Leadership in the city of gold: an Arabian adventure of modern management capabilities in the 21st century.

McLaurin, James Reagan

INTRODUCTION

Leadership has long generated excitement and interest. When people think about leaders, think of the great leaders through history, mighty military commanders, religious figures, and corporate giants. Leaders are people who influence their followers to achieve organizational objectives through change. (Lussier & Archua, 2007). Leaders are able to communicate to and motivate their followers (Bass, 1960: Cartwright, 1965; Katz & Kahn, 1966). Through the motivation of followers, the organization realizes goal achievement (House, 1971; House and Dessler, 1974; House & Mitchell, 1974). Through change organizations are able to adapt and adjust to the changing environment (Amis, Slack, and Hinings, 2004).

The early trait theorists that thought of leadership as innate qualities that shaped human behavior (James, 1880; Galton, 1869). These theories dominated the early period of leadership research. The findings were weak and often inconsistent and forced researchers to look for other explanations for the success and effectiveness of leaders. A later review by Bass (1990), suggested that personality traits and individual characteristics could be grouped into six categories: capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, status and situation. These were not determinative of whether one would be a leader but might be indicative of who could emerge as a leader. The behavior era emerged in which the behaviors of leaders was examined. This provided several advantages in that behaviors could be observed, measured, and taught (Lewin & Lippit, 1938; Lewin, Lippit, & White, 1939). The primary study on leadership behaviors was conducted at Ohio State and resulted in the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Hemphill & Coons, 1957). From this, behaviors could be classified as consideration or initiation of structure. The concentration on behaviors though was not enough, powerful situational elements were becoming recognized as influencing leadership. Modern leadership theorists developed a more comprehensive approach to understanding leadership. The emergence of contingency theory recognized the importance of situation, individual characteristics and behaviors as important to leader effectiveness. Transformational and charismatic leaders were now studied as to how change became initiated in organizations (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1998).

From this background, the current study has its evolutionary roots. The desire to assess the leadership capabilities in Dubai Municipality was the primary objective of the study. The overriding objective for this study and other related studies was the development of a five year strategic plan for the organization.

The population that was examined was referred to as the Leadership Group and consisted of individuals from the middle and upper-levels of management. The sample consisted of 227 respondents from thirty various departments and centers in the organization. At the time, over 17,000 people were employed. This was the single largest employer in Dubai. The executive level consisted of the Director General, two Associate Director Generals, and ten Assistant Director Generals. These individuals were not part of the study sample.

SURVEY AND RESULTS

The leadership survey was 15 items, with a 1 to 5 response scale. One was never and five was always. The questions were designed so a high score represents high performance and a low score represents. The surveys were answered as part of a three day workshop on leadership for the Leadership Group. The following are the questions asked in the survey:

1. Are you upset / dissatisfied with the current performance standards of your organization and /or any of the functional sections?

2. Do you have a clear and definitive vision of what should be done in order to upgrade performance standards?

3. Do you believe that putting more emphasis on the competencies, qualifications and capabilities of your division's managers, supervisor and other personnel would lead to the targeted success?

4. Did you set clear, written and measurable targets for your division?

5. Are you aware of the necessity for setting ambitious objectives that require the maximum potential of your team members, but simultaneously do not exhaust all their energy?

6. Do you appraise performance of your sub-ordinates though personal face-to-face interviews with them?

7. Do you chair team meetings in order to deliberate the strategy and objectives of your organization?

8. When you praise the excellent subordinates, do you have a clear image of their actual contribution to the overall upgrading of performance?

9. Do your colleagues consider you a tactful communicator and effective orator who are capable of grabbing g their attention and fuelling their enthusiasm in support of your views?

10. Do you allow others to assess your team's performance on regular basis? Do you consider their views and inputs in upgrading of your divisional performance?

