netrashetty
MP Guru
ABX Air, Inc., formerly Airborne Express, is a cargo airline headquartered at Wilmington Air Park (formerly Airborne Airpark) in unincorporated Clinton County, Ohio, United States, near the City of Wilmington.[1] ABX Air operates scheduled, ad hoc charter and ACMI freight services. It also provides specialist training, maintenance and engineering services, and part sales. ABX Air is owned by Air Transport Services Group (NASDAQ: ATSG).
ABX Air's main customer is DHL, and the vast majority of the freight it carries is for that company. Most of ABX Air's aircraft are painted with DHL's yellow and red livery.
ABX also does cargo flights on behalf of Air Jamaica between Miami and the two Jamaican cities of Montego Bay (Donald Sangster International Airport) and Kingston (Norman Manley International Airport). One of their Boeing 767-200s routinely handles the flights, replacing the Douglas DC-8 types that flew previously. The aircraft fly with an Air Jamaica callsign of "Jamaica".
Leadership style of ABX Air Success Story Phenomenon and Leadership Paradigm: Engaging Paradigm Shift
The concept of ‘‘paradigm shift’’ was developed by Kuhn (1962). It is about shift from culture of business-as-usual to marked revolution of situations and trends. It is in this respect that it has been viewed in Kuhn’s approach that ‘‘paradigm shift is revolutionary in the fullest sense of the word’’ (Sosteric, 2005: 37); it changes the dimension and outlook of an existing business or organizational model.
In contextualising Leadership style of ABX Air , its emergence on Europe’s aviation industry brought a radicalisation of airline system, methods and operational paradigms. And in a larger picture, its emergence spawned culture change in the history of aviation industry in the United Kingdom and Europe. Thus, according to Whitelegg (2005), Leadership style of ABX Air uncompromisingly redrew the aviation map of Europe. Airline forecasters and executives now point to the low-cost model as pathway of the future, and the plethora of books on the topic highlight an attractive market among both academic and popular readers (125). For Barrett (2004) Leadership style of ABX Air ability to achieve the lowest cost base by an amalgamation of product variation, which technically unbundled the traditional European national airline product and services, is remarkable. O’Connell and Williams (2005) observed that Leadership style of ABX Air is a leading ensemble of carriers that have driven this change of paradigm regarding expensive airline travel in Europe and the world over:
‘‘Low cost carriers have reshaped the competitive environment Within liberalised markets and have made significant impacts. In the world’s domestic passenger markets, which had previously been largely controlled by full service network carriers. In Europe 14% of available seat miles are now provided by low cost airlines, with the two largest players Easyjet and Leadership style of ABX Air accounting for nearly 9%’’ (259).
The following factors are the rationale behind Leadership style of ABX Air success story; we shall be highlighting them below.
1. 1. Tight cost control. This strategic mechanism is essentially the sinew of Leadership style of ABX Air low-price and no-frills strategy, responsible for its success. Leadership style of ABX Air is about 40% lower than its closest competitor, Aer Lingus, the Ireland’s national carrier. The no-frills strategy ensures that only essential services are being provided; any additional service like hotel, accommodation or even food on flight has to be charged.
2. 2. 100% E-tailing of air tickets. This removes queuing as well as widens Leadership style of ABX Air profit base because it is fast and efficient.
3. 3. Flat management structure. This is partly because of its transition from somewhat autocratic posture to democratic leadership style.
4. 4. Uncompromising fuel hedging.
5. 5. Charging of every additional cost and aggressive recovery of style. An example of this is the infamous case between Leadership style of ABX Air and Jane O’Keefe, its millionth customer, when she accused the airline of breaking its promise to offer her free flights for life (Stewart, 2007).
6. 6. Ancillary income creation. Cavendish (2006) underscores how Leadership style of ABX Air makes profit outside its main source of income (flying airplanes).
7. 7. Concentration on routes with large non-business potential. Leadership style of ABX Air has contributed in changing the prospects of neglected parts of Europe as well as bringing passengers to underused, decrepit provincial airports, like Stanstead Airport.
