranks and acquire a vast array of management, leader and chief positions over his 30+ year tenure in the Police force. During this time Tony has been able to benefit from copious amounts of training provided by the Police in addition to his studying for promotion examinations, allowing him to establish a tremendous level of experience as a senior leader.
People Also Read
On top of the leadership development provided within the Police force, Tony has undertaken a degree in Leadership to further develop his skills and knowledge.
Being a member of the Police force who has ‘done it all and seen it all’ and the multitude of positions he has held have given Tony a strong personal perspective on leadership. Tony holds the view that an effective leader uses empathy and emotional intelligence to create bonds and relationships with followers, that a leader requires knowledge of his respective area of business and that leaders require resilience to “weather the storm” in times of hardship. Tony also placed a large emphasis on the requirement for an effective leader to be able to make decisions, whilst highlighting the importance for reflection at an appropriate stage. Tony was able to summarise what leadership means to him with a fitting quotation from John Maxwell (2013) “A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way”.
Tony radiated a confident, wise and trustworthy image, coming across as extremely positive and relatable. Tony expressed the influence that Chief Constable Sir James Anderton had on his career, strengthening his self-confidence and realising the need to be outspoken and decisive. Tony provided a hypothetical scenario, which highlighted his firm belief that leadership requires a strong willed individual to guide and make decisions. To reinforce this approach Tony discussed a challenging situation in which he, as a senior leader, had to make a decision and ended up making a mistake, sending a firearms team into the home of an innocent family. This example situation allowed Tony to understand the requirement for a leader to be resilient and the need to be able to justify the decisions one makes. It also helped to provide evidence of the application of his leadership perspective within his organization.
Despite Tony’s emphasis on a leader being decisive he did also express the importance of a leader being able to relate to his followers and being appropriately intrusive into their lives, to build the relationships and bonds that allow for a successful team.
Despite this, Tony’s approach to leadership can be seen to be very specific to the force and the constant dangerous situations he is faced with as the current head of the tactical firearms unit, controlling firearms officers and dealing with ongoing threats and risks. .
5.0 Application of Leadership theory
As all three of the guest speakers are successful senior leaders in their respective organizations, it can perhaps seen to be unsurprising that they all share some similarities with their leadership style and the corresponding theories.
One common theory that was prevalent for all three speakers was transformational leadership. Transformational leadership consists of four main points: individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and idealized influence (Burns, 1978). Peter’s discussion of the creation of a head porter position in order to utilize the skills of an individual employee can be seen to be an example of individualized consideration, Peter saw the porter as a “whole person rather than as a piece of a larger machine” (Roe, 2014). John communicated three key points in his session, one of which was to create a vision, which he did himself when faced with having to coordinate the affiliations system. John’s creation of a vision is perhaps an example of him using inspirational motivation to communicate a “compelling vision of the future” (Roe, 2014) this aspect of transformational leadership allows John to flourish using his natural conviviality. Tony’s position, leading a dangerous and vital side of the Police force requires him to show idealized influence, as it enables his followers to realize they can trust him and for them to know he can be relied upon to “do the right thing” (Roe, 2014). Peter’s appointment of a head porter can also be seen to exhibit intellectual stimulation, encouraging the employee to be creative and innovative. However, Tony appeared to lack intellectual stimulation as perhaps due to the nature of the Police force, a ‘no blame policy’ cannot be adopted as each officer is required to be accountable for his or her actions, this can be seen to stifle creativity.
The transformational leadership exhibited by Peter, John and Tony can perhaps be seen to correspond with the role of a charismatic leader, as Conger and Kanungo (1998:11) highlight “there is far more overlap between the two than there are differences”, furthermore (Bass 1985 & Weber 1947) emphasized charisma as an important attribute in change management. As is previously alluded to, John projected an image of charisma, which following research could be seen to be the key factor in his success when managing the change of the affiliation systems and combating the cultural stagnation he was operating in.
However, Bryman (1999) criticizes charismatic leadership, stating that it is essential for there to be a “proven link between charismatic leadership and its influence on followers to the extent that they in turn display behaviours which are commensurate with the leader’s overall objectives.” Suggesting that John’s success in reorganizing the affiliation system and the followership of the appropriate parties could be seen to be caused by a multitude of factors not solely due to his charismatic leadership.
A further leadership theory and style that appeared to be present in all of the three guest speakers is situational leadership. Blanchard (2008) defines situational leadership as when “effective leaders adapt their style according to the development level of the people they are managing. “ Blanchard goes on to name 4 styles within situational leadership (Pictured in figure 1): Directing, Coaching, Supporting and Delegating.
Figure 1: Situational Leadership Model (Blanchard, Zigarmi and Nelson 1993)
Peter’s journey through these styles of situational leadership is an interesting one as he could be seen to exhibit a more a “coaching “style (S2 on Figure 1) when promoting a porter, as this required Peter to provide both directive and supportive behaviour to ensure the tasks were completed and Peter maintained control but to also raise the porter’s confidence and enthusiasm (adapted from Blanchard, 2008). However, in his current job role Peter can perhaps be perceived to have more of a “delegating” style (S4) as the GPs he works with are very competent and committed, Peter is able to delegate responsibility and provide levels of autonomy – allowing the GPs to “run the show”, whist Peter provides support when necessary.