11. How many hours per week do you spend on holding bilateral meetings with customers and staff? (30 hours would be equivalent to rating 5) (15 hours would be equivalent to rating 3)(5 hours and less would be equivalent to rating 1)

12. Have you adopted a clear and written plan for upgrading of your leadership qualities?

13. What is your personal role in the process of transformation within the organization? The extent of your responsibilities includes heading the functional team and influencing its acts and performance

14. Do you invite others to assess your own performance?

15. Do you place the overall organizational objectives on top of your priorities in a manner clear to the others?

The results from the answers provided by the leadership are as follows:

Current Performance Satisfaction

Dissatisfaction with current performance standards and an accompanying desire to change them is typical in dynamic organizations that are involved in continuous quality improvement. Organizations that are responsive to constantly changing environments require leaders that are not satisfied with the status quo. They are constantly seeking to enhance performance. This question seeks to find the level of dissatisfaction with current standards. The mean score for this question is 3.3524 on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being always, 4 being usually, 3 being sometimes, 2 being rarely, and 1 being never. This result suggests that a significant majority of the respondents are upset only some of the time or less with the current performance standards. Out of the 226 responses, 135 were rated at 3 or below and 92 responses were 4 or 5.

Communicated Vision

Effective leaders have a clear and definitive vision as to what performance ought to be and how it can be enhanced to reach that target. This vision has to be communicated to the personnel to help them achieve success. The mean score on this question is 3.7566 out of a 1 to 5 scale suggesting that the respondents feel that they usually communicate the vision for performance to their subordinates. This question had the highest positive response with 152 responses replying usually or always. Only 76 responses were sometimes or less.

Subordinate Competencies

It is important that leaders have a clear understanding as to what is required to do the tasks at hand. Leaders must know what competencies and qualifications are required for the task. They must also know the capabilities of their subordinates in order to provide additional resources if there is a gap between the two. This must not be based on simple intuition or feelings. It should be clearly stated, in writing, as to what is needed and what is available in order to make effective human resource decisions. The mean score on this question is 3.5419 out of a 1 to 5 scale indicating that the majority of the respondents do feel knowledgeable about what is required and what is available to reach the targeted successes. The most positive responses were 129 while 98 indicated little emphasis on competencies, qualifications, and capabilities.

Targets

Good leaders establish targeted goals that are clear, written, and measurable. This is communicated to the subordinates and the expected performance targets and responsibilities are clearly defined. People can achieve what is expected of them if they know what it is. Targeted goals that are vague and ill-defined offer little or no guidance to subordinates. The mean score on this question was 3.4273 on a scale of 1 to 5 and was one of the higher rated questions. However, more than half of the respondents stated that they established targeted goals only sometimes or less. Out of the 227 responses, 115 responded sometimes or less, and 112 responded usually or always.

Challenging Team Objectives

This question builds upon the previous question yet places it in the perspective of teams. Does the leader set ambitious objectives of the team members? A standard for of goal-setting is the MBO (Management by Objectives) approach that allows superiors and subordinates to jointly set objectives for the year. The key to success here is to be sure that the objectives are challenging. Objectives that can be reached with no effort, are not truly objectives. The mean score for this question was 3.3673 on a scale of 1 to 5. This corresponded very similarly to the earlier question. The divide was slightly further apart, however, on the negative side. 120 respondents indicated that they set challenging team objectives sometimes or less frequently, and 106 respondents indicated this was a usual or constant practice.

Direct Performance Appraisal

This is a straightforward question that asks if the leader does face-to-face interviews for the purpose of performance appraisal and records the session. This is an opportunity for the leader to assess the work of the subordinate and provide positive feedback to improve the future performance. It also is an opportunity for a leader to provide inspiration and motivation for the individual by praise and support. Unfortunately, for the majority of the leaders it is a missed opportunity. The mean for this question was 3.2920 on a scale of 1 to 5. 125 of the respondents indicated that they only sometimes or less provided the direct performance appraisal for subordinates, while 102 usually or always did this.

Team Leadership

Providing leadership for teams deliberating strategy and objectives is extremely important. This provides an important focal point for subordinates to see that the leader is committed to the organizational strategy and objectives. By the leader not chairing team meetings, can send a message of a lack of commitment on the leader's part. The mean for this question was 3.0661 on a scale of 1 to 5. This was one of the three lowest-ranked questions in the survey. 137 respondents indicated that chairing committees dealing with strategy and objectives was not something they usually did. 90 respondents indicated that this was something they did usually or always.

Praise

Good leaders praise the excellent work of their subordinates. They are recognizing the contributions made by the subordinate to the improved performance of the organization. It was clear that the majority of the respondents are involved in praising their subordinates. The mean for this question was 3.4643 on a scale of 1 to 5. 123 respondents indicated they usually or always praised their excellent subordinates, whereas only 101 indicated this was something they did only sometimes or less.