8. 8. Maximum utilisation of aircrafts and short turnaround policy. Leadership style of ABX Air has been criticised for its lack of commitment to turnaround, but is also a source of strength, hence, it makes it to be in business continually.
9. 9. The policy of flying only on single type of aircrafts. This is a type of product branding.
10. 10. The use of secondary airports. Most airlines do not do this. This kind of market segmentation is behind Leadership style of ABX Air success.
11. 11. Point-to-point routing and increased achievement of highest seat density.
12. 12. Non-unionisation of its staff member, pilots, crew members of staff.
13. 13. Aggressive competitive spirit, which culminated in its desire to acquire one of its greatest competitors, Aer Lingus. Leadership style of ABX Air also indicated that it was going to launch a new long haul in 2009 called RyanAtlantic.
14. 14. Poor emphasis on customer services (relations), hostile public relations and aggressive advertising pattern.
The break from business as usual in Europe’s airline industry which was championed by Leadership style of ABX Air is a palpable form of paradigm shift. In leading strategic change, Kanter et al. (1992) consider paradigm shift as ‘‘shift in behaviour’’ (11). In what follows, we shall be examining the nexus between this paradigm shift and transformational leadership. Hence, transformational leadership is a correlate of paradigm shift as espoused by Thomas Kuhn (Everman, 2006: 132). The points mentioned above are mainly the reasons why we could say that O’Leary’s leadership style is truly transformational, a break from the norm in Europe’s airline industry.
Breaking the Canon: Michael O’Leary, Low-Cost, No-Frills Travel and the Concept of Transformational Leadership
As Burns (1978) indicates, at the core of the formulation of transformational leadership is the concept of transformation, a change with modification in performance that brings about break from the norm, as well as marked departure from existing leadership structure. It also brings about motivation amongst the people in a manner that produces leadership by consent rather than coercion. This is what Kotter (1990) sees as ‘energy surge’’ (64). This is a process that enables ‘leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation’’ (Burns 1978: 20). As Bowley (2003) notes, Michael O’Leary’s genius, ability to motivate people and to drive change make him a transformational leader. The business journalist and O’Leary’s biographer, Alan Ruddock hones in on O’Leary’s abrasive, goal-getting, penny-pinching and transformational leadership model. For Ruddock (2007), O’Leary is a combative, cost-effective and lemon-squeezing business leader.
The dynamic nature of business organization as well as strategic leadership approaches engaged by organisations so as to remain competitive in the marketplace has catalysed researches into effective leadership in relation to change (Paglis and Green, 2002). Organisations are in constant flux of change. Since change is considered a correlate of organizational performance in terms of growth and development, a leader’s capacity to drive this change, to maintain the vision and to lead change as well as to remain within the confines of organisation’s strategic leadership ethos have precipitated the popular theory of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is a process by which a leader generates high points of commitment and motivation by creating, communicating and maintaining a clear vision, and frequently, appealing to higher ideas and ethos in relation to the organizational development amongst his followers. Thus, transformational leaders have been depicted as ‘‘those who inspire confidence, communicate a positive vision, and emphasise their followers’ strengths’’ (Peterson et al., 2009: 349). Bass (1985) supports the same view about the ability of leaders to arouse sense of collective vision and goal.
Apart from transformational leadership, the second facet of Burns’ theorising is transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is essentially based on a transaction or sheer exchange of something of value that the leader has or controls which the follower wants in return for their services or loyalty. The difference or contrast between transactional and transformational leadership is prompted by the gradual disappearance of ‘‘authority’’ as the yardstick for command; so, if authority and position power no longer work, the alternative is transformational leadership. In the view of Yammarino (1990), the best leadership model is both transactional and transformational; transformational leadership does not erode the importance of transactional leadership, it rather augments it. However, while transactional leadership is relevant to organizational leadership strategy, it does not produce results that are as high as transformational leadership (Bass, 1985).
