leadership
DESCRIPTION
Compare & contrast two world leadersTRANSCRIPT
www.biography.com www.graychampion.com
Dr. KENNETH LAY Dr. MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr.
Word Count: 2689
Assignment Topic
Compare and contrast two leaders, at least one of whom must be a business leader. Which of the two
was the more effective leader? Why? What skills did they demonstrate? These two leaders must be
explicitly named in your assignment and will be drawn from your knowledge of them or from
biographies of modern-day leaders. Provide enough details of these two leaders so that a reader,
who does not know of them, will be able to follow the points about them that you are making. Your
assignment should demonstrate that you know what makes a successful leader, manager, and
entrepreneur in any situation.
An analysis of two modern-day Leaders
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
These two world renowned disparate leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Dr. Kenneth Lay, add
credence to the statement “Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime and,
departing, leave behind us footprints on the sands of time” (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012. p, 3).
Their backgrounds, personalities, followers, situations and vocations were divergent, yet both have left a
lasting impact on millions of people and institutions world wide.
This paper compares and contrasts these two leaders utilising a number of leadership theories, models
and principles, to critically analyse the relative effectiveness of these two leaders and assent to the more
effective leader.
Recommendations are proffered as to those attributes that would enable both leaders to be more
effective.
i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................1
2. Biography: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. & Dr. Kenneth Lay....................................................................2
2.1 Brief biography of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr...................................................................................2
2.2 Brief biography of Dr. Kenneth Lay..................................................................................................3
3. Comparative analysis of both leaders, utilising the theories on leadership.............................................4
3.1 Bass’s theory of transformational and transactional leadership........................................................4
3.2 Values, ethics and morals..................................................................................................................4
3.3 Rocket model of team effectiveness..................................................................................................5
3.4 Dark - side personality traits..............................................................................................................6
3.5 Power and influence..........................................................................................................................7
4. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................8
Recommendations........................................................................................................................................9
References..................................................................................................................................................10
Appendix....................................................................................................................................................12
Figure 1. The interactional framework for analysing leadership..............................................................12
Figure 2. The rocket model of team performance.....................................................................................13
Figure 3. Dark-side personality traits........................................................................................................14
ii
1. Introduction
A proficuous and symbiotic relationship between leader and followers in an environment conducive to
the vagaries of change spewed forth leaders of the calibre of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Dr. Kenneth
Lay. They are spoken of as leaders because they fit into several well enunciated definitions of
leadership. Leadership has been defined in the following ways, (Powell) “Leadership is the art of
accomplishing more than the science of management says is possible”, (Bennis, 1995) “The process by
which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a desired manner”, (Merton, 1959; Hogan, Curphy
and Hogan, 1994) “An interpersonal relationship in which others comply because they want to, not
because they have to” (Bass, 1985; Tichy and Devanna,1986) “Transforming followers, creating visions
of the goals they may obtain, and articulating the ways they may obtain those goals”, (Fielder, 1967)
“Directing and coordinating the work of group members”, (Roach and Behling, 1984) “The process of
influencing an organized group toward accomplishing its goal” (University of Houston’s Center for
Applied Leadership). The two leaders analysed in this report exhibit, all the qualities stated in the
various definitions, but are not limited by the definitions of the authors quoted above. According to the
definitions above it can be summarised that leadership is about an agent transforming the behaviour of
followers given the situation they are addressing, to achieve an objective that is above and beyond the
capability of either party.
The Interactional Framework for analysing leadership (Appendix Figure 1.) is adopted in this paper and
highlights the aspect of the complex set of interactions among the leader, the followers and the situation
(Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2012, p.15). A number of leadership theories, models and principles,
referenced in this paper also allow us, in hindsight, to critically analyse the relative effectiveness of
these two world renowned leaders and assent to the more effective leader.
This paper begins with a brief biography of both leaders and is followed by an analytical examination of
their leadership skills. The biographies cited describe Dr. Kenneth Lay as a businessman and
entrepreneur and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a civil rights leader. The paper concludes with the results
from the analytical examination which gave credence to the selection of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as
the more effective leader.
1
2. Biography: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. & Dr. Kenneth Lay
2.1 Brief biography of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. named Michael King at birth (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) like
all great visionaries, is remembered not so much for his courage, his determination, and his
ability to inspire and lead, but ultimately, for the power of the ideas and things he created – or
perhaps, more to the point – illuminated — that continue to outlive him.
