Post 441 –by Gautam Shah
A Design organization is nominally owned and operated by a Designer or Group of Designers. This is often a requirement for professions covered by Government recognized councils (like Architecture) in some countries of the world. For most other design fields this may not be a requirement.
In design organizations convener of the entity is a ‘person of authority’, such as a President or a chairperson and is the prime leader. A Design organization is launched and continued (taken over) by person/s who have one or several of these authorities: the ability to hire and so influence, motivates, and enables others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations. Three distinct authorities are identified, and a Design organization chiefs have these in various proportions.
● Formal authority to lead an organization is acquired by the capacity to reimburse or compensate people who work for the organization.
● Technical authority derives from superior knowledge, expertise, skill, experience, etc.
● Personal authority is a function of Personality attributes such as: age, sex, race, bearing, determination, will power, appearance, charisma, height, weight, etc.
Conveners of design organization, who lack these features, try to make it up by other means. Formal authority can be procured by having a financier partner or associate, or an official appointment. Technical authority can be secured by hiring technically qualified associates or employees. Personal authority can be modified by having an indirect or remote mode of management.
Quality of leadership must vary according to the nature of work in the organization, but it is the quality of leadership that defines the work style of the organization. To achieve the first object, organizations separate out the domain of leadership for the functioning of the organization from the one required to handle a project. The second aspect requires the leader to be as versatile as the project demands.
Organizations that handle highly variable situations or non-repeating projects need a very Radical leader. On the other hand organizations with routine projects will function well under a Methodical leader. An Autocratic leader overrides the situational differences and imposes a preconceived style. The autocratic leader expects complete obedience. Such a leadership works well for projects that are critical in time, resources and extent. A Democratic leader would rather mould the situation, so that it can be handled within the ambience of the personal (leadership) qualities. Employees get full support, status and due recognition, and as a result show responsible behaviour and self-discipline. Democratic leaders are ideal for projects involving large user base. A Bohemian leader develops a style to suit the situation on hand, and are often very useful in tackling continuously variable situations. A Custodial leader has extra ordinary economic resources so makes employees dependent on the organization with security and benefits. The resulting performance is barely adequate.