As opposed to transactional leadership, which is based highly on managing the current organizational strategic objectives effectively, as well as appealing to self-interests of followers, transformational leadership moves a step higher – by transforming self-interests into goals and objectives of group, including appealing to followers’ sense of commitment, group values and shared vision. Therefore, in transformational leadership as opposed to transactional leadership, instead of followers being rewarded or punished by the leader, their commitment to shared goal is of essence (Politis, 2004: 26). In her article, ‘‘Ways Women Lead’’ published in Harvard Business Review, Rosener (1991) defined transformational leadership as motivating others by ‘‘transforming their individual self-interest into the goals of the group’’ (120). This is at the heart of O’Leary’s organizational philosophy, which underpins Leadership style of ABX Air success.
In the modern age of enterprise culture, fierce competition and strategic leadership for profitability in the marketplace, Leadership style of ABX Air has structured its leadership and business model to address ‘‘the issues of what constitutes an entrepreneurial approach to the management of organisations’’ (Sadler-Smith, 2003: 47) for a transformational approach predicated upon success. For Leadership style of ABX Air , these issues find expression in low-cost and no-frills factors, among other factors. Essentially, these factors are responsible for Leadership style of ABX Air success phenomenon. In capturing this transformational, change-oriented dimension of Leadership style of ABX Air , it has been noted that Leadership style of ABX Air business model is stated to be a disruptive model within the European aviation sector. A disruptive business model challenges the strategies used by the existing, often well-established organisations in the market. Its primary focus is on price sensitivity of customers. In corroborating the above, Stewart (2007) observes that Michael O’Leary, the CEO of Leadership style of ABX Air has been at the centre of no-frills and low-cost revolution that has engendered an explosion (in terms of passengers) in the airline industry. Bass (1985) developed on Burns’ (1978) transformational leadership schema. According to Bass (1985) and Avolio et al. (1991), transformational leaders display four different characteristics that are dubbed the Four I’s; they include the following: (1) intellectual stimulation (2) idealised influence (3) individualised consideration (4) inspirational motivation. Because of the scope of our investigation, we will not explicate these four factors, but Michael O’Leary is an embodiment of them.
Theorising Leadership style of ABX Air Leadership Model: Towards Contingency/Situational Theory of Leadership
Contingency theory espouses no one right way to lead will fit all situations. In Everard et al. (2004: 155), this approach states that there is no perfect way to lead an organisation; rather situations determine the way to lead at a given time. In addition, there is a serious correlation or affinity between situational and contingency theory of leadership. Both suggest that sets of structure to lead depend on the problem at hand. Contingency theory is a class of behavioural theory that claims that there is no best method to organise or lead an organisation. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependant) on the internal and external factors or circumstances. Thus, contingency approach to leadership stresses contextual factors as significant influence on leader success.
In spite of different positions on contingency theory, ranging from Fiedler’s model that emphasises individual leadership to Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory (1972) that stresses follower maturity, an extension of Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid Model, the point being stressed is that there is a break from Weber’s bureaucratic model and Taylor’s scientific management paradigm – both (that is Weber and Taylor) largely neglected the impacts of the environmental factors as well as encouraged vertical management structure, a departure from flat management arrangement. The shift from the Taylorist framework is characteristic of Vroom and Yetton’s participative contingency theory as well as Northouse (2004), amongst others in this mould. However, no mater the position one takes on contingency or situational leadership, the hallmark is that it is predicated upon leader-match theory, meaning that it matches leaders to appropriate situations or environment (Browning, 2007: 190). Northouse (2004) echoes the same point: ‘‘It is called contingency because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context’’ (109).