In December 1955, King was selected to head the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA)
to protest the arrest of NAACP official Rosa Parks for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white
man. King utilized the leadership abilities he had gained from his religious background and
academic training to forge a distinctive protest strategy that involved the mobilization of black
churches and skilful appeals for white support. Dr. King stood on the side of those who sought to
abolish a century’s old, state-sanctioned system of segregation. (Kent, 2010)
One of the key aspects of King’s leadership was his ability to establish support from many types
of organizations including labour unions, peace organizations, southern reform organizations,
and religious groups. King’s ability to focus national attention on orchestrated confrontations
with racist authorities, combined with his oration at the 1963 March on Washington, made him
the most influential African-American spokesperson of the first half of the 1960s. Named Time
magazine’s “Man of the Year” at the end of 1963, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in
December 1964. (Martin Luther King Jr. and The Global Freedom Struggle)
2
2.2 Brief biography of Dr. Kenneth Lay
Dr. Kenneth Lee "Ken" Lay (April 15, 1942 – July 5, 2006) was an American businessman and
entrepreneur, best known for his role in the widely reported corruption scandal that led to the
downfall of Enron Corporation.
Kenneth L. Lay's life began in poverty, but his stature rose so high that he once turned down an
offer to join the elder George Bush's cabinet because he deemed the position of Secretary of
Commerce to be beneath his dignity Top executives within the company liked Lay as a person,
but as a leader, he was a pushover. When Lay gave his executives an inch, they took a mile. In
the early 2000s he fell from admired leader to despised failure: he looted billions of dollars for
the sake of self-aggrandizement and self-indulgence, bringing about catastrophe for tens of
thousands of victims and misery for millions more.
Enron's corporate culture changed radically during the mid 1990s. Lay was an affable, relaxed
man who had run Enron like a club of old friends; with the arrival of Skilling the corporate
climate became cutthroat. Bonuses and salaries became dependent on the closing of deals—any
kind of deals—and employees stopped working together, instead battling each other for the
rights to each deal made. (Reference for Business)
3
3. Comparative analysis of both leaders, utilising the theories on leadership
3.1 Bass’s theory of transformational and transactional leadership
Dr King demonstrated in his protest marches and speeches that he possessed the ability to move
individuals beyond normal expected performance to higher achievement and maturity levels (Bass
1995). Dr. King was selected to head the MIA because the founders of that movement saw the power
and confidence he displayed, his willingness to make personal sacrifices, champion new possibilities
and his ability to articulate a compelling vision of the future (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012. p, 591).
As a visionary Dr. King was able to create that clear vision and goal that everyone rallied around, and
this was critical especially given the short time he had in preparing to champion the cause for the
injustice of the various ideals he protested against (Aldridge, M, Johnson, C, Stoltzfus, J, 2003).
Dr. Lay on the other hand allowed his top executives unfettered authority and he adopted a laissez- faire
leadership approach (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012. p, 592). Dr. Lay’s demise began as his
leadership style slowly transformed from Transformational to Transactional, he did not intervene and
put a stop to the squabbles between his top executives. He was contented to perpetuate the status quo,
he was no longer revered as an admired leader but was seen as a despised failure ( Hughes, Ginnett &
Curphy, 2012. p, 590).
3.2 Values, ethics and morals
“Every man must decide for himself whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the
darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life's most persistent and urgent question,
what are you doing for others?” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The quote from Dr. King above highlights those values personified in his leadership throughout his life.
As an effective leader Dr. King was conscientious, portrayed self- confidence, energy, agreeableness,
intelligence, and was emotionally stable. (Kets de Vries 1994).
4
The two leaders being analysed in this paper were nurtured in different eras and under radically different
social, political and economic conditions, and although they were both expected as leaders to ascribe to
the highest pinnacle of values, ethics and morals prevailing at the time, this paper reserves accolades for
those high ideals only for Dr. King and proffers these attributes as the main reason for the fall from
grace of Dr. Lay.
It can be argued that Hubris, that arrogance which brings down the successful and powerful, was one of
the factors that perpetrated the fall of Dr. Lay. His greed and arrogance together with the fact that he was
extremely narcissistic, prone to excessive self-promotion, and intense competition even at the expense of
ethical principles was his undoing (Organizational and Leadership Issues at Enron). Had Dr. Lay
subscribed to the Ethics statement of the company he led he would have resigned from such an unethical
company ( Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012. p, 152).
3.3 Rocket model of team effectiveness
The rocket model both prescribes and analyses the efficacy of the groups (Appendix Figure 2.) that Dr.
