The Council for Geoscience (CGS) is one of the National Science Councils of South Africa and is the
legal successor to the Geological Survey of South Africa. The total staff complements numbered 291 as
of March 2006, consisting of four executive managers, 18 unit managers, 124 professionals, 84
technicians, 41 administrative personnel, 17 unskilled labourers 3 skilled workers.
The strength of the CGS is manifested in its core of competent geoscience and technical staff. The
primary business of the CGS is science; therefore scientists, apart from human resources, finance and
procurement, are appointed to senior positions in the organisation. The criteria for scientists to qualify
for managerial positions are either a masters or doctorate degree in science. Although a sound
knowledge of science is needed for these positions, the necessary managerial and leadership
characteristics have never played a significant role in the appointment of unit leaders. Therefore, it is the
aim of this study to determine the leadership style of the scientists that were appointed as unit leaders.
Theories on leadership provide for a variety of potential explanations regarding effective leadership,
including personal attributes, contingencies, and the role of subordinates. By analysing managerial
leadership, it becomes important to consider and recognise the complex interplay among the structure
of organisational life, patterns of behaviour, varied beliefs, values, interests, and initiatives of the
individuals who create and work within this structure. Research on organisational leadership has grown
systematically with the advance of industrialisation. Large work organisations are associated with
bureaucratic and technological complexity that affects the demand for managers and the need for
coordination and leadership roles.
Leadership theories have evolved over time, becoming more sophisticated and even more applicable for
their “innovation”. Different perspectives have featured throughout history. Theories of leadership are
primarily analytical, directed at better understanding of the leadership process and the variations among
them. The most up- to- date concept within leadership is the theory of transformational and transactional
leadership.
Transformational leadership comprises five factors — (1) idealised influence: attributed; (2) idealised
influence: behaviour; (3) inspirational motivation; (4) intellectual simulation; and (5) individualised
consideration — of which the first two factors refer to the concern, power, personal morality, and
sacrifice of the leader, as well as his or her ability to instil collective pride in the group’s mission. The
third factor relates to motivating the group to accomplish missions through challenging goals and by indicating certainty in areas of uncertainty, which, in turn, arouse individual and team spirit. The fourth
factor refers to the leaders’ ability to relate at an individual level to the follower and the fifth factor to
intellectual stimulation.
Transactional leadership display behaviours associated with constructive and corrective transactions,
and comprises three factors— (1) contingent reward leadership; (2) management-by-exception: active;
and (3) management-by-exception: passive — of which relates to leaders who involve themselves only
when things go wrong, i.e. the constructive style. Their interventions are associated with failure and
punishment. The corrective style is labelled management-by-expectation: active, which refers to the
closer involvement in monitoring the subordinates’ actions. Contingent reward leadership relates to
rewards for work performance.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) has become a standard instrument for assessing a
variety of transformational, transactional and non-leadership scales and was used to assess the
leadership style of scientists of the Council for Geoscience. The instrument measures a broad range of
leadership types: passive leaders, leaders who give contingent rewards to subordinates and leaders
who transform their subordinates into leaders themselves.
The objectives of the study were to (1) determine the leadership style of scientists in positions of unit
leaders; (2) how their supervisors, peers and subordinates perceive their leadership style; and
(3) whether scientists as unit leaders, perceive their own leadership style differently than do their
supervisors, peers and subordinates. The MLQ instrument contains 45 items that identify and measure key leadership and effectiveness
behaviours. A five point rating scale (0: 1: 2: 3: 4) is used for rating the frequency of observed leader
behaviour where 0=not at all, and 4=frequently, if not always. The average scores of the MLQ
questionnaire for the Council for Geoscience ranged from 2 to 3 on the transformational leadership
factors. Participants in general perceive scientists in unit leader positions more as transformational
leaders as apposed to transactional leaders. The 2.5 rating on transformational leadership indicates that
the unit leaders are often influential in the awareness of what is important. The ratings of scientists as
unit leaders were similar to the ratings of their peers and 'others'. Supervisors and subordinates,
however, rated them lower.
Transactional leadership ratings for the majority of leaders were between 2.0–3.0 on CR, and MBEA
and 1.0–2.0 on MBEP. The ratings obtained, indicate that unit leaders would be seen as people wwho prefer to monitor and take action before failures occur. Supervisors, peers and others rated the
scientists as unit leaders higher on transactional leadership, except for subordinates who rated them
lower.
Leaders are rated 0–1 on laissez-faire leadership style. Supervisors, peers and subordinates rated
scientists as unit leaders higher on laissez-faire leadership style than the rating they gave themselves
(self-rating). The low rating on the laissez-faire leadership style confirms that leaders do get involved in
important issues and have a need to be involved in the decision-making process. Scientists as unit
leaders, however, perceive themselves to be more involved than do supervisors and subordinates.
Attribution ratings (extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) varied from 2.0–3.0. For attribution
dimensions, supervisors and subordinates rated the scientists as unit leaders lower on extra-effort,
effectiveness and satisfaction, whereas peers rated them higher. The satisfaction dimension indicates
that unit leaders often work with others in a satisfactory way. For attribution dimensions, supervisors and
subordinates rated the scientists as unit leaders lower on extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction,
whereas peers rated them higher. Supervisors are less satisfied with the leaders than subordinates are.
The results obtained from the MLQ questionnaire for the leadership style of scientists in the Council for
Geoscience are slightly different from those of United States companies. The Council for Geoscience,
compared with United States (US) companies, rated lower on both transformational leadership and
attribution dimensions (extra-effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) and higher on both transactional and
laissez-faire leadership styles. This seems to indicate that the Council for Geoscience tends to follow a
less inspirational and influential leadership style with more objective setting and less satisfying methods
of leadership, compared with US companies.
Transformational leadership development is recommended for the scientists as unit leaders of the
Council for Geoscience. It is important to note that false transformational leaders (seemingly
transformational leaders with a self-absorbed tendency) should be distinguished from the genuine ones.
Optimism and employee frustration can be used in future surveys by the Council for Geoscience to
determine the progress of transformational leadership development in the organisation.
The leadership of an organisation influences the organisational culture. Upper management is
responsible for the implementation of the necessary changes to promote transformational leadership.
The culture of an organisation is a reflection of upper management. If upper management does not
realise the importance of transformational leadership, the chances for the rest of the organisation to promote a transformational leadership culture in the organisation are not good. One recommendation to
consider is for the Council for Geoscience to employ people with adequate managerial skills in unit
leader positions. These skills would include leadership traits, operational skills, financial skills, etc.
A decision needs to be taken by the Council for Geoscience that when scientists are employed as unit
leaders or as members of the upper management cadre, they must have adequate managerial and
leadership skills, and all parties have to agree with the competency and be satisfied with the
management styles. / Graduate School of Business Leadership / M.B.L.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:unisa/oai:umkn-dsp01.int.unisa.ac.za:10500/204 |
| Date | 09 1900 |
| Creators | Von Wielligh, Madelein Heila Magdalena |
| Contributors | Rall, P. J. (Prof.) |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Research Report |
| Format | 1 online resource (xv, 135 p.) |
Page generated in 0.0033 seconds