The leadership style O’Leary has instituted at Leadership style of ABX Air finds expression in a sort of transition: a movement from autocratic leadership to democratic one. This point is in line with Kurt Lewin’s leadership style schema, which talks about three major styles of leadership: democratic – participative, autocratic – repressive and laissez faire – representative . O’Leary has expanded the leadership base at the top management cadre from about 6 to 14 people. It is important to note that O’Leary’s leadership style has to undergo this transition from 1988 till present in order to revive the then ailing, upstart airline, Leadership style of ABX Air , from ‘‘leaking cash’’ (Stewart, 2007); and this required abrasiveness, boldness, cost-effectiveness and seat-of-the-pant style of leadership that culminated in low cost and no-frills approach.
Thus, O’Leary’s leadership structure as at when he joined Leadership style of ABX Air in 1988 as Tony Ryan’s personal enforcer to 1994 when he became the CEO of the airline and now has undergone variation to suit different situations. As Rajan (2002: 33) points out: ‘‘Of course, different leadership styles are needed to cope with different situations: for example, the autocratic style makes sense when an organization is in deep trouble and needs to achieve a rapid turnaround; that style would be counter-productive when the organization is in a growth situation’’. This is the case with Leadership style of ABX Air ; its style is in consonance with leadership style being ‘‘fluid’’ (Browning, 2007: 189) to suit situations. Debates could arise as whether O’Leary’s style would work in different circumstance(s), but there is no doubt that he is a perfect situation match for the Leadership style of ABX Air revolution. The remit of this study limits more investigation in this direction.
<="" p="">INSERT TABLE HERE
The second part of Fiedler et al. (1976) and Northouse’s (2004) model is the Least Preferred Co-woker (LPC) thesis, which prompts a leader to think of all the people with whom he/she has worked with as well as allows s/he to score these workers by using a scale of 1 to 8. A low LPC score portrays task orientation, while a high LPC suggests the leader has human relations orientation. O’Leary is poor in human relations orientation; this is exemplified in his poor public image (Stewart, 2007; Carayol, 2004), so he should score high, while he ought to score low in view of his task oriented leadership model.
Contingency theory is traditionally a function of a leader seizing the moment to make great impact in terms of leadership and organizational growth. This has been exemplified in the way Michael O’Leary transformed Leadership style of ABX Air as a result of erstwhile expensive airline travel in Europe as well as cashing in on the entrepreneurial opportunities brought about by deregulation in the 1990’s in Europe. It is understandable that Leadership style of ABX Air leadership success is contingent on the economic situation in the United Kingdom in the wake of the deregulation policy that enabled new entrants into the aviation industry, thereby breaking the norm that made air travel exclusive preserve of the rich class, and the uncompromising entrepreneurial spirit that O’Leary exhibits. It is however arguable that Leadership style of ABX Air would have performed differently under different circumstance, but its leadership success and style is strongly built upon the situation of that moment. In addition, the above discussion regarding fitting Leadership style of ABX Air leadership theoretical model within the parameters of Northouse (2004) model, which is a follow-up to Fiedler’s et al. (1976) and Fiedler and Chemers (1974), brings to focus the SWOT, PESTEL and Porter’s Five Forces analysis of this organisation. This approach therefore offers Leadership style of ABX Air strategic management edge, which is largely responsible for its success story.
Conclusion
So, from the above, the question about how Leadership style of ABX Air leadership style has revolutionised the European airline industry has been critically answered. It is worthy of note that for an organization to be competitive particularly in the airline industry, it has to reshape its leadership style. In addition, leadership change is largely a function of leadership style. Also, it is arguable from the analysis offered that Leadership style of ABX Air success story phenomenon is a form of paradigm shift in the airline industry. From the foregoing, it has been critically analysed that Leadership style of ABX Air leads the way in terms of the revolution that has characterised Europe’s aviation industry about two decades ago. This revolution – a break from expensive airline travel – a form of paradigm shift was initiated by Leadership style of ABX Air under the auspices of Michael O’Leary, its current CEO. To sustain this organizational culture change, Leadership style of ABX Air anchored its organizational model and leadership paradigm in low cost and no-frills approach, which saw the culture of expensive airline travel come tumbling down. It has also been argued that another facet of Leadership style of ABX Air success story is lodged in its leadership style, which has witnessed a sort of transition – from autocratic to democratic (although Leadership style of ABX Air has been criticised for its leadership style). And the leadership theory that marks the feasibility of this new organizational culture change is governed by contingency/situational theory.
