'Leadership'
Leadersgip is the ability of a company's management to make sound decisions and inspire others to perform well. Effective leaders are able to set and achieve challenging goals, to take swift and decisive action even in difficult situations, to outperform their competition, to take calculated risks and to persevere in the face of failure. Strong communication skills, self-confidence, the ability to manage others and a willingness to embrace change also characterize good leaders.
Leadership And Management
Leadership and management are considered to be worlds apart by many people in the business world. This is mostly because of the old definition of leader, which claims him to be smart, intelligent and all these other amazing things, but it may not be it. A leader could be any humble person with a good cause. Many business specialists also state that leadership and management go hand-in-hand as they indirectly require each other. A leader could also be a manager and vice-versa; it all depends on the qualities.Leadership often represents a group of special, individuals that are responsible for inspiring, guiding and leading a group of people that are joined for a common cause. Dictionary.com defines ‘leadership’ as, “the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group; ability to lead; an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction.” A leader is someone who is looked upon and is followed blindly. He is expected to listen to only the people and nothing else. A leader is also believed to be the good for the people and not only looking for his benefit. The leader is essentially idolized.
American author and scholar, Warren Bennis in his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,” listed the differences between a manager and a leader. The list is as follows:
(Leadership)
The manager administers; the leader innovates.
The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.
The manager maintains; the leader develops.
The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.
The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader’s eye is on the horizon.
The manager imitates; the leader originates.
The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.
The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.
The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.
Though they mean different things, they are commonly considered to work together as they are required in order to accomplish certain objects or goals. A manager is not always, only limited to taking work from his subordinates and following order. Many managers these days inspire, shape, train and help their subordinates. In the same case, not all leaders are always looking out for the benefits of the people, for example politicians. Many leaders are just misusing the title and taking advantage of their positions. It is believed that a leader and manager must work together or take up additional roles, as they are no longer just limited to the set definitions. A mixture of both provides the best results in running an organization
Leadership Styles:(Leadership)
In 1939, a group of researchers led by psychologist Kurt Lewin set out to identify different styles of leadership. While further research has identified more specific types of leadership, this early study was very influential and established Some major leadership styles.
There Are some leadership styles are as follow:
1. Transactional Leadership
This leadership style starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader when they accept a job. The "transaction" usually involves the organization paying team members in return for their effort and compliance. The leader has a right to "punish" team members if their work doesn't meet an appropriate standard.
Although this might sound controlling and paternalistic, transactional leadership offers some benefits. For one, this leadership style clarifies everyone's roles and responsibilities. Another benefit is that, because transactional leadership judges team members on performance, people who are ambitious or who are motivated by external rewards – including compensation – often thrive.
The downside of this leadership style is that team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction. It can feel stifling, and it can lead to high staff turnover.
Transactional leadership is really a type of management, not a true leadership style, because the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work. However, it can be effective in other situations.
2. Autocratic Leadership
Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leaders have complete power over their people. Staff and team members have little opportunity to make suggestions, even if these would be in the team's or the organization's best interest.
The benefit of autocratic leadership is that it's incredibly efficient. Decisions are made quickly, and work gets done.
The downside is that most people resent being treated this way. Therefore, autocratic leadership often leads to high levels of absenteeism and high staff turnover. However, the style can be effective for some routine and unskilled jobs: in these situations, the advantages of control may outweigh the disadvantages.
Autocratic leadership is often best used in crises, when decisions must be made quickly and without dissent. For instance, the military often uses an autocratic leadership style; top commanders are responsible for quickly making complex decisions, which allows troops to focus their attention and energy on performing their allotted tasks and missions.
3. Bureaucratic Leadership
Bureaucratic leaders work "by the book." They follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely.
This is an appropriate leadership style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights) or where large sums of money are involved. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful in organizations where employees do routine tasks (as in manufacturing).
The downside of this leadership style is that it's ineffective in teams and organizations that rely on flexibility, creativity, or innovation.
Much of the time, bureaucratic leaders achieve their position because of their ability to conform to and uphold rules, not because of their qualifications or expertise. This can cause resentment when team members don't value their expertise or advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment