Abstract
The inherent assumptions in organisational management indicate that the successful implementation of current and visionary strategies is dependent on the strengths and demonstration of leadership which focus on eliminating likely functional and environmental lapses that portend failure in achievement overall growth objectives. As opposed to rigid organisational management styles, flexible and informed leadership is perceived to be the ultimate solution to the successful achievement of both short-term and long-term objectives in organisations. This essay analyses leadership styles with reference to two world-class leaders.
Introduction
Leadership styles are the definitive components of management approaches and are primarily concerned with the human factors at work. Human relations theory is the underlying concept that defines leadership approaches to issues such as change management, employee motivation, and interpersonal communication. According to Mullins (2002) “human relations, social relationships, and individual behaviours at work are of the utmost importance in determining the management practices in an organization” (p.52). This acknowledgement is the hallmark of organisational development theory that emphasized the human aspects of the organisation while fully recognizing the implications of the nature of interactions among people to the final outcome of their performance standards (Rhydderch et al., 2006).
To this end, the alignment of individual aspirations to the overall goals and aspirations of an organisation go a long way in bolstering organisational synergy whereas the persistence of variance between individual and organisation aspirations impact negatively on change management (Armenakis & Bedelan, 1999). This essay analyses the leadership styles of two world-class leaders: Microsoft founder, Bill Gates and investment mogul Warren Buffett.
Bill Gates was born in Seattle, Washington in 1955. He was the enigmatic founder of the Microsoft Corporation, an empire that grew over the years to become a dominant global entity employing more than 71,000 people in more than103 countries (Bono & Heller, 2006a). Warren Buffett, on the other hand, was born in Omaha, Nebraska in August 30, 1930 (Biography.com web site, 2012). According to the Biography.com web site, he engaged in his first entrepreneurial venture at the tender age of 11 and went on to become Forbes’ world’s richest man with a net worth in excess of $40 billion in 2008. Buffett owns the Berkshire Hathaway and owns controlling shares in dozens of leading conglomerates worldwide.
Similarities between the Two Leaders
The most basic similarities between the two leaders is that both of them were immensely wealthy and led multi-billion organizations that boasted global presence. Both Gates and Buffett acknowledged cultural differences that defined different regions and countries of the world. This was demonstrated by their sensitivity and flexibility on management issues that concerned their international business entities (Bono & Heller, 2006). Indeed, as pragmatic leaders of international organisations, Gates and Buffett pursued strategic approaches that involved allowing flexibility for local employee and acculturation processes for foreign employees (Bono & Heller, 2006). This enabled their international business units to achieve interactions with their prevailing cultural orientations.
To this end, cultural sensitivity and flexibility objectively guided managers in their quest to demonstrate and observe intercultural sensitivity with the ultimate goals of appropriately adjusting their human resources management applications (Richard & Johnson, 2001). According to Richard & Johnson (2001) this human resource management strategy is founded on the recognition of the fact that culture in its narrow sense represents a set of historically evolved, learned and shared values, attitudes, and meanings which influence organisational activities at the micro-level in terms of workplace behaviours, management of personnel, managing and relationships between subordinates and superiors.
Differences between the Two Leaders
Gates was a controlling and hand-on operative who deeply participated in the day-to-day management of Microsoft to the tiniest detail. Bono and Heller (2006) contended that Gates had “an obsession with detail and with checking up (he even used to sign expenses for his right-hand man, Steve Ballmer).” In contrast, Buffett was a hands-off leader who granted a lot of freedom to his managers. According to Bono & Heller (2006) “Buffett wanted Berkshire Hathway’s managers to think like owners.” He successfully allowed working groups and teams to thrive in his companies. This way, he was able to use the teams to streamline their individual aspirations towards the general objectives of the organisations. According to Rhydderch et al. (2006) the gradual application of such working and cooperation strategies leads to the achievement of flexibility, free flow of information, empowerment and ultimately, improved performance.
In contrast to Gates, Buffetts’s core responsibilities by their very nature, entailed a lot of negotiations on high-stake and sometimes risky investments. His primary role involved ensuring that he negotiated for worthwhile investments in his pursuits for rewarding portfolios (Bono & Heller, 2006). This approach was in tandem with the social worlds theory that emphasized on negotiation as a tool for seeking common ground for competing or conflicting interests so as to achieve unified approach to work processes in organisations (Rhydderch et al., 2006). Therefore, the social worlds theory presented the basis through which Buffett pursued his individual beliefs as to what constituted the right procedures in addition to adjusting to the standards set by his companies as the right working procedures.
Conclusion
If given the opportunity, I would lead my organisation exactly like Buffett did. His leadership style was exemplary and motivating to his managers and employees. In contrast, if I was in Bill Gates’ position, I would completely change my leadership style. Indeed, the tight hands-on approach that Gates employed was detrimental to the motivation of employees. Just like Bono & Heller (2006) acknowledged, gates was “supposed to stand clear of the day-to-day management of these divisions and to concentrate on broad strategy.” Indeed, unlike the sequential progression expected of a management process, organisational leadership assumes the position of a learning organisation and subsequently sets the basis for formulating and implementing strategies in integrative and complimentary fashion out of recognition of the reality that knowledge cannot always be assumed to be perfect, subject to the prevailing conditions in the external and internal organisational environment.
References
Armenakis, A. A. & Bedelan, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3): 293-315.
Bono, E., & Heller, R. (2006). Management styles & leadership styles of Warren Buffett & Bill Gates. Web.
Bono, E., & Heller, R. (2006). Microsoft management. Web.
Mullins, L. J. (2002), Management and organizational behaviour, (6th ed.), Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Ltd.
Rhydderch, M., Elwyn, G., Marshal, M., & Grol, R. (2006). Organisational change theory and the use of indicators in general practice. BMJ Journal, 215-221.
Richard, O. C. & Johnson, N. B. (2001). Strategic human resource management effectiveness and firm performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 20: 299-310.
Warren Buffett Biography. (2012). Web.