ABX Air's main customer is DHL, and the vast majority of the freight it carries is for that company. Most of ABX Air's aircraft are painted with DHL's yellow and red livery.
ABX also does cargo flights on behalf of Air Jamaica between Miami and the two Jamaican cities of Montego Bay (Donald Sangster International Airport) and Kingston (Norman Manley International Airport). One of their Boeing 767-200s routinely handles the flights, replacing the Douglas DC-8 types that flew previously. The aircraft fly with an Air Jamaica callsign of "Jamaica".
Leadership style of ABX Air Success Story Phenomenon and Leadership Paradigm: Engaging Paradigm Shift
The concept of ‘‘paradigm shift’’ was developed by Kuhn (1962). It is about shift from culture of business-as-usual to marked revolution of situations and trends. It is in this respect that it has been viewed in Kuhn’s approach that ‘‘paradigm shift is revolutionary in the fullest sense of the word’’ (Sosteric, 2005: 37); it changes the dimension and outlook of an existing business or organizational model.
In contextualising Leadership style of ABX Air , its emergence on Europe’s aviation industry brought a radicalisation of airline system, methods and operational paradigms. And in a larger picture, its emergence spawned culture change in the history of aviation industry in the United Kingdom and Europe. Thus, according to Whitelegg (2005), Leadership style of ABX Air uncompromisingly redrew the aviation map of Europe. Airline forecasters and executives now point to the low-cost model as pathway of the future, and the plethora of books on the topic highlight an attractive market among both academic and popular readers (125). For Barrett (2004) Leadership style of ABX Air ability to achieve the lowest cost base by an amalgamation of product variation, which technically unbundled the traditional European national airline product and services, is remarkable. O’Connell and Williams (2005) observed that Leadership style of ABX Air is a leading ensemble of carriers that have driven this change of paradigm regarding expensive airline travel in Europe and the world over:
‘‘Low cost carriers have reshaped the competitive environment Within liberalised markets and have made significant impacts. In the world’s domestic passenger markets, which had previously been largely controlled by full service network carriers. In Europe 14% of available seat miles are now provided by low cost airlines, with the two largest players Easyjet and Leadership style of ABX Air accounting for nearly 9%’’ (259).
The following factors are the rationale behind Leadership style of ABX Air success story; we shall be highlighting them below.
1. 1. Tight cost control. This strategic mechanism is essentially the sinew of Leadership style of ABX Air low-price and no-frills strategy, responsible for its success. Leadership style of ABX Air is about 40% lower than its closest competitor, Aer Lingus, the Ireland’s national carrier. The no-frills strategy ensures that only essential services are being provided; any additional service like hotel, accommodation or even food on flight has to be charged.
2. 2. 100% E-tailing of air tickets. This removes queuing as well as widens Leadership style of ABX Air profit base because it is fast and efficient.
3. 3. Flat management structure. This is partly because of its transition from somewhat autocratic posture to democratic leadership style.
4. 4. Uncompromising fuel hedging.
5. 5. Charging of every additional cost and aggressive recovery of style. An example of this is the infamous case between Leadership style of ABX Air and Jane O’Keefe, its millionth customer, when she accused the airline of breaking its promise to offer her free flights for life (Stewart, 2007).
6. 6. Ancillary income creation. Cavendish (2006) underscores how Leadership style of ABX Air makes profit outside its main source of income (flying airplanes).
7. 7. Concentration on routes with large non-business potential. Leadership style of ABX Air has contributed in changing the prospects of neglected parts of Europe as well as bringing passengers to underused, decrepit provincial airports, like Stanstead Airport.
8. 8. Maximum utilisation of aircrafts and short turnaround policy. Leadership style of ABX Air has been criticised for its lack of commitment to turnaround, but is also a source of strength, hence, it makes it to be in business continually.
