Comparing and Contrasting the Functional and Relational Leadership Style

1.0 Introduction

This report is an analysis of the relationship and the variance between the exiting different leadership styles. Silva (2016) described a leadership style as to how a leader behaves and guides followers or employees. In this regard, since leadership is broadly defined as a behaviour, it means that the behaviours vary significantly from one leader to the other. This is the source of the leadership styles variances. This report develops an examination of two applicable leadership styles, the functional and the relational leadership styles. The analysis investigates the existing relationship and variations between the two leadership styles.

2.0 Literature Review

In discussing leadership styles, three dimensions come into play, they are (a) the leader behaviour, (b) the role of the followers, and (c) the situational and context of interaction. It is peed and based on these three dimensions that the leadership styles similarities and differences are analysed and investigated. On the one hand, the Uhl-Bien (2011) study describes the concept of leadership behaviour. The analysis, reflecting earlier finding by the Pless and Maak (2011) study, indicated that a leader could adopt a supportive, collaborative approach or an autocratic master-subject approach. The evaluations indicated that the application significance and value of each of how leadership behaviours vary based on the existing situational needs and the leadership traits and personalities.

Secondly, the Kahn, Barton and Fellows (2013) and Schweizer and Patzelt (2012) studies, although focusing on different market populations, indicated that the followers influence the applied leadership style. In this case, the two studies argued that the existing society culture influences the follower’s behaviour. In particular, the Uhl-Bien (2011) study quoted the high and low context culture model. It asserted that followers in different cultural contexts exhibited varied behaviours and preference for leadership styles. For instance, those in a low context culture, they focus on the actual interactions and giving of explicit orders. This is in contrast to these in high context culture who focus on additional contextual factors such as tone and nature of the leadership offered. Finally, Gittell and Douglass (2012) noted that the situation, implying the organisational and the market needs influence the leadership style and traits. In this case, the study demonstrated that changing and diverse markets demand shifting market and organisational leadership styles. The above findings offered the basis for analysing the two leadership styles. In this regard, their similarities and difference were hedged on the three aspects influencing and dictating a leadership style characteristic.

3.0 Discussion and Evaluation of the Approaches

This section develops a critical discussion of the two leadership styles similarities and differences. This is based on the identified measures under the literature review section.

3.1 Similarities

The main similarity and area of convergence between the two leadership styles is the focus and the orientation towards the followers. As Batista-Taran, Shuck, Gutierrez and Baralt (2013) indicated, the functional leadership model is poised and focused on mentoring and supporting the employees. In this case, the leaders are expected to offer practical support through demonstrating to the employees on the manner and process through which functions and duties are executed. It is a practical approach through which the leaders are expected to demonstrate through an efficient means on tasks and responsibilities execution.  This is the same scenario and focus under the relational leadership style. As Uhl-Bien (2011) noted, the focus of the leadership style is to support relations between the leader and the followers and among the followers. Through building the relationships, the leadership style anticipates that the leaders serve as the guidance, mentors and the motivators. Thus, they mentor followers in executing tasks and developing their talents. Hence, this analysis demonstrates that although through diverse approaches, the two leadership styles have a convergence in their focus on mentoring, expanding abilities, and nurturing the followers into skills and expertise acquired in the long-run period.

3.2 Differences

The main difference between the two leadership styles is pegged on the behaviour of the leaders. While as the functional leadership style projects a leader to offer the functional lead in the actual execution of tasks and activities, the relational leadership theory requires the leader to provide guidance and relationships among the followers. On the one hand, under the functional leadership style, the leaders are poised on performing specific functions. It is the responsibility of the leaders to execute these functions as a basis for supporting their followers. Thus, under the functional leadership model, the leaders are obligated to lead the team through their functional capability. Therefore, as Cunliffe and Eriksen (2011) noted, leaders who are considered to be a functional need to possess both the experience and the expert skills needed to execute specific functions. It is expected that the teams are led and guided by the leaders only through their actions and performing of the activities. Hence, under this leadership style, the primary and strategic focus is on functionality and the leader’s possession of expertise skills.