Communication

A good leader is a good communicator. Leaders, more often than not, are gauged by how well they communicate with not only subordinates, but stakeholders as well. Leaders must be tactful so as not to insult others but must be inspirational so to motivate those who follow. The mean for this question was 3.5067 on a scale of 1 to 5. The majority of the respondents, 119, felt as if they were usually or always good communicators. A minority of the respondents, 106, felt as if they were good communicators only sometimes or less.

Outside Assessment of the Team

This question explores whether or not outside assessment of the team is allowed and whether suggestions which are made are actually considered. By allowing individuals outside of the team to routinely examine the performance provides the opportunity for validity for the results obtained. In most large organizations, this is an established procedure that is done routinely. The mean for this question was 3.6171 on a scale of 1 to 5. The majority of the respondents, 135, indicated this was routinely done. Only 87 indicated that this was something less than routine.

Stakeholder Relations

This question asks the leaders about their involvement with customers; specifically, how much time is spent each week meeting with customers and staff. The importance of the customer stakeholder group cannot be emphasized enough. Organizations that fail to realize the value of customer input face many difficulties in today's competitive world, even for municipalities. One must listen to customers to find out what their needs are and how to fulfill them. The mean for this question was 2.9686 on a scale of 1 to 5. This was the lowest rated question on the survey. The vast majority of the respondents, 155, indicated that 3 hours or less a day were spent in customer stakeholder relations. Only 68 indicated a higher level of involvement.

Personal Leadership Development

Good leadership skills are planned and developed. They do not just happen. Excellent organizations have long recognized the importance of developing their leadership. Numerous efforts at training and education directed at developing leaders within the organization are constantly being done. This question is directed at the individual asking if there is a plan in place and is it checked routinely to determine if the plan is being followed. The mean on this question was 3.0578 on a scale of 1 to 5. This was the second-lowest-rated question. A disappointing majority of 158 respondents indicated little planning being done regarding their personal leadership development. Only 77 respondents indicated that this was something that was done on a regular basis.

Organizational Transformation

Transformation of organizations from their present state to a desired future state of being is commonplace today. Transformational leadership has been recognized as being instrumental in bringing about the desired change. This transformational leadership involves more than just the head of the organization. Individual leaders within the organization must assume the role of transformational leader. This question asks the respondent as to how they view themselves as being involved in that transformational process. The mean score on this question was 3.2063 on a scale of 1 to 5. Only 93 respondents saw themselves as actively involved in the transformational process, while 130 saw themselves as sporadically involved in it.

Outside Assessment of Self

This question relates to an earlier one about outside assessment of the team, only this time it addresses the individual. Due to the nature of the organization of Dubai Municipality, the strong Human Resource Department would have standards established for outside-appraisal of individuals. The mean for this question was 3.5619 on a scale of 1 to 5. 130 respondents said it was customary for outsiders to review them. Only 96 respondents indicated that this was an infrequent occurrence. Both the earlier question and this one were had virtually the same mean score.

Prioritizing Organizational Goals

Leaders in organizations provide examples of behavior for others in the organization. If the leaders do not seem to value an organizational objective, how can they expect the subordinates to do so. Leaders must not only give verbal support for the organizational objectives but they must provide clear, observable support in their day to day activities. This question asks whether or not the respondent does "walk the walk" not just "talk the talk" The mean score for this question was 3.6923 on a scale of 1 to 5. The majority of respondents replied that leaders did provide an example by putting the organizational goals at the top of the list with 132 responses of usually or always. A minority of 89 did not feel as if they did this on a regular basis.

The Leadership Questionnaire reveals a somewhat mixed picture regarding the functioning of the respondents. In general, responses to this survey indicate that the municipality managers only sometimes engage in those behaviors characteristic of top leaders.

The mean scores for the 15 behaviors examined range between a high of 3.76 for having and communicating the vision to subordinates to a low of 2.97 for conducting site visits to enhance communication.

For all 15 of the items combined, the average score is 3.4. This means that only sometimes are the desirable traits outlined in the survey displayed. The highest performing organizations would expect to see scores somewhere between 4 and 5 for the vast majority of the questions. This means that the municipality could expect to see performance gains by working on almost any of the 15 behaviors explored in the survey.

While the mean scores suggest multiple areas for improvement, one of the key weaknesses of municipality teams is revealed through analyzing this data using a Factor Analysis procedure. The varimax rotation was chosen and convergence was achieved. In this procedure, items that are answered similarly are grouped. This grouping is then further analyzed to determine if there is an underlying construct that is represented.