King was able to organise. Dr. King garnered support from a plethora of organizations, inclusive of but
not restricted to, religious, civil and labour based organisations. Dr. King was able to harness the
expertise residing in those groups and with their common mission to seek the end of segregation, and
was able to illicit tremendous buy-in for the cause. The norms of non violence were clearly understood
by all and morale although it wavered, because there were several dehumanising clashes with the
establishment of the time, remained buoyant. Dr. King would place himself at the head of his protest
marches, and clearly made the decisions as to where he was taking his followers and made on the spot
decisions as the situation changed. Positive results, although at times slow in coming, were realised and
this further empowered Dr. King and his organisation (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012. p, 449)
5
Utilising the rocket model as a diagnostic tool for assessing Dr, Lay’s leadership of his executive team,
it can be reasoned that because as stated in the article by Ross (Ross, 2009), “Dr. Lay did little to
control or stop his top executives from running Enron into the ground, and that the power struggles
between fierce rivals were not unnoticed by Dr. Lay, but he just failed to act upon fixing the problem.
There were no “normative patterns” within how Enron was managed, but instead, Lay allowed his top
executives to invest in riskier and more dangerous endeavors, eventually leading to the downfall of the
entire company”, all part of the assessment for a dysfunctional team (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012.
p, 455).
3.4 Dark - side personality traits
Although it is true to say that everyone has at least one dark-side personality trait, Dr. King’s trait of
“imaginative” (Appendix Figure 3.) had more of a positive impact. Dr. King’s imaginative nature
underpinnings were altruistic in intent and for the good of humanity and not self serving. Being
cognisant of the fact he was protesting against institutionalised and established racism, to some he
appeared to be eccentric and a number of his decisions at the time may have appeared to be strange or
odd (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012. p, 643).
Dr. Lay on the other hand can be given a few of the dark side personality traits of mischievous, bold
and leisurely. Dr. Lay was mischievous enough to believed he could break the rules of financial trading
with impunity and get away with it. Dr. Lay boldly blamed the collapse of the organisation on the other
executives and claimed he was unaware of the unethical dealings being carried out under his nose. Dr
Lay leisurely was all consumed with greed, and self aggrandisement (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy, 2012.
p, 643).
6
3.5 Power and influence
Subscribing to the sources of power in French and Raven’s taxonomy this paper demonstrates that both
Dr. King and Dr. Lay exercised such power utilising varied bases of power in their respective vocations.
A more detailed analysis follows.
Dr. King is often referred to as the greatest orator the world has ever heard, his powerful words from his
speeches still reverberate in the hearts and minds of individuals aligned to the tenets of freedom, justice
and equality for all. This expert power of oration was his single most powerful tool used to influence
others.
Dr. King was blessed with the gift of communicating complex knowledge in understandable and
interesting ways that fired up the emotion of those he spoke to and convinced them to participate in the
causes he spoke about ( Romig, D 2002 p.14)
Dr .King’ legitimate power was unchallenged as he was revered as the master servant of the several
organisations he led. His referent power was demonstrated time and time again as he marched arm in
arm with fellow organisers and followers of the civil rights movement. Sacrificing his personal safety
and security Dr. King’s exemplary leadership sustained others to persevere with him in the face of
prosecution and persecution.
Dr. Lay was equally impressive; no one doubted the expert power of this leader. Dr. Lay was a
financial wizard and provided efficient direction to the companies and organisations he led because he
knew the business and industry better than most leaders of his time ( Romig, D 2002 p.14) His expertise
was sought by the President of the most powerful nation on earth to lead a government department, yet he
felt it was below his dignity to accept such an offer.
Like Dr. King his legitimate power was unchallenged, his reward and coercive power is what
differentiates him from Dr. King.
Dr. Lay used his power to reward and punish others in his dealings with his fellow executives by
turning a blind eye to the illegal activities they were engaged in and allowing full autonomy once
financial results were achieved. Those who did not comply were fired.
7
4. Conclusion
Utilising the above theories, models and principles in the analysis of both Dr. King and Dr. Lay it is
clearly illustrated that Dr. King was an Ethical, Charismatic, Transformational/Visionary, civil rights
leader. King left a legacy of morality, non violence and justice for all.
Though Dr. Lay was an astute businessman and entrepreneur his legacy was one of notoriety and he is
best known for his role in the widely reported corruption scandal that led to the downfall of Enron
Corporation.
Adhering to the highest pinnacle of values, ethics and morals so succinctly enunciated in Dr. King’s
quote on this subject, is the foremost of several recommendations proffered for these two leaders and all
persons in or aspiring to leadership positions
This paper has therefore provided compelling evidence to support the assertion that, of the two leaders
that have been compared and contrasted the reasons why and the skills they demonstrated to arrive at the
conclusion that Dr. Martin Luther King was the more effective of the two
This paper comprehensively concludes that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was more effective as a leader
than Dr. Kenneth Lay and proffers several recommendations uppermost amongst them is that all leaders
must ascribe to the highest pinnacle of values, morals and ethics
8
Recommendations
Leaders must not only achieve their strategic imperatives but achieve those imperatives in a manner that
is deeply rooted in well founded principles of values, ethics and morals; Dr. King not only preached
these attributes but lived them. It is recommended that Dr. Lay needed to embody the well written
ethics statement of his organisation.