9. 9. The policy of flying only on single type of aircrafts. This is a type of product branding.
10. 10. The use of secondary airports. Most airlines do not do this. This kind of market segmentation is behind Leadership style of ABX Air success.
11. 11. Point-to-point routing and increased achievement of highest seat density.
12. 12. Non-unionisation of its staff member, pilots, crew members of staff.
13. 13. Aggressive competitive spirit, which culminated in its desire to acquire one of its greatest competitors, Aer Lingus. Leadership style of ABX Air also indicated that it was going to launch a new long haul in 2009 called RyanAtlantic.
14. 14. Poor emphasis on customer services (relations), hostile public relations and aggressive advertising pattern.
The break from business as usual in Europe’s airline industry which was championed by Leadership style of ABX Air is a palpable form of paradigm shift. In leading strategic change, Kanter et al. (1992) consider paradigm shift as ‘‘shift in behaviour’’ (11). In what follows, we shall be examining the nexus between this paradigm shift and transformational leadership. Hence, transformational leadership is a correlate of paradigm shift as espoused by Thomas Kuhn (Everman, 2006: 132). The points mentioned above are mainly the reasons why we could say that O’Leary’s leadership style is truly transformational, a break from the norm in Europe’s airline industry.
Breaking the Canon: Michael O’Leary, Low-Cost, No-Frills Travel and the Concept of Transformational Leadership
As Burns (1978) indicates, at the core of the formulation of transformational leadership is the concept of transformation, a change with modification in performance that brings about break from the norm, as well as marked departure from existing leadership structure. It also brings about motivation amongst the people in a manner that produces leadership by consent rather than coercion. This is what Kotter (1990) sees as ‘energy surge’’ (64). This is a process that enables ‘leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation’’ (Burns 1978: 20). As Bowley (2003) notes, Michael O’Leary’s genius, ability to motivate people and to drive change make him a transformational leader. The business journalist and O’Leary’s biographer, Alan Ruddock hones in on O’Leary’s abrasive, goal-getting, penny-pinching and transformational leadership model. For Ruddock (2007), O’Leary is a combative, cost-effective and lemon-squeezing business leader.
The dynamic nature of business organization as well as strategic leadership approaches engaged by organisations so as to remain competitive in the marketplace has catalysed researches into effective leadership in relation to change (Paglis and Green, 2002). Organisations are in constant flux of change. Since change is considered a correlate of organizational performance in terms of growth and development, a leader’s capacity to drive this change, to maintain the vision and to lead change as well as to remain within the confines of organisation’s strategic leadership ethos have precipitated the popular theory of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is a process by which a leader generates high points of commitment and motivation by creating, communicating and maintaining a clear vision, and frequently, appealing to higher ideas and ethos in relation to the organizational development amongst his followers. Thus, transformational leaders have been depicted as ‘‘those who inspire confidence, communicate a positive vision, and emphasise their followers’ strengths’’ (Peterson et al., 2009: 349). Bass (1985) supports the same view about the ability of leaders to arouse sense of collective vision and goal.
Apart from transformational leadership, the second facet of Burns’ theorising is transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is essentially based on a transaction or sheer exchange of something of value that the leader has or controls which the follower wants in return for their services or loyalty. The difference or contrast between transactional and transformational leadership is prompted by the gradual disappearance of ‘‘authority’’ as the yardstick for command; so, if authority and position power no longer work, the alternative is transformational leadership. In the view of Yammarino (1990), the best leadership model is both transactional and transformational; transformational leadership does not erode the importance of transactional leadership, it rather augments it. However, while transactional leadership is relevant to organizational leadership strategy, it does not produce results that are as high as transformational leadership (Bass, 1985).
