Action Learning and Governance - Essay Example

He must be a person who can understand the need of the hour, possesses insight for the future, can plan rationally and can get the work done by the subordinates satisfactorily. He is no more an authoritative director who was supposed to give orders and merely direct subordinates as in the past. Today's fast growing world has new and revolutionary demands for leaders. A leader today has to be a charismatic being who does not shy away from doing work himself, rather enjoys putting valuable effort in the teamwork.

Action Learning helps in producing such leaders. The practical approach of the Action Learning motivates the leaders to indulge in the work themselves to better perceive the situation. It makes them realize that they cannot win a war by standing on the edge. They will have to step into the arena to understand the demands of particular events and to decide and direct their subordinates accordingly. They will have to observe their own actions, analyze their motives and scrutinize their own experiences in order to find out the ways to improve their performances further.

Thus, action learning teaches men to use their insight along with their knowledge and intelligence to perform better. And these very attributes have let Action Learning emerged as one of the most influential and valuable tools that is used worldwide for developing leaders nowadays. Now the question arises, which leadership style is to be followed that is most compatible with Action Learning (Gold, Thorpe, & Mumford, 2010). Let us first analyze the classical Leadership Styles offered by Kurt Lewin in 1939.

According to Lewin, “there are three basic leadership styles: Authoritarian, Participative and Delegative”. The Authoritarian style asks the leaders to be autocratic and solely decide the course of action. Being the lone task master, such a leader shows less creativity and has to take the full accountability of entire group’s future prospects. Delegative style asks the leaders to let the workers do as they wish and offer no guidance. On the other hand, Participative style of leadership supports an environment with close collaboration of the leader and the workers.

It is a productive situation where the actions are mutually analyzed and where the decisions are made together. The leader uses his intelligence and superior knowledge whereas the workers use their experience to find out the solution of every problem. Action learning only conforms to the Participative style of leadership to some extent unless the leader does not back away from the work himself and contributes his share willingly (Marquardt, 2004). . Today, there are numerous leadership styles in use that give rather detailed specifications of the duties and responsibilities of the leaders and the subordinates.

One of these is Situational Leadership Style proposed in 1950 that supports the use of a style alterable according to the situation. The Emergent Style believes in the rise of a leader from the subordinates who can comprehend their problems easily. The Transactional Style lays emphasis on the strict follow of the rules and regulations whereas the Transformational Style focuses the change in four variables: our self, others, groups and organizations. This style believes on the charisma of the workers and the vision of the leaders to be the road to success.

Strategic leadership supports the notion of creating an atmosphere of competition among the subordinates to urge them to work harder. Team Leadership Style is a newly emerging style that lays stress on the importance of team work. 'Faceless Boss' is also a newly proposed style that diminishes the need of a prominent leader among a group to make the members feel comfortable in sharing their