A Comparative Analysis of Leadership Theories

Ideally, what can be proved theoretically can excel in practicality and vice versa. The report provides a critical evaluation of leadership and management theories to a leader in an organizational setting. Specifically, Google Inc. is used as a contemporary organization while the leadership traits of its co-founder and the current CEO of Alphabet Inc., Larry Page, is evaluated. Leadership theories such as traits theory, behavioral theory, and transactional theories and management models such as classical theories and human relations are critically analyzed. Notably, their practicality on Google as a modern company is scrutinized and their implication is given accordingly. Besides, it suffices that leadership and management theories commensurate with how organizations evolve over time. Importantly, the difference between leadership and management is evident in the sense that the essential skills required to lead an organization in a supportive and stable setting are not the same skills necessary to steer an establishment through a turbulent and competitive environment. Even so, the integration of the different theories has not only made Google an efficacious corporation but a very desirable place to work. The consequence of the application of the theories into practice in a contemporary organization increases productivity, efficiency, and satisfaction of the human personnel.

1.0 Introduction

Since time immemorial, leadership and management have been the most domineering activities as the society has unremittingly banked on group efforts. Besides, Olum (2004, p.1) posits that they have often been critical in ensuring effective organization of discrete efforts right from the time folks engaged communally. Well-synchronized efforts are essential for accomplishing objectives which cannot be accomplished independently. According to F.W Taylor, “management is the art of knowing what you want to do and then seeing that it is done in the best and cheapest way” (Jayaram and Kotwan 2012, p.115) However, leadership and management should be considered in close association. While they have different inferences, they are ineludibly connected and are complimentary (Sharma and Jain 2013, p.309). Of import is that any effort to separate the two emanates more problems than solutions. Importantly, a leader’s job is to inspire whereas a manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate.

In the wake of increasing globalization as well as technological development, leadership and management theories have been developed over the years and continue to increase in importance (Madsen 2001, p.1). In a contemporary organization such as Google, it is not possible for management to fully and comprehensively monitor and control specific knowledge-intensive processes. As such, the significance of leadership as a motivating factor incrementally gains momentum.

On this backdrop, this paper seeks to evaluate in detail the application of leadership theories of Google’s CEO from an organizational perspective and the management models the company as a contemporary organization. Majorly, the report uses secondary information which is sourced from different articles and books concerning leadership and management. Information about Google is obtained from the company websites, policy statements among other publications. First, the report provides a background of Google including its organizational structure and culture. Second, the paper provides a contextual discussion of the broader development of leadership and management theories. The section is followed by an expository breakdown of the leadership and management theories and their application to practice in Google Inc. Lastly, a commentary is given on the suitability of the theories critiqued and the practice evidenced on the multinational company.

1.1 Google Overview

Google Inc. was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while studying for Ph.D. at Stanford University. They came up with the idea of a search engine and went ahead to launch the company in 1998 (Baldonado 2015, p.15). Since its inception, the company has made tremendous achievement and made extra efforts to create an index of various websites. Today, Google offers unrestricted net-search services in different languages and has a collection of web-based products in its portfolio. According to Kuntze and Matulich (2010, p.2), the company generates about 97% of its revenue through online advertisements. Currently, the brand is valued at USD 100 billion while the fortune magazine ranks it as one of the best company to work in the United States. Indeed, this is an acknowledgment of its leadership and people-management practices.

1.1.1 Google’s Organizational Structure

The company’s success is anchored to the efficacy of its organizational structure in supporting distinctiveness in innovation. In 2015, Larry Page the company’s CEO announced the restructuring of Google’s organizational structure. The company was reconfigured to form a conglomerate called Alphabet that is composed of autonomous operating divisions. In other words, the multinational became home to several other companies. As recent as 2017, Google was transformed from being a corporation to a limited liability company.

Further, Google has a cross-functional administrative structure that has a matrix composition with some elements of flatness (Tran 2017, p.2). In this regard, the corporation’s structure has three key features which are function-based, product-based and flatness. The company uses functions to categorize its employees. For instance, the organization has departments based on functions such as product management, sales operations team and engineering and design team (Towers 2006, p.15). Products are also used to categorize employees especially when the multinational company embarks on a specific product development. A flat organizational structure also means that Google’s workforces can circumvent the middle management and account directly to the CEO. Even so, workers have the liberty to meet and openly share information across functions.