As opposed to transactional leadership, which is based highly on managing the current organizational strategic objectives effectively, as well as appealing to self-interests of followers, transformational leadership moves a step higher – by transforming self-interests into goals and objectives of group, including appealing to followers’ sense of commitment, group values and shared vision. Therefore, in transformational leadership as opposed to transactional leadership, instead of followers being rewarded or punished by the leader, their commitment to shared goal is of essence (Politis, 2004: 26). In her article, ‘‘Ways Women Lead’’ published in Harvard Business Review, Rosener (1991) defined transformational leadership as motivating others by ‘‘transforming their individual self-interest into the goals of the group’’ (120). This is at the heart of O’Leary’s organizational philosophy, which underpins Leadership style of ABX Air success.
In the modern age of enterprise culture, fierce competition and strategic leadership for profitability in the marketplace, Leadership style of ABX Air has structured its leadership and business model to address ‘‘the issues of what constitutes an entrepreneurial approach to the management of organisations’’ (Sadler-Smith, 2003: 47) for a transformational approach predicated upon success. For Leadership style of ABX Air , these issues find expression in low-cost and no-frills factors, among other factors. Essentially, these factors are responsible for Leadership style of ABX Air success phenomenon. In capturing this transformational, change-oriented dimension of Leadership style of ABX Air , it has been noted that Leadership style of ABX Air business model is stated to be a disruptive model within the European aviation sector. A disruptive business model challenges the strategies used by the existing, often well-established organisations in the market. Its primary focus is on price sensitivity of customers. In corroborating the above, Stewart (2007) observes that Michael O’Leary, the CEO of Leadership style of ABX Air has been at the centre of no-frills and low-cost revolution that has engendered an explosion (in terms of passengers) in the airline industry. Bass (1985) developed on Burns’ (1978) transformational leadership schema. According to Bass (1985) and Avolio et al. (1991), transformational leaders display four different characteristics that are dubbed the Four I’s; they include the following: (1) intellectual stimulation (2) idealised influence (3) individualised consideration (4) inspirational motivation. Because of the scope of our investigation, we will not explicate these four factors, but Michael O’Leary is an embodiment of them.
Theorising Leadership style of ABX Air Leadership Model: Towards Contingency/Situational Theory of Leadership
Contingency theory espouses no one right way to lead will fit all situations. In Everard et al. (2004: 155), this approach states that there is no perfect way to lead an organisation; rather situations determine the way to lead at a given time. In addition, there is a serious correlation or affinity between situational and contingency theory of leadership. Both suggest that sets of structure to lead depend on the problem at hand. Contingency theory is a class of behavioural theory that claims that there is no best method to organise or lead an organisation. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependant) on the internal and external factors or circumstances. Thus, contingency approach to leadership stresses contextual factors as significant influence on leader success.
In spite of different positions on contingency theory, ranging from Fiedler’s model that emphasises individual leadership to Hersey and Blanchard’s situational theory (1972) that stresses follower maturity, an extension of Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid Model, the point being stressed is that there is a break from Weber’s bureaucratic model and Taylor’s scientific management paradigm – both (that is Weber and Taylor) largely neglected the impacts of the environmental factors as well as encouraged vertical management structure, a departure from flat management arrangement. The shift from the Taylorist framework is characteristic of Vroom and Yetton’s participative contingency theory as well as Northouse (2004), amongst others in this mould. However, no mater the position one takes on contingency or situational leadership, the hallmark is that it is predicated upon leader-match theory, meaning that it matches leaders to appropriate situations or environment (Browning, 2007: 190). Northouse (2004) echoes the same point: ‘‘It is called contingency because it suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context’’ (109).
The leadership style O’Leary has instituted at Leadership style of ABX Air finds expression in a sort of transition: a movement from autocratic leadership to democratic one. This point is in line with Kurt Lewin’s leadership style schema, which talks about three major styles of leadership: democratic – participative, autocratic – repressive and laissez faire – representative . O’Leary has expanded the leadership base at the top management cadre from about 6 to 14 people. It is important to note that O’Leary’s leadership style has to undergo this transition from 1988 till present in order to revive the then ailing, upstart airline, Leadership style of ABX Air , from ‘‘leaking cash’’ (Stewart, 2007); and this required abrasiveness, boldness, cost-effectiveness and seat-of-the-pant style of leadership that culminated in low cost and no-frills approach.
