Post Bureaucratic Leadership Style Essay

The post-bureaucratic era has seen changes in practices from an autocratic to a democratic leadership style. However, such dynamic changes have refurbished bureaucratic principles, characterising it as a “hybrid” of “democratic principles” and the “Weberian Ideal-type” (Clegg and Courpasson 2004, pg 54). In this essay, I argue that contemporary leadership practices embody post-bureaucratic ideals to an extent, as prior-bureaucratic methods are still interpolated. In section one, I’ll evaluate the competency-based management approach success and individualistic notion, however contrasting on how it’s “repetitive refrain” hinders Post-heroic” forms of leadership, by calling on the views of Bolden and Gosling (2006 pg3). In addition to I’ll be comparing research (e.g.

Burgoyne et al 2004) demonstrating the positives of integration of “post-heroic” ideals.

Following this, I’ll contrast the argument by drawing upon Shackleton’s “leadership in the face of crisis” (Browning 2007 pg198) suggesting that the changes in practices within the post-bureaucratic era have “branched” and remained influenced by bureaucratic leadership styles (Grahn 2008). In section two, I discuss the changes in the “pedagogy” of leadership development through the practices of an organisation and how such courses transfer theoretical learning of leadership to a practical application (Herman 2007). Following this, I attempt to compare Meindi’s (1997) Article “the romance of leadership” considering the strong romanticised conception of leadership, being a strong part of social reality. In doing so exhibit, that bureaucracy has not been “suppressed” but rather ”refurbished”. Finally, within the conclusion I propose my views on bureaucracy being inherent within contemporary post-bureaucracy society, becoming a “hybrid” form as Clegg and Courpasson (2004)

suggest.
One key concept of the competency-based approach is that it offers a sense of structure and stability desired in a bureaucratic culture. Bolden and Gosling (2006) envision this approach as a “repetitive refrain”, tending to create predictability in an individual leader and reinforcing individualistic practices within an organisation. Arguably, it tends to restrict the emotional and relational dimensions of leadership. In brief, restraining the emergence of a more inclusive/collective style of thinking. By, Comparing Bass and Avolio (1994/Bass, 1994) semantic analysis, the results showed that “transformational leadership” was limited, arguing that competency restricts its possibility. However, the Semitic analysis revealed through the reflective reports, concerns around a range of issues, including the evolution of society, the changing nature of work and the desirable qualities of leaders; in which embrace reflection, integrity, and the ability to motivate/influence. (Reports highlighted a serious lack of consideration). Indicating a more discursive competencies-approach, as a language would be beneficial. Accordingly, Bolden and Gosling (2006) reflect that the research supports a predominate shift for from an individualistic notion to a collective “post heroic” sense and highlights that greater importance should be placed on the emotional, moral, and relational dimensions of leadership. Thus, to “branch” away from this “repetitive refrain” of competencies, organisation should use a more discursive approach to challenge the underlying assumptions ,for a more inclusive and collective ideal desired within an organisation in a post –bureaucratic society.

In contrast to the competency approach restricting “post-heroic” practices, Shackleton’s voyage demonstrates that situations test the regular understanding and perception of a leader and employee relationship. According to Michel (1962) rather than bureaucracy vanishing, comparisons are made with a ghost “lurking inside the democratic principles”. Thus demonstrating, post/prior-bureaucratic ideals are interpolated and further addressing the notion that post-heroic practices have “branched”. This notion conveyed through Browning’s (2007) brief analysis of the “endurance” argues that leaders, including Shackleton, can alter their approaching methods to the needs of the employee’s in “periods of disaster”. These approaches are advocated through the contingency and skills theory. For example, Shackleton empowered a humane/relational approach, recognising the significance of leader-to-member connections. Distinctly, he was willing in spite of any length to keep his gathering unified and under his authority, including sharing a tent with Hurly, which enticed his snobbiness, however refraining any cause of discontent to others (Lansing: 2002, p.73). Overall this elucidates a post –bureaucratic view, however as Clegg and Courpasson (2004) suggest, post-bureaucracy is an original amalgamation of old principles in a perception designated as new. Therefore this, degree of bureaucratic essence was evidential, as Shackleton developed a repetitive routine and an inclusive sense of structure in a fluctuating environment, rehearsing each follower in their given task. Thus, Shackleton’s voyage has enticed the nature of “hybridisation”, by suppressing the limits of the “repetitive refrain” it allowed the reconstruction of tradition for both structure and relations to co-exist.