1.1.1 Google’s Culture

Google’s culture is dependent on the environment that the company operates its objectives, belief system, the staff and the overall administrative style. Importantly, Google’s organizational culture has various key elements. First, Tran (2017, p.2) posits that the firm’s mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible as well as useful” (Brezina 2012, p.8) Larry Page notes that an ideal search engine, “would understand exactly what you mean and give back exactly what you want.” Therefore, the company strives to improve its products to meet the expectations of the consumers (Jarrett, Hillis and Petit 2012, p.7). The multinational company continues to push the limits of existing technology to provide an improved service to anyone seeking information. The mission is very well inscribed into every employee to the extent that everyone believes Google is about making a difference through technology as opposed to being gratified with its previous success.

Google has a philosophy that is comprised of a set of values that guides the behaviors of its staffs (Tran 2017, p.2). With respect to these core values, every employee is at liberty to execute their jobs as they deem fit. The company’s website states, “As we keep looking towards the future, these core principles guide our actions” (Google.org. 2018). Thus, it shows that the company’s culture is very much predetermined through the well-established codes that, for instance, requires employees to concentrate on the user and everything else falls into place.

The other noteworthy characteristics of Google’s culture is that every employee is treated as an equal. Former Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, was once quoted saying that no particular individual has a stronger say at Google, everyone is the same (Jarrett Hillis and Petit 2012, p.7). Put differently, every employee working at Google have equal status (Tran 2017, p.2). What is important is the power of one’s idea and not the title, tenure or anything else. Besides, the equal status is a necessity as opposed to a nicety. The approach has forced the company to only hire the smartest and the most ambitious individuals. There is even a perception that managers at Google work for the employees and not contrariwise. In this regard, managers are considered as leaders whose role is to offer inspiration and support to the rest of the workforces. Therefore, the company is network-based and a flat organization devoid of the hierarchical composition (Towers 2006, p.18). Overall, Google employees work on their own terms and execute their jobs as they deem fit.

2.0 Development of Leadership and Management Theories

In evaluating the broader contextual discussion of the leadership and management theory, it is imperative to cogitate the conceptions and deliberation of how leadership is very much detached from the actions of management. Leadership studies can be traced back to the ancient times following the human aspiration to comprehend the interrelationships between persons living cordially in composite groups, created chains of command and established practicable edifices of authority and control (Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy 2014, p.57). Notably, the concept of leadership in the organizational context became more prominent in the 1930’s. During this time, the behaviorists had begun to categorize leadership as a multi-faceted capability that comprised of discerning behaviors and motivational skills. More a considerable time, the concepts of management and leadership were used interchangeably with the practice prevailing until the 1960s. The interchangeability transpired until leadership was considered a distinct skill set to management.

The term management is very much entwined with the rapid rise of the 20th industrialization, administration as well as business competition. As such, both leadership and management theory have their origins anchored on mass industrialization along with the need to comprehend how organizations could become more productive, efficient and competitive. Even though leadership and management are regarded as separate areas of study, the interconnectivity between them and distinctions are blurred (Jadwala 2015, p.2). Nonetheless, there are differences between which are illustrated in the table below.

Table 1: Differences between leadership and management

Leadership

Management

Sets direction

Sets strategies to work

Has followers

Delegates to underlings

Guided by a vision

Guided by predefined objectives

Has longstanding strategies

Preoccupied with short-range actions

Expedites decisions

Makes decisions

Concerned about what is right

Concerned with being right

Transformational

Transactional

Exemplifies passion

Wants to be in control

The premise of the distinction is that management abilities are founded on the hard-edged organization and efficiency-associated concerns whereas leadership is humanistic, indulgent and depended on long-lasting cultural standpoints. Importantly, the abstract concepts of leadership and management have progressively shifted since the initial models were adopted in the 20th

century. For instance, management and leadership practices are becoming more sophisticated by accommodating evolving situations and environments that were not their years ago. Such situational changes encompass the impact of technological impact, globalization, and social values.

2.1 Leadership Theory

The distinction between leadership and management was highlighted in the second half of the 20th

century. While there lacks a clear understanding of leadership, it can be described as the process upon which individuals employ their skills of influence to solicit the backing of others in accomplishing responsibilities (Kolzow 2014, p.12). While different theories address specific aspects of leadership, there exists a particular cohesion among the models that tie them together. Some researchers opine that leadership trait is inborn while other implies that there are certain leadership behaviors that can be learned through experience as well as education. Similarly, there are others who suggest that leadership is depended on the situation. However, Aalateeg (2017, p.36) posits that contemporary studies have emphasized the area of fellowship. Arguably, great leaders are considered to have a great working affiliation with their underlings. As such, the situational model of leadership partly focuses on the distinct setting in which a leader operates. In this regard, the theory largely considers a leader’s social influencing abilities.