Arrogance, excessive pride and self confidence must be rooted out from the hearts of leaders and
replaced with humility, tolerance and justice for all as exemplified by Dr. King, this trait would also
have contributed to making Dr. Lay a more effective leader.
No leader should adopt a laissez - faire attitude to leadership as practiced by Dr. Lay, it is recommended
that this attitude be replaced with a more emotionally involved approached as demonstrated time and
time again by Dr. King. Although it may be argued that a leader cannot motivate a follower and that
motivation is a personal choice, it is likewise suggested that an effective leader can provided the
appropriate atmosphere for such self actualisation (Emrit D).
A clearly defined strategic direction that elicits buy-in from followers while adhering to the norms and
ethical values of the entity one is entrusted with the power to lead is another of the recommendations to
improve the effectiveness of Dr. Lay. The effectiveness of Dr. King was well demonstrated in these
attributes.
Finally it is recommended that those who wield power must guard against utilising that power in a self
serving manner as Dr. Lay did, but instead he should utilise that power to bequeath a positive legacy in
the sands of time for all mankind the same way Dr. King did.
.
9
References
Aldridge, M, Johnson, C, Stoltzfus, J, 2003, ‘Leadership development at 3M: New process, new techniques, new growth’, Human Resource Planning, vol. 6, no. 3, pp.45- 55.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York.
Emrit, D 2011, You are in Charge, viewed 3 October 2012, http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dexter_Emrit>
Gosling, J & Mintzberg, H 2003, ‘The Five Minds of a Manager’, Harvard Business Review, November, pp. 54-63.
Huges, R., Ginnett, R., Curphy G., (2012), Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience, 7th
edition, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York.
Kent, M 2010, Martin Luther King Jr. Beyond, viewed 03 October 2012, http://yearslaterwewouldremember.com/2010/01/dr-martin-luther-king-jr-and-beyond/>
University of Houston’s Center for Applied Leadership, Leadership Fundamentals , viewed 3 October 2012, < http://www.class.uh.edu/rotc/corpsofcadets/_docs/Leadership%20Basics.pdf>.
Martin Luther King Jr. and The Global Freedom Struggle n.d., viewed 02 October 2012,< http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_martin_luther_king_jr_biography/>
"Organizational and Leadership Issues at Enron" 15 May 2012.viewed 04 October. 2012. <http://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/organizational-and-leadership-issues-at-enron-150986/>
Romig, D 2002, Organizational and Leadership Issues at Enron, viewed 03 October 2012, <http://bucknellorgtheory09.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/ken-lays-authority/>
Powell, C. , General Colin Powell on Leadership, United Colleges of Martial Arts Inc, viewed 03 October 2012 <https://sites.google.com/a/ucmartialarts.net/www/general-colin-powell-on-leadership>
Reference for Busines nd, viewed 02 October 2012, <http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/F-L/Lay-Ken-1942.html#ixzz27y8hWhGC>
Ross 2009, Ken Lay’s Authority, viewed 02 October 2012, <http://bucknellorgtheory09.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/ken-lays-authority/>
10
Appendix
Figure 1. The interactional framework for analysing leadership
11
Figure 2. The rocket model of team performance
12
Moving Away
Excitable Moody and hard to please; intense, but short lived, enthusiasm for people, projects, and things
Skeptical Cynical, distrustful, and doubtful of others’ true intentions
Cautious Reluctant to take risks for fear of being rejected or negatively evaluated
Reserved Aloof, detached, and uncommunicative; lacking interest in or awareness of the feelings of others
Leisurely Independent; ignoring peoples’ requests and becoming irritated or argumentative if they persist
Moving Against
Bold Unusually self-confident; feelings of grandiosity and entitlement; over-evaluation of one’s capabilities
Mischievous Enjoys risk taking and testing limits; needs excitement; manipulative, deceitful, cunning, and exploitative
Colorful Expressive, animated, and dramatic; wanting to be noticed and needing to be the center of attention
Imaginative Acting and thinking in creative and sometimes odd and unusual ways
Moving TowardDutiful Eager to please, reliant on others for support and guidance; reluctant to take independent action
Diligent Meticulous, precise, perfectionistic; inflexible about rules and procedures; critical of others’ performance
13
Figure 3. Dark-side personality traits
14