Студопедия
Случайная страница | ТОМ-1 | ТОМ-2 | ТОМ-3
АрхитектураБиологияГеографияДругоеИностранные языки
ИнформатикаИсторияКультураЛитератураМатематика
МедицинаМеханикаОбразованиеОхрана трудаПедагогика
ПолитикаПравоПрограммированиеПсихологияРелигия
СоциологияСпортСтроительствоФизикаФилософия
ФинансыХимияЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника

Laissez-faire or free rein style

Читайте также:
  1. A) the language style of poetry; b) the language style of emotive prose; c) the language style of drama.
  2. A. THE BELLES-LETTRES STYLE
  3. About academic writing style
  4. Academic Writing Style
  5. b) Watch a video about Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures: Differences and Communication styles and complete the chart.
  6. B. PUBLICISTS STYLE
  7. C. NEWSPAPER STYLE

A free-rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself. Such a leader allows maximum freedom to subordinates; they are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods.

Narcissistic leadership

Various academics have identified narcissistic leadership as an important and common leadership style.

Toxic leadership

A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an organization, and who abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse-off condition than when he/she first found them.

In the book “Primal Leadership,” Daniel Goleman, describes six different styles of leadership. The most effective leaders can move among these styles, adopting the one that meets the needs of the moment. They can all become part of the leader’s repertoire.

Visionary. This style is most appropriate when an organization needs a new direction. Its goal is to move people towards a new set of shared dreams. “Visionary leaders articulate where a group is going, but not how it will get there – setting people free to innovate, experiment, take calculated risks,” write Mr. Goleman and his coauthors.

Coaching. This one-on-one style focuses on developing individuals, showing them how to improve their performance, and helping to connect their goals to the goals of the organization. Coaching works best, Mr. Goleman writes, “with employees who show initiative and want more professional development.” But it can backfire if it’s perceived as “micromanaging” an employee, and undermines his or her self-confidence.

Affiliative. This style emphasizes the importance of team work, and creates harmony in a group by connecting people to each other. Mr. Goleman argues this approach is particularly valuable “when trying to heighten team harmony, increase morale, improve communication or repair broken trust in an organization.” But he warns against using it alone, since its emphasis on group praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. “Employees may perceive,” he writes, “that mediocrity is tolerated.”

Democratic. This style draws on people’s knowledge and skills, and creates a group commitment to the resulting goals. It works best when the direction the organization should take is unclear, and the leader needs to tap the collective wisdom of the group. Mr. Goleman warns that this consensus-building approach can be disastrous in times of crisis, when urgent events demand quick decisions.

Pacesetting. In this style, the leader sets high standards for performance. He or she is “obsessive about doing things better and faster, and asks the same of everyone.” But Mr. Goleman warns this style should be used sparingly, because it can undercut morale and make people feel as if they are failing. “Our data shows that, more often than not, pacesetting poisons the climate,” he writes.

Commanding. This is classic model of “military” style leadership – probably the most often used, but the least often effective. Because it rarely involves praise and frequently employs criticism, it undercuts morale and job satisfaction. Mr. Goleman argues it is only effective in a crisis, when an urgent turnaround is needed. Even the modern military has come to recognize its limited usefulness.

Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Still, the manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate. In his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,” Warren Bennis composed a list of the differences:

– 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.

The late management guru Peter Drucker was one of the first to recognize this truth, as he was to recognize so many other management truths. He identified the emergence of the “knowledge worker,” and the profound differences that would cause in the way business was organized.With the rise of the knowledge worker, “one does not ‘manage’ people,” Mr. Drucker wrote. “The task is to lead people. And the goal is to make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of every individual.”

Adapted from “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” by Alan Murray, published by Harper Business.

 

In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. These Group Leaderships or Leadership Teams have specific characteristics:

Characteristics of a Team

· There must be an awareness of unity on the part of all its members.

· There must be interpersonal relationship. Members must have a chance to contribute, and learn from and work with others.

· The members must have the ability to act together toward a common goal.

Ten characteristics of well-functioning teams:

· Purpose: Members proudly share a sense of why the team exists and are invested in accomplishing its mission and goals.

· Priorities: Members know what needs to be done next, by whom, and by when to achieve team goals.

· Roles: Members know their roles in getting tasks done and when to allow a more skillful member to do a certain task.

· Decisions: Authority and decision-making lines are clearly understood.

· Conflict: Conflict is dealt with openly and is considered important to decision-making and personal growth.

· Personal traits: members feel their unique personalities are appreciated and well utilized.

· Norms: Group norms for working together are set and seen as standards for every one in the groups.

· Effectiveness: Members find team meetings efficient and productive and look forward to this time together.

· Success: Members know clearly when the team has met with success and share in this equally and proudly.

· Training: Opportunities for feedback and updating skills are provided and taken advantage of by team members.

A leader is a person who influences a group of people towards a specific result. It is not dependent on title or formal authority. (Elevos, paraphrased from Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership Presence, Halpern & Lubar.) Ogbonnia (2007) defines an effective leader "as an individual with the capacity to consistently succeed in a given condition and be viewed as meeting the expectations of an organization or society." Leaders are recognized by their capacity for caring for others, clear communication, and a commitment to persist. An individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position. However, she or he must possess adequate personal attributes to match this authority, because authority is only potentially available to him/her. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge her/his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate authority. So leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.


Дата добавления: 2015-11-14; просмотров: 60 | Нарушение авторских прав


<== предыдущая страница | следующая страница ==>
Participative or democratic style| Cognition as the object of philosophical analysis

mybiblioteka.su - 2015-2024 год. (0.009 сек.)