There is no doubt that the contemporary study of leadership has made significant progress along the path of comprehending leadership theories. The fact that there is a swelling list of appropriate leadership characteristics means there is increased acceptance that no single approach is fruitful or attainable (Nawaz and Khan 2016, p.1). The table below shows the chronology of the development of leadership ideology. The stages of the leadership theory are accompanied by a brief explanation of the central idea behind each concept.

Table 2: Development of leadership theories

Theory

Models

Description

Great Man (1850 - 1950)

Hero

Great Man

Leaders are born, leaders are not made (Kolzow 2014, p.13)

Trait Theory (the 1940s)

Developed by Gordon Willard Allport and Sir Francis Galton

Leadership ability is connected to physical characteristics and traits such as intelligence, personality, and attractiveness

Behavioral Approaches (the 1950s- mid- 1960s)

Role Theory

The Managerial Grid

Accentuates that while leaders are not born, they can be made through the learning of novel behaviors.

Situational Leadership (1970 onwards)

Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson’s situational leadership

Underlines that leaders choose the best approach on the basis of situational variables. Different leadership approaches can be more fitting for specific circumstances.

Contingency Approaches (the 1960s onwards)

Cognitive Resource Theory

Notes that there is no a perfect leader. Task-based and relationship-oriented leaders become more successful only when their leadership style fits the state of affairs.

Transactional Leadership (Management theory) (the Mid 1960s onwards)

Leader-member

Exchange Theory

Emphasizes that transactional leaders take note of themselves, interchange benefits with their underlings and trust that individuals are inspired by reward and punishment (Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy 2014, p.58).

Transformational Leadership (Relationship Theory) (1978 onwards)

Bass’s Transformational Leadership Theory,

Participation Inventory

Delves into the influences created amongst leaders and groups. Communication is considered the center for goal accomplishment that focuses the group on the final outcome (Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy 2014, p.58). The leader is extremely noticeable and depends on the chain of command to enhance performance.

Convergence (1990 onwards)

Configuration Theory,

Complimentary Theory,

Complexity Theory

Based on the inter-relationships of diverse approaches owing to the fact that leadership is contingent on situations as well as people (Kolzow 2014, p.24).

2.1.0 Critical Evaluation of Leadership Theories and Practice

2.1.1 Trait Theory

The theory is engrossed in the individualities of leaders. Notably, it is applied to envisage the efficacies of leadership which can be equated to leaders (Madsen 2001, p.8). Besides, it can be used as a basis for gauging the probability of leadership success or failure. In this regard, most leaders concur that they hold certain qualities that they exploit in the course of their lives. Thus, it means that such qualities help to augment organizational productivity or can be exploited to achieve certain objectives. According to Kolzow (2014, p.18), the trait model focuses on identifying physiological appearance demography, personality, intelligence, socio-economic background among other characteristics that instigate the emergence of leadership qualities. A typical leader that embodies this model inspires and influences individuals and groups to accomplish a common goal. Be that as it may, different scholars have argued that owing to the fact that leadership cannot be emulated it developed, it is unique to those born with leadership qualities. The basis of their argument is anchored in the Great Man Theory of leadership that notes: leaders are born and not made.

As a contemporary company, Google would not have achieved its growth were it not for the exceptional leadership of Larry Page. Leading the company to such unprecedented growth, Page had to portray more leadership traits than intelligence. While much of the success is entwined with his traits, the company has adopted various strategies to identify emerging leaders within the organization. Importantly, the company looks for specific personality and behavioral traits as a selection tool. The personalities create the understanding of the prospective employees and how well they can adapt to the company’s corporate culture. Nonetheless, one caveat about the approach is that the recruiting department has to be overly aware of the personal traits while predicting an individual’s leadership effectiveness. Besides, the personalities have to aptly blend with the expectations of the organization to help achieve the mission and vision of the company.

Larry Page, the current Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, best elucidates the trait leadership theory. First, Page’s father was one of the pioneers in computer science as he attained a Ph.D. in the field and was introduced to various institutions. As such, his upbringing prepared him to be the leader he is today (McPherson 2010, p.9). Second, Page’s personality is everything. Without a shred of doubt, he is intelligent, creative and is innovation oriented. Besides, he is driven and collaborative which makes him highly influential on others. All these qualities contribute to his appreciation of novelty and the yearning to lead others in bringing inventive ideas and new-fangled thinking to the table. Even so, it is very apparent in his work philosophy that says, “We should be building things that don’t exist” (Google.org. 2018). Perhaps it is out of his leadership qualities that he was named among the top ten most influential people in the worldwide. Even employees posit that Page’s philosophy inspires them to drive technology forward. Page’s inspirational leadership is demonstrated by the firm’s unremitting innovativeness as well as great success.