Thus, O’Leary’s leadership structure as at when he joined Leadership style of ABX Air in 1988 as Tony Ryan’s personal enforcer to 1994 when he became the CEO of the airline and now has undergone variation to suit different situations. As Rajan (2002: 33) points out: ‘‘Of course, different leadership styles are needed to cope with different situations: for example, the autocratic style makes sense when an organization is in deep trouble and needs to achieve a rapid turnaround; that style would be counter-productive when the organization is in a growth situation’’. This is the case with Leadership style of ABX Air ; its style is in consonance with leadership style being ‘‘fluid’’ (Browning, 2007: 189) to suit situations. Debates could arise as whether O’Leary’s style would work in different circumstance(s), but there is no doubt that he is a perfect situation match for the Leadership style of ABX Air revolution. The remit of this study limits more investigation in this direction.
<="" p="">INSERT TABLE HERE
The second part of Fiedler et al. (1976) and Northouse’s (2004) model is the Least Preferred Co-woker (LPC) thesis, which prompts a leader to think of all the people with whom he/she has worked with as well as allows s/he to score these workers by using a scale of 1 to 8. A low LPC score portrays task orientation, while a high LPC suggests the leader has human relations orientation. O’Leary is poor in human relations orientation; this is exemplified in his poor public image (Stewart, 2007; Carayol, 2004), so he should score high, while he ought to score low in view of his task oriented leadership model.
Contingency theory is traditionally a function of a leader seizing the moment to make great impact in terms of leadership and organizational growth. This has been exemplified in the way Michael O’Leary transformed Leadership style of ABX Air as a result of erstwhile expensive airline travel in Europe as well as cashing in on the entrepreneurial opportunities brought about by deregulation in the 1990’s in Europe. It is understandable that Leadership style of ABX Air leadership success is contingent on the economic situation in the United Kingdom in the wake of the deregulation policy that enabled new entrants into the aviation industry, thereby breaking the norm that made air travel exclusive preserve of the rich class, and the uncompromising entrepreneurial spirit that O’Leary exhibits. It is however arguable that Leadership style of ABX Air would have performed differently under different circumstance, but its leadership success and style is strongly built upon the situation of that moment. In addition, the above discussion regarding fitting Leadership style of ABX Air leadership theoretical model within the parameters of Northouse (2004) model, which is a follow-up to Fiedler’s et al. (1976) and Fiedler and Chemers (1974), brings to focus the SWOT, PESTEL and Porter’s Five Forces analysis of this organisation. This approach therefore offers Leadership style of ABX Air strategic management edge, which is largely responsible for its success story.
Conclusion
So, from the above, the question about how Leadership style of ABX Air leadership style has revolutionised the European airline industry has been critically answered. It is worthy of note that for an organization to be competitive particularly in the airline industry, it has to reshape its leadership style. In addition, leadership change is largely a function of leadership style. Also, it is arguable from the analysis offered that Leadership style of ABX Air success story phenomenon is a form of paradigm shift in the airline industry. From the foregoing, it has been critically analysed that Leadership style of ABX Air leads the way in terms of the revolution that has characterised Europe’s aviation industry about two decades ago. This revolution – a break from expensive airline travel – a form of paradigm shift was initiated by Leadership style of ABX Air under the auspices of Michael O’Leary, its current CEO. To sustain this organizational culture change, Leadership style of ABX Air anchored its organizational model and leadership paradigm in low cost and no-frills approach, which saw the culture of expensive airline travel come tumbling down. It has also been argued that another facet of Leadership style of ABX Air success story is lodged in its leadership style, which has witnessed a sort of transition – from autocratic to democratic (although Leadership style of ABX Air has been criticised for its leadership style). And the leadership theory that marks the feasibility of this new organizational culture change is governed by contingency/situational theory.