In comparison, Tony can be seen to use more of a “directing” style (S1), as due to the previously mentioned dangerous nature of his organisation, he is required to direct people and give them a job to do, to make a decision and monitor the results and make it clear to those following his what a ‘good job’ is and how one can be achieved (Blanchard, 2008). However, Tony also mentioned the importance of listening to his followers and building relationships with them, which perhaps exhibits some aspects of S2 and S3 from Figure 1. This can bee seen to suggest that Tony possess a stronger situational leadership style than John or Peter, as he is, according to the situational leadership theory, able to be a more flexible and contextually responsive leader.
In addition to Blanchard (2008), Lee-Kelley (2002) describes situational leadership as “whether a manager is capable of altering his/her leadership style to match the shifting environment“ When John discussed his difficult situation of requiring a research budget, which seemed unattainable he can be seen to have demonstrated Lee-Kelley’s research. John realised he had to take a submissive approach and seek endorsement from a senior figure within the FA, John altered the way he was leading the affiliation project in accordance to the environment he was operating in to achieve the budget and succeed with the project, demonstrating his situational leadership skills in the process.
However, the situational leadership model has fallen under criticism, Graeff (1983) has argued that the theoretical rationale of the theory is weak and Yukl (1981) stated that the theory lacks coherent, explicit rationale for the hypothesized relationships in the model. These criticisms have lead Hersey and Blanchard (1988, 1993), to say that their Situational Leadership approach is not a theory. They state it is “a practical model that can be used by managers, salespersons, teachers or parents.” However, (Kerlinger, 1986) has said that this justification is hard to accept as throughout all research, it is referred to as the situational leadership theory.
With these critiques and debates in mind, the validity and appropriateness of analysing and attributing the aspects of John, Peter and Tony’s leadership styles mentioned above is called into question as the theory itself lacks concrete support and accreditation. This makes it difficult to fully confirm that the three guest speakers do in fact possess the ability to alter their leadership style according to the environment and exhibit situational leadership.
Lastly, an additional leadership theory that appeared to be present for the three guest speakers was emotional intelligence. Goleman (1996) put forward a model of Emotional Intelligence, which considers five elements: self- awareness, managing emotions, motivating oneself, empathy, and social skill in handling in relationships. Goleman states that combining these skills allows someone to become more successful in managing relationships. Despite all of the speakers appearing to show signs of emotional intelligence as they all spoke of the importance of being able to manage the relationships with one’s followers, Tony discussed the importance of empathy to be able to connect with his officers and how this can, in turn, have a positive outcome on a tasks. Peter’s situation of having to close a long stay hospital showed great levels of emotional intelligence, as he was able to show empathy towards the affected parties and try to reach a mutual decision, Peter had to also manage his own emotions which were centred around trying to please those above him, but whilst allowing all stakeholders to have a voice. Ultimately the success Peter had in closing the hospital and creating the most ‘win-win’ situations as possible exemplifies his combination of Goleman’s emotional intelligence skills model.
6.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, as is shown in the report, perhaps unsurprisingly, as successful senior leaders, the three guest speakers all possess and share many aspects of the different discussed leadership theories. However, as each guest speaker portrayed an array of different leadership skills and styles from across the theories, it is difficult to pair each guest speaker with just one theory. This reflects the work by Grint (2010) stating: “despite three thousand years of ponderings and over a century of “academic” research into leadership, we appear no nearer a consensus as to its basic meaning”. The findings in this report support Grint’s statement, demonstrating how dynamic and varying leadership is and the difficulty one has in trying to classify leadership when one’s leadership style appears to be very contextually influenced, all three guest speakers, but John especially discussed the importance of being contextually aware and able to alter your leadership style accordingly.
Lastly, perhaps this report can be seen to support the theory that there are certain specific traits; Tupes and Cristal’s ‘Big Five Model’: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism (1961), which enable an individual to become a successful leader, as; Peter, John and Tony appear to share some similarities in their traits and their subsequent leadership approaches and styles which perhaps have enabled them to become the senior leaders they are today.
7.0 References
Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
Blanchard, K. (2008) ‘Situational Leadership.’ Leadership Excellence 25(5) pp.2-20
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D. and Nelson, R. (1993). ‘Situational Leadership After 25 Years: A Retrospective’ Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies pp.1-21
Bryman, A. (2004) “Qualitative research on leadership: a critical but
appreciative review‟ .Leadership Quarterly , 15 (6), 729-769 [Accessed:
29 December 2014
Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd.
Graeff, C.L. (1981). Some theoretical issues that undermine the utility of the Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership theory: a critical view. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Southern Management Meetings the relationship between theory, research and practice (pp. 204- 206). City, State: Publisher. Atlanta, GA: Southern Management Association.
Grint, K. (2010) Leadership: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hersey, P..& Blanchard, K.B.(l988).Management of organization behavior: utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P` & Blanchard, K.B. (l993). Management of organization behavior utilizing human resources (8th. ed.). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kerlinger, EN.(1986).Foundations of behavioral research (3rd. ed.). Chicago: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Lee-Kelley, L. (2002) ‘Situational leadership’, Journal of Management Development, 21(6) pp.461 – 476
Maxwell J. C. (2013) Sometimes You Win–Sometimes You Learn: Life’s Greatest Lessons Are Gained from Our Losses. Center Street: 1 edition
Roe, K. (2014) Leadership: Practice and Perspectives. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. , pp. 140 – 141
Tupes, E. C. and Cristal, R. E. (1961) ‘Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings’. Technical Report ASD-TR-61-97. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command.
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisations (trans. Talcott Parsons). New York: Free Press (originally published in 1924)
Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
With a student-centered approach, I create engaging and informative blog posts that tackle relevant topics for students. My content aims to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to succeed academically and beyond.