Implication. Arguably, traits remain the same over time, which means that the traits of leaders do not change over time. The same can be inferred on the prolonged success of Google since it was founded. The founders and the top management have remained steadfast in the leadership qualities helping to steer the company into unprecedented heights. Notably, evidence supports the fact that many contemporary organizations are adopting various strategies to identify emerging leaders. These approaches include the use of behavioral traits and personality as the main selection tool. Google’s adaption of this strategy has equally been beneficial as it has enabled the identification of those individual traits that would blend well with the company’s culture and even succeed in leadership roles. Overall, the practice of the conception is a better fit for the Google as a contemporary organization.

2.1.2 Behavioral Theory

The behavioral theory of leadership is grounded on certain behaviors of leaders. Importantly, leaders’ behavior helps to determine whether such individuals can be influential or not. In turn, this helps to predict whether they can be a success or failure as leaders. Nonetheless, scholars such as Derue et al., (2011) postulates that the development of behavioral theory was born out of the criticism of the traits theory. As such, it can be argued that leadership abilities are not innate but rather they can be learned.

The behavioral theory majorly delves into concerned people as well as tasks. In this regard, it can be said to provide a roadmap that facilitates the conduct of a successful leadership in organizations. Being task-oriented has seen Page demand that the management staff keeps him updated on the current projects to ensure that the company achieves its motto quickly and efficiently. Concern for people means the level that leaders consider their employees’ interests, needs, and personal development areas while they partake in their duties. In Google, perhaps the academic ancestry of the founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with their own predispositions for autonomous thinking and research had a profound impression on their leadership style (Baldonado 2015, p.15). Their disposition is especially so in matters that pertain to the empowerment of their employees. The two founders and known to have a profound impact on Googlers and are said to constantly encourage them in coming up with innovative ideas (Kuntze and Matulich 2010, p.2).  As such, it shows that they have the best personal interest in them as they are concerned with their own development. Moreover, Google’s 70-20-10 policy concerning time allocation of employees is a true manifestation of the company’s concerns about the employees’ welfare (Towers 2006, p.18). 70% of workers’ time is dedicated to Google’s core businesses, 20% to off-budget tasks that are interrelated to the core businesses while 10% is left for the staffs to pursue their best interests.

Implication. Importantly, the concepts of the behavioral theory are well embedded in the policies and leadership at Google. However, critics point out that the theory is only concerned with the idea of leadership being developed in the course of one’s learning and life experiences. While growing up among influential people may have contributed to the leadership of Larry Page, it does not necessarily mean that learning and practices of behavior will facilitate a proper execution of the theory. In other words, the behavior in one circumstance can be challenging for another situation.

2.1.3 Transformational Leadership Theory

The idea of transformational leadership originated in the 1970s and since then it has been widely adopted. The idea behind this model is that leaders should inspire their followers for change through motivation, perception as well as mutual objectives to accomplish common goals (Aalateeg, 2017, p.41). Hence, it is worth noting that transformational leadership has various components. (1) The motivation of the followers to instigate a positive attitude and development. (2) The raising of awareness in order to improve the moral standards and the confidence level. (3) Focus on accentuating priorities and focusing on definite objectives. (4) Establishing an ethical environment through the sharing of values and, (5) freedom of speech as well as the choice of followers (Nawaz and Khan 2016, p.4). In this regard, it suffices that transformational leadership upholds a positive attitude with regard to the expectations and the belief that followers can do their best. Similarly, such leaders tend to inspire, empower and exceed the ordinary level of performance to high end. Of note is that such leaders put their energy and passion on what is ideal and has an overall benefit to the organization and the world in entirety. What matters is an only success and a positive change for such leaders.

To ensure that Google continues its growth and maintains its market position, Larry Page adopted a transformational approach in nearly every aspect that he engages in. The approach ensures that every Google employee remains motivated which increases their productivity. Just like Page, Alphabet’s top executives have the ability to motivate as well as push their followers to glory. What seems to never stop at Google is the drive to motivate and inspire employees (Towers 2006, p.17). What seems to cut across all the executives at Google is a combined idealized influence and inspirational motivation. Undoubtedly, Larry Page is inspiring for the entire Google fraternity as evinced by the corporation’s sustained innovation and great achievements. The inspiration is even palpable in his personal cache within the company where he amassed a 96% endorsement rating on employee-driven career site Glassdoor.

