Companies are managed by leaders who are either owners of the company or these nominated by a board to run the affairs of the companies. The origins of the company and the country it started operations and the way it grew initial days may reflect in the country’s operations later too. When companies belong to the public sector there is much evidence of a culture which was always seen as laid back and not so agile in decide on making and completing activities. In India specially the situation has been home -grown private sectors, public sectors and those companies with historical presence in India and considered as a foreign company in the private sector. Such companies also known as MNCs were found a shade better in their way of doing business and achieving objectives ethically and aggressively faster. The private sector always was in the shadows of such large MNCs and the government companies. Moreover, we had a large span of years of license raj that could never help companies grow fast as seen in the post license raj. Given these phases of organizations history – leadership across different companies was more due to the prevalent business climate than the actual practices of management. While the manager of a government company always found it difficult to get to work in a private sector – the manager never could not succeed as much as required. Similarly, the slow-moving public-sector companies never attracted the talent from the private sectors and the same worked for MNCs leaderships.
It became imperative to study the companies in the sectors they belonged too rather than compare them across cultures. In the first place there was no similar parameters to compare and secondly the way the growth of companies and profits were projected were not same. The motivation levels also of the employees were not found in a way that could be considered homogenous. Even after the advent of IT which makes most organizations look similar in their working methods and operations -the culture part is still seen to be different across various organizations in the public and private and MNC categories. We did find that processes may be similar but decision-making abilities differed in each type of company. Yet the end results clamored for by all companies was profits, survival, long term less customer satisfaction, being ahead of the race etc.
Any leadership effectiveness effort must prioritize the goals to be achieved and all assignments if taken in the line of a project management approach will enhance employee performance more by motivation and sometimes by reward too. What really motivates an employee, is the inherent start of his employment engagement. Many companies resort to a mild threat of retrenchment to make employees work harder. For those employees who need to be prodded all the time -motivational talks and high interpersonal skilled leaders could help companies in achieving objectives across organizations of all measures. Companies which grew leaps and bounds and those on a reasonable growth path, may have a formula to consolidate their operations through a thorough mix of use of man-machine-money-market-methods-manufacturing combination. The optimum or maximizing utilization of any resources including individual motivation and performance for team or company success rests under the hands of leadership who be certain of in getting the team to do task with more responsibilities and commitment. The team members also live up to the expectation of their bosses who have the interest of the members financial issues, career path and competency used effectively. Some organizations have all this structured and documented well enough to ensure there is compliance, commitment, completion and evaluation.
Companies which are more than five decades old including governmental organization (which is easy to find) will have a team of all ages of men and women. The company to continue its operation may have senior men and reasonably younger men at the top positions. In any such organizations the senior members are counted for experience and advice. The senior mentors the younger executives and at time take some ideas from the younger executives. Such organization thrives on the handing of the baton approach and ensures all events function as per anticipated planning and intentions. Typical organization in government is the military, public sector unites etc. In the private sector too companies like Unilever, Colgate -companies that are long and surviving in the market are known to have leadership styles that is transformational and motivating. Younger generation view transformational leadership more positively due to western values.
In companies where research and innovation are key driver to their growth and existence, the way the company works is different than many other organizations. It is not to say that an average company has no innovation to work on daily. The reason why companies of today must innovate is because others in the business are constantly in the lookout for cheaper alternatives for reducing costs and improving quality of their products. Sadly, organizations wait to see a new process, product, service offering and try to match the originator with a low-cost version. In doing so there is pressure to succeed. If companies see successes in such efforts, the rewards for employees -basically in the form of continued employment and other incentives start making them into a cohesive team.
Many companies which started as a means of providing some products and services in the world were by enterprising minds. The idea itself was convincing people to try the products/services. When these companies were required to be providing the products/services or became successful, it caused many others to follow suit and so with many companies today we have some leaders in each category of product/service. As management processes improved and the need for corporate leadership was essential – a new concept was being followed in the entire corporate world through standardization in the quality process and registering in various processes like ISO, etc. One aspect that caught the attention of the management worldwide was the definition of vision and mission concepts adopted by various organizations. Companies went to great lengths to define their corporate vision, mission and formed teams to ensure that they achieved the objectives they set. The vision mission and vision gave the companies the much-needed focus and strategy to be in the path of their strengths and gain on opportunities that came their way. The vision and mission statements had to be articulated in minimum words and had to be impactful worthy of being followed. These concepts also got companies and its various divisions to work independently in its own way to achieve its success yet succeed as a whole team for corporate success.
If a company must be ahead in the race, then the entire team of its executives must demonstrate teamwork and high calibre output based on set objectives. The teams and members must display high emotional intelligence, self-dependency on job completion and with minimum supervision. The leadership styles in such organizations could be of a dynamic and enduring kind. When such teams are defined as self-motivated and self-driven to achieve results and attributed to great leadership skills within the management and teams, the effectiveness of the organization increases. Very few companies exhibit such teamwork though all companies have these attributes in some measures.
