The contemporary view of leadership has evolved considerably with many scholars and experts in the field of leadership advocating for soft power and open-minded leadership techniques. The relationship between leaders and followers allows open and less stratified discourse. Marquardt in, “The Power Of Great Questions” divests from the traditional approach, where the leaders tend to tell as opposed to asking their employees of followers what to do (Marquardt, 2007). Given the complexity of knowledge and technology, it is not practical for managers to assume that they can tell their staff what to do since there is too much data for one person to manage. Proponents of action learning propose a similar logic by positing that leadership should pursue democratic rather than dictatorial approaches in dealing with their staff to empower them.
From a theoretical perspective, the arguments for soft power are undoubtedly superior in the logic they represent since they imply that power should be shared by the leaders and their followers. The theory of transformational leadership proposes that a leader should interact and motivate his or her followers as opposed to lording over them. From this perspective, leaders who lead with questions and invest power in their followers are more likely to be successful (Bass, 1991; Smith, 1997).
From a practical point of view, employees tend to respond to appreciation from their leaders by being more productive. In fact, appreciation improves their levels of creativity since they perceive that their interests are protected. Employees like to feel respected and this is best achieved when their bosses give them autonomy. The hard approaches to power are seen to be effective in the short run while in the long run they prove to be counterproductive.
To attain organizational learning (OL), several suggestions have been put forward. They focus on workers’ interests and deal with unjust organizational practices. In addition, the suggestions aim at using democracy so that a leader uses power with people rather than use power over them. From a theoretical point of view, this may appear ideal, but it is worth noting that, in the end, the central purpose of the OL approach is to improve the productivity of employees and not necessarily emancipate them. As a result, OL has been critiqued as being a self-serving rather than an emancipatory ideology, which seeks to maintain the status quo (Fenwick, 2003). This has brought it into conflict with thinkers and scholars who subscribe to the neo Marxist or feminist schools of thought, which view it as potentially oppressive to employees. Marquardt proposes that when leaders are faced with problems, they should not respond by trying to solve them from their own point of view, but by asking the right questions. This way, they give the staff an opportunity to troubleshoot the problem without pressuring them, which allows them to gain self-confidence. Self-confidence is a state in which they will most likely come up with the best solutions to various problems (Smith, 1997).
Strachan (2007) proposes several questions as well as structures through which leaders and managers in various organizations should engage their personnel in the process of problem solving. The author suggests that both open and closed questions should be applied in the management of firms. However, closed questions should be used when leaders want to give their workers more autonomy and encourage them to think in an unrestricted and unencumbered way (Strachan, 2007). Ultimately, when leaders ask questions, they recognize the knowledge and skills in their staff. The approach is important because, at the end of the day, leaders understand their jobs and the underlying challenges (Tolbert, 1999).
Action learning is one of the most important theories dedicated to solving contemporary work related problems. The theory proposes that finding solutions to problems should not be the responsibility of team leaders or managers. On the contrary, solutions should be sourced from all personnel working collaboratively. In fact, workers use their experiences and skills based on their understanding of the issues at hand (Mumford, 1996). With time, conventional training and development in the field of problem solving is becoming less effective. As a result, leaders are opting to test the action-based approaches that tend to focus on people and their capabilities as individuals and team members as opposed to the technical qualifications and experience.
Much of what has been examined here points to a working environment, where the leadership is transformational, since it is the only leadership style with sufficient latitude to accommodate the diverse requirements of a rapidly changing business world. One of the key attributes of transformational leaders is their ability to inspire and spur creativity in their followers. In this regard, managing with the use of questions is a perfect example of how transformational leaders would lead their staff. Through vesting power in their staff and allowing them autonomy, leaders can inspire followers as well as gain their respect. Ultimately, personnel could be motivated to work harder and smarter. The basis of motivation is not financial rewards, but making workers feel appreciated and respected by their leaders.
References
Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Emancipatory potential of action learning: a critical analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(6), 619-632.
Marquardt, M. (2007). The Power of Great Questions. New York, NY. Jossey Bass.
Mumford, A. (1996). Effective learners in action learning sets. Employee Counselling Today, 8(6), 3-10.
Smith, P. A. C. (1997). Questioning action learning: more on minding our Ps and Qs. Management Decision, 35(5), 365-372.
Strachan, D. (2007). Making Questions Work. New York, NY: Jossey Bass.
Tolbert, W. (1999) The Distinctive Questions Developmental Action Enquiry Asks. Management Learning. 30(2), 189-206.