Transformational leaders also challenge their themselves as well as others for any task or situation at hand (Nawaz and Khan 2016, p.4). Besides, they also challenge their followers to be innovative, dynamic and more creative. For Page, innovation matters and is everything.  As the Alphabet’s CEO, he is often ready to impact positively and change Google for the better. His very open and equal leadership approaches urge employees to believe in innovative ideas and accept all those ideas that can change the world. On the other hand, Page’s leadership approaches have individualized consideration. His leadership is evident in Google’s genuine desire to consider the needs, relationships, feelings and the personal attention of followers. Besides, it is seen in the way the company offers benefits such as health and wellness insurance, retirement and savings programs and benefits beyond the basics such as tuition reimbursement, backup child care and free lunches and dinner (Kuntze and Matulich 2010, p.2). As such, the employees’ welfare consideration helps to bring out the best in terms of dedication and determination to the organization.

Implication. To a large extent, transformational leadership qualities exemplified by Larry Page as the company’s head provides a better fit between the theory and the practice. The concept offers Google a sense of direction and vision that Googlers work for. Importantly, it motivates individuals to give their best. As such, the employees tend to freely analyze and welcome any positive impact that can change the world while they are equally critical of the courses they do not believe in.

2.2 Management Theory

Similar to other studies of scientific discipline, many management theories emerged during the 20th

century. Nonetheless, some have gained more prevalence than the others. Importantly, it should be noted that the dawn of the industrial era compelled large organizations to be more efficient through the introduction of planning systems, effective utilization of resources and departmental structures (Olum 2004, p.11). The evolution led to three classical models with each adopting a distinct slant of management over the years. Developed by Fredrick Taylor, scientific management centered on the selection of the best people for the job. Additionally, it centered on the use of time and motion studies to enhance production efficiencies (Olum 2004, p.12). Today, while every organization wants to employ talented persons, Google has created a distinctive corporate culture that appeals to top-tier personnel and high performers. To exemplify the characteristics of this theory, Google has a recruitment policy that permits the selection of only class-A employees who can blend well with its culture.

In the 1920s, Max Weber pioneered an ideal bureaucratic form of management. The model is profoundly embedded in the organizational structure, systems, logic and impersonal rationality (Jadwala 2015, p.5). In the 1940s, Fayol and Bernard came up with concepts on the organization of distinct management responsibilities, segmentation of authority and division of labor. Later, it came to be referred to as the administrative school of classical management theory. Importantly, some characteristics of these theories can still be found in contemporary organizations such as Google which further accentuates their significance.

Arguably, increased realization that human beings are unpredictable and complex paved way for the emergence of the behavioral school of management. Pioneers like Maslow, McGregor, Hertzberg and Locke and Latham looked at human behavior in the organizational context. Their works probed the role of psychology and human needs in accomplishing organizational goals as well as motivating people to work (Olum 2004, p.16). Notably, it is worth emphasizing that many aspects of the classical approaches are prevalent in today’s organizations. Equally important is that concepts such as systems theory and contingency theory have helped shape novel management practices that were developed in the late 1970s. These models involve the understanding of organizations as a system that has inputs, resources, business processes and expected outputs. Other contemporary concepts founded on systematic theory comprise lean thinking and total quality management (TQM).

Recently, the management theory has been more inclined towards the refutation of universal ideas thereby favoring the contingency management. In other words, contemporary organizations tend to apply unique processes and techniques based on their organizational setting. Due to the diversity of industries and distinct internal and external situations, it makes sense that many organizations favor the contingency approach. While the significance of context has been underexplored, there is increased attention on the role of organizational setting in the development of leaders and managers. The table below captures the development of management theories over the years.

Table 3: Management theories

School

Theory

Description

Classical

Scientific management

Accentuates the effective management of workers and organizations

Bureaucratic management

Administrative management

Behavioral

Human relations

Emphasizes the understanding of human behavior within the organization

Behavioral science

Systems

Underlines the consideration of organizations as a system that converts inputs into desired outputs. All along the transformation, there is constant interaction with the environment’s longstanding and strategic thinking.

Contingency

Applies management principles as well as processes in consideration of the distinct characteristics of every situation (Bacher 2005, p.2).

2.2.0 Critical Evaluation of Management Theories and Practice

2.2.1 Scientific Management Theory

Notably, the scientific management is the forerunner in the study of management. The conception was developed by Fredrick Taylor following the need to increase productivity. While the model was widely adopted then, there are some aspects of the theory that are still evident in contemporary organizations (Olum 2004, p.12). The approach uses data along with measurements to make organizations more effective. The effect is attained through observations and evaluation of processes in numerical terms. As such, managers are able to distill information which consequently helps in making apt decisions and running the business profitably and efficiently. Overall, the theory majorly delves into the best way that tasks can be done through the elimination of wasteful operations. Besides, it focused on time and motion studies to determine the best time and nature of operations to ensure the successful completion of every...