The position of a leader is an instrumental part for a team and an organization. An individual with power can help build a team that grows and achieve lasting change. Under the wrong circumstances, a pseudo leader will abuse the hierarchal system and treat followers unequally. The film industry is one of many work environments that demonstrate the variations of leadership. It is a field that thrives on the talent from creative artists around the world. Genuine leaders will know how to utilize creativity and avoid putting limitations on it for personal gain. The 2018 year will be remembered for the prominent changes the film industry made with leadership roles.
Greta Gerwig is a rising director who has used her vision to make an impact with movies. She has used strategies from the situational approach to adapt to the testosterone soaked industry. Based on statistics, women accounted for 8% of directors working on the top 250 films in 2018 (Lauzen, M). While the gender gap is unequal, Greta proved that her directorial style is effective in a male dominated industry. Her leadership style is defined through a coaching style. The high directive-high supportive style focuses on communication to achieve an instrumental goal (Northouse, 2016). In 2018, Greta led a production crew for her sophomore film Little Women. The coaching style has leaders communicating with different followers about their input. While directors are talented individuals, they cannot do everything by themselves. They have to work with cinematographers, actors, sound engineers, and costume designers. Collaboration is a valued part of the filmmaking process. However, similar to directors, the coaching style has leaders making the final decision.
Based on the end product, Greta was working with D4 followers that have a high degree of determination. One of the strengths that situation leadership has is that it emphasizes leadership flexibility (Northouse, 2016). A leader can change their style when followers do not meet the requirements of a goal. The director of a film must always make sure their staff understands the vision they want to achieve. Leaders will know how to approach each person in a department, and ensure every person is doing their job appropriately. Little Women became a profitable success by surpassing its 40 million budget, and making over 163 million at the box office. Greta’s success as a leader can also be attributed to the transformational leadership approach. She has transitioned from being an unknown indie actor to an Oscar nominated director. Her movies have become a representation of the influence women can have in the history of filmmaking. It has also raised concerns and awareness about the dangers of gender bias. Transformational leadership challenges followers to do more than what is expected of them. Her ascent to directing has raised the hopes for young aspiring female artist to pursuit their dreams in the field. The financial success of a movie plays a minimal role when there is a substantial change for the future.
Greta is one of many new artists that are tackling the constant battle of diversity in the film industry. Their leadership styles are a response to the transactional style of leadership that runs Hollywood. The downfall of pseudo leaders like Harvey Weinstein are a testament to the changes society is making. Followers have grown tired of the coercive power approach, and want to work in an environment where people can share positive ideas. The creative process should be void of preconceived thoughts, and be free to allow artistic expression.
References
Lauzen, M. (2018) The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind the scenes employment of women on the top 100, 250, and 500 films of 2019. Celluloid Ceiling.
Retrieved from: https://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2017_Celluloid_Ceiling_Report.pdf
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
hxu5004 says
This is quite a thought-provoking post. Indeed, leadership is a crucial determinant of organizational success, and with poor leadership techniques, a firm is likely to fail. To some degree, this post points to the thin line between leadership and management, which most people often confuse. The definitions of transformational and transactional leadership styles, as in the post, are synonymous to Algahtani’s (2014) and Wajdi’s (2017) definitions of leadership and management, respectively. Your post sufficiently explains the essence of collaborative leadership in a bid to realize organizational goals. However, the post does not touch on the fact that different leadership styles are necessary for different situations. Hence, coercive styles are just as essential as collaborative approaches are, just that their conditions for application differ.
A leader is influential, while a manager has authority. Katz (1955) stated that management is about “exercising direction of a group or organization through executive, administrative, and supervisory positions” (Algahtani, 2014, p. 74). A manager is entitled to exercise their control over a group of people; thus, they can use coercive means to ensure that their will is done as in the case of transactional leadership (Northouse, 2016). Leadership, on the other hand, is “the process of influencing a group of individuals to obtain a common goal; and to develop a vision” (Algahtani, 2014, p. 75). That definition is similar to what transformational leadership entails, as it is about motivating people to transform towards the achievement of a common goal (Northouse, 2016). Various styles of leadership could, therefore, be termed as either leadership or management.
Despite the dissimilarity in the definitions of leadership and management, both are necessary for the success of any organization. As observed by Algahtani (2014, p. 80), “Every organization needs managers and leaders, and their roles should be viewed as complementary to one another.” A similar view is presented in Northouse (2016) that suggested leadership styles should differ depending on the situation at hand. That implies that one needs to exercise the roles of both a manager and a leader in various situations to ensure organizational growth (Wajdi, 2017). Inevitably, management and leadership are both critical towards the success of an organization.
With that in mind, the statement, “Followers have grown tired of the coercive power approach, and want to work in an environment where people can share positive ideas” should not be a reason entirely adopt transformational leadership. The disadvantage of transformational leadership is that people may take advantage of it. Moreover, a leader may enforce a vision that does not positively impact on the organizational objective (Northouse, 2016). The essence of power is to achieve desired goals, and there exist various techniques of motivating employees. The Carrot and Stick Theory, for instance, suggests that those in leadership positions sometimes need to be coercive to realize their organizational objectives (Dartey-Baah & Ampofo, 2016). Henceforth, though employees’ feelings matter, it is equally important to consider the organization’s aims and objectives.
In conclusion, all the approaches to leadership, as discussed by Northouse (2016) apply in different circumstances. It is not accurate to assume that failure in Hollywood is a result of coercive leadership. Instead, it could be due to over-reliance of coercive leadership, with minimal involvement of the people. Therefore, future leaders should consider balancing between force and persuasion to succeed in their administrative duties.
References:
Algahtani, A. (2014). Are leadership and management different? A review. Journal of Management Policies and Practices, 2(3), 71-82.
Dartey-Baah, K., & Ampofo, E. (2016). “Carrot and stick” leadership style. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. 7th Edition. Sage publications.
Wajdi, B. N. (2017). The differences between management and leadership. Sinergi: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Manajemen, 7(1).