This is in contrast to the relational leadership style. On its part, Morgeson, DeRue and Karam (2010) noted that this leadership style is guided by the need to establish relations and connections. As such, the leaders are evaluated based on their ability to create and develop relationships with their followers. Thus, unlike the functional leadership style that is focused on leaders performing as an emulation, the relational leaders are largely gauged by their inter-personal skills. Thus, Santos, Caetano and Tavares (2015) illustrated has under the relational leadership style, the focus and priorities in creating connections. These are connections established in the form of teams among the followers. Once the teams are established, the leaders are expected to serve ad act as a mentor and a guide. Thus, unlike under the functional leadership where the expertise in tasks execution is required, the relational leadership style does not require the leaders to possess such skills. They are not involved in the actual functioning and execution of activities. Instead, their primary role is to guide and motivate employees.

The second area of divergence between the two leadership styles is in the applicability areas. On the one hand, Strese, Meuer, Flatten and Brettel (2016) noted that the functional leadership style is best applied in expertise projects. This is mainly in an instance where the leaders and the teams are functional over a given period. This is ideal in the instance where the projects and issues at hand require expertise and experienced leadership on specific expert area. On the contrary, Uhl-Bien (2011) argued that the relational leadership style is ideal and applied in continuous organisational contexts. This is a leadership style that is ideal in instances where the followers operate in perpetually working organisations and where the focus is on a wide range of contexts. This is applicable where the followers require not only functional but also diverse relational and other social contextual skills.

4.0 Conclusion

In summary, this report develops an analysis of functional and relational leadership styles. The analysis is pegged on the leadership dimensions of the leader’s behaviour, the follower’s expectations, and the contextual situations, respectively. First, in terms of the similarities, the report indicates that the two styles are similar in their focus on mentoring and developing the follower’s skills and expertise in both functional capabilities and their leadership skills. Secondly, concerning the differences, the analysis indicates that the two styles differ in their applicability and expected behaviour of the leaders.

References

Silva, A., 2016. What is leadership?. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 8(1), p.1.

Uhl-Bien, M., 2011. Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organising. In leadership, gender, and organisation (pp. 75-108). Springer, Dordrecht.

Pless, N.M. and Maak, T., 2011. Responsible leadership: Pathways to the future. Responsible leadership (pp. 3-13). Springer, Dordrecht.

Kahn, W.A., Barton, M.A. and Fellows, S., 2013. Organisational crises and the disturbance of relational systems. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), pp.377-396.

Schweizer, L. and Patzelt, H., 2012. Employee commitment in the post-acquisition integration process: The effect of integration speed and leadership. Scandinavian journal of management, 28(4), pp.298-310.

Uhl-Bien, M., 2011. Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organising. In leadership, gender, and organisation (pp. 75-108). Springer, Dordrecht.

Gittell, J.H. and Douglass, A., 2012. Relational bureaucracy: Structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), pp.709-733.

Batista-Taran, L.C., Shuck, M.B., Gutierrez, C.C. and Baralt, S., 2013. The role of leadership style in employee engagement.

Uhl-Bien, M., 2011. Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organising. In leadership, gender, and organisation (pp. 75-108). Springer, Dordrecht.

Cunliffe, A.L. and Eriksen, M., 2011. Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), pp.1425-1449.

Morgeson, F.P., DeRue, D.S. and Karam, E.P., 2010. Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), pp.5-39.

Santos, J.P., Caetano, A. and Tavares, S.M., 2015. Is training leaders in functional leadership a useful tool for improving the performance of leadership functions and team effectiveness?. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), pp.470-484.

Strese, S., Meuer, M.W., Flatten, T.C. and Brettel, M., 2016. Organisational antecedents of cross-functional coopetition: The impact of leadership and organisational structure on cross-functional coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, pp.42-55