In the case of the Leadership Questionnaire three factors emerge. Items 6, 7, and 13 represent the first factor, 34% of the variance ascertained. They seem to represent a core concept which focuses on the ability of the respondent to assume a dominant leadership position. This is seen as the ability to assume the mantle of leader, be it in employee appraisals, team meetings or transformational leadership. On average, respondents indicated they do these things only sometimes (average score of 3.19). The second factor consists of items 10, 14, and 15, 16% of the variance ascertained. These seem to represent a core concept of formalized authority of the leader. The factor reflects outside review and support of organizational objectives. On average, the respondents indicated they do these things slightly less than usually (average score of 3.62) The final factor consists of items 8 and 9, 9% of the variance ascertained. This factor could be called a communication core concept. Many of the respondents felt as if they were effective communicators in their position (average score of 3.48).

What is more troubling is information from the survey which tends to indicate that many of the respondents are quite satisfied with the status quo regarding performance. They do not perceive problems with current performance standards within the municipality. Additionally, they suffer in the area of customer stakeholders relations, this having received the lowest score of all questions. Finally, the respondents indicated that they do not have a personal plan for the development of their leadership skills.

In summary, the majority of the respondents utilize the formal structure of the organization on which to base their leadership. They avoid difficult and stressful situations in which they might have to make un-favorable decisions. They perceive themselves as good communicators and supporters of the organization. Yet, they minimize their customer interactions. Finally, most do not involve themselves in development of their leadership skills.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey does not point a picture of what one expect from the leadership within a government organization in a municipality that is considered a marvel of the 21st century. The media has portrayed Dubai as the City of Gold, the new Paris of the Middle East and the Cosmopolitan Center of the Arab World. Yet when one considers Where Dubai Municipality as an organization started and moved to, it is not surprising. It is in the Arab culture which helps define the characteristics of members of the organization (power distance, collectivity, individualism, etc.), the age of the organization and its gigantic size for the region. These all impact the organization. As we look to this ity of Gold as it sits upon the desert sands from the eyes a leadership researcher, it does seem to shimmer like gold or perhaps a mirage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amis, J., T. Slack, and C. R. Hinings, "The Pace, Sequence, and Linearity of Radical Change," Academy of Management Journal 47(1)(2004):15-39.

Bass, B. M. (1960) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Harper and Row.

Bass, B. M. "From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision," Organizational Dynamics 18, (3)(1990):19-36.

Bennis, W.G. & B. Nanus (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row. Cartwright, D. C. (1965). Influence, leadership, control. In Handbook of organizations, edited by J. G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Conger, J. A. & R. N. Kanungo (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Galton, R. (1869). Hereditary genius. New York: Appleton.

Hemphill, J. K. & A. E. Coons (1957). Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. In Leader behavior: Its description and measurement, edited by R. M. Stogill and A. E. Coons. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

House, R. J. "A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly 16(1971):321-339.

House, R. J. & G. Dessler (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In Contingency approaches to leadership edited by J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 29-55.

House, R. J. & T. R. Mitchell (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business 3 (Fall):81-98.

James, W., "Great men, great thoughts, and their environment," Atlantic Monthly 46(1880):441-459.

Katz, D. & R. L. Kahn (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Lewin, K. & R. Lippit, "An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and democracy: A preliminary note," Socometry 1(1938):292-300.

Lewin, K., R. Lippit, & R. K. White, "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates," Journal of Social Psychology 10(1939):271-301.

Locke, E. A., "Guest Editor's Introduction: Goal Setting Theory and Its Application to the World of Business," Academy of Management Executive 18(4)(2004):124-125.

Lussier, Robert N. & Christopher F. Achua (2007). Effective Leadership, (3rd Edition). Mason, Ohio:Thomson Higher Education

Mintzberg, H., "Leadership and Management Development: An Afterward," Academy of Management Executive 18(3)(2004):7-19.

Puffer, "Changing Organizational Structures: An Interview with Rosabeth Moss Kanter," Academy of Management Executive 17(4)(2003):53-61.

Provitera, M. J., "What Management Is: How It Works and Why It's Everyone's Business," Academy of Management Executive 17(3)(2003):152-153.

James Reagan McLaurin, American University of Sharjah