Principles of Leadership - Essay Example

?Principles of Leadership 529064) Part The assumption that effective leadership can be explained in terms of dyadic influence by a heroic leaderlimits the scope of research and theory and discourages exploration of shared leadership, collective processes and reciprocal influence”. It is true that an effective leader is able to inspire others and become a role model to the followers. People tend to look up to the individual as someone capable of taking the correct decisions at the right time and taking them through troubled times. An effective leader is in tune with the problems at hand and seems to one capable of bringing out the best from the organisation or institution it leads. (The Next Generation Responsible Leaders, 2010) In troubled times people tend to seek advice from an effective leader and his forthcoming ideas always seem to take the organisation out of a crisis. However there is a tendency on the part of most researches to turn the leader into a kind of solo hero who is single-handedly charting the organisation out of troubled times. It tries to give a kind of halo to the leader and creates a myth that the leader is taking most of the decisions by virtue of his greatness and his extreme capabilities. However, it fails to address that leaders are not necessarily someone who knows every single detail of a particular task but who is capable of bringing together different minds into sharing a common goal. A leader is capable in delegating the duties effectively to the right person and make sure that the work is completed on time. People seem to thrive under his authority and is seen someone who is capable of getting the job done. (The Next Generation Responsible Leaders, 2010) However with the present day obsession with celebrities and individuals, one tries to glorify leaders and give them more than their due. People always love to see a hero and is always trying to find figures that fit into the description. It is true that leaders play a major role in executing decision since the buck stops there. However, it should also be kept in mind that a major part of decision making process which the leader so very effectively executes is a result of the work done by the other individuals in the group who collectively share responsibility in doing the work and helping the leader have an uncluttered mind when taking decisions. (Rothwell Dan, 2010) A leader is not only one who inspires his followers but the inspiration can happen vice-versa i.e a creative suggestion or input from a follower or group member can inspire the leader likewise. (The Next Generation Responsible Leaders, 2010) Source: The Next Generation Responsible Leaders, 2010 Most theories suggest a dyadic relationship between a leader and a follower. The path that is usually chartered includes ways and methods in which a leader influences its followers to work with more dedication. It is seeks ways to improve the confidence and trust between a leader and a follower. However the limitation is that it does not seek a more co-ordinated group activity between the followers. Followers blindly repose their faith in actions and instructions from a leader. They are not encouraged to come up with innovative ideas. Information that is available outside the domain of the leader is not accessed and the follower is not interested in honing his skill in other areas where the leader might not necessarily be active. The problem with this kind of one way traffic is that the leader is hailed as a demy-god until all the decisions go their way. However the moment a problem occurs or a leadership vacuum comes up the next person who can take over the reins becomes a rarity. This is because the next rung of leadership has never been cultivated. (Gary Yukl, 1999) Source: The Next Generation Responsible Leaders, 2010 A leadership that tries to glorify its leaders or make them heroes tends to tinker more with the emotional aspect of the follower. The follower is stimulated to make extreme sacrifices without asking for any reason. Any resistance or opposition that crops up in its ranks is dealt with severely. What leaders fail to recognize is that this resistance if channelized properly can bring excellent returns in terms of bringing out more innovative ideas and thoughts. (Gary Yukl, 1999) Dyadic influence encourages the follower to embrace the thoughts laid down by the leader and spread the message among their other followers. However, they are advised from challenging these thoughts that are laid down by the leader. Hero worship theories suggest that leaders who tend to portray a perception of a strong brand of leadership primarily use two means to win over the legion of supporters. A person who is seen as taking strong, confident decisions seems to bring out an image of someone who knows everything. This reduces feedback from the follower and the leader is not really able to assess the decision most accurately. The other kind pitches for s strong emotional rhetoric and people get swayed by their emotional talk. (Gary Yukl, 1999) Leaders of this nature manage to get a dedicated share of followers but also attract their fair share of critics. Leaders of this category are often ridiculed as someone who is resorting to cheap emotional gimmicks to win over followers. Therefore most of the theories that are researched on leaders seem to portray them as heroes giving little importance to the fact that an ideal and effective leader is one who also thrives on the input and interaction with his followers. Part-2 Most of the leadership models that have been researched include limiting the leader into having a dyadic influence on his followers. The common leadership models include 1. Task versus Relations Leadership The two types of leadership formulated during the 1970’s also propagated the two factor theory. Task leadership gave more prominence to the task at hand and devised ways and methods to finish the task on time. Relations leader on the other hand may not be very adept technically to the job at hand but used his PR skills and his personal equations with the employees in getting the job done. (Gary Yukl, 1999) Both these forms does not encourage symbiotic behaviour wherein there is a mutual give and take but is more focussed on finishing the job at hand. 2. Autocratic versus Participative leadership It is very difficult to classify leadership into these extreme forms of autocratic and participative leadership since taking different decisions at a given point in time might require different forms of leadership. Different decisions might require different kind of leadership models depending upon the degree of complexity. Autocratic leaders as defined earlier tend to take decisions without taking into account the aspirations or the inputs of its sub-ordinates. Participative leadership on the other hand tends to give a notion that decisions are made on the whole hearted participation of all sub-ordinates with the leader. However, in reality this is not really the case. (Gary Yukl, 1999) Source: Gary Yukl, 1999, Study on leadership behaviour dimensions. The amount of participation of the groups with each other, the degree of motivation that the leader instils among its followers and whether this participation has managed to build and effective spirited team remains a matter of debate. (Rothwell Dan, 2010) Even if the participative leadership is successful in its endeavour the end result which has been researched shows that the leader is often given more than his due with other team players relegated to the background. 3. Leadership versus Management. It has been defined that an effective leader is able to exact change and provide a long term benefit in the long run. His vision is far sighted and his objectives remain to create a strong foundation to achieve its goals in the long run. (Rothwell Dan, 2010) A manager on the other hand is short sighted. He is not suitable for bringing about any revolutionary changes in the organization and is more focussed on meeting the immediate short term goals that have been laid out by the company. Managers are usually considered as people who are more adept at monitoring peoples work and trying to bring down cost by more effective work utilisation. This might be at the cost of demoralizing the work force. A leader on the other hand feels it is his responsibility to tamper with the existing process and usher in new changes to project his relevance in the organization. Both these forms as discussed earlier are two extremes and a judicious mix of both can only make an effective manager become a good leader. However both these forms of leadership experience the same problem of hero worship. A new leader at a time of crisis is looked up as a saviour and the actions taken by him as the right one. (Gary Yukl, 1999) Managing the day to day activities effectively with high productivity and low cost also helps the manager in getting a name as someone who can get the job done. He is also seen as someone who turned things around when the company was in a financial mess and turned it profitable. Unfortunately the hard work of the employees who form the core of the work force and whose shared leadership might be responsible for the turnaround is not given due credit. 4. Transformational Leadership. The most recent theories have accepted that a good leader must be a ideal mix of all the above leadership traits described above. The late 90’s have brought out another facet of leadership known as transformational leadership. These were interpreted using the MLQ or a multi factor questionnaire and this questionnaire was used across organizations for tracking leaders and their skills. A transformational leader is capable of providing support and attention at an individual level. (Rothwell Dan, 2010) He is able to inspire others to think out of the box and stimulate them to come up with suggestions that improve the overall work process. He is able to motivate people around him and the masses at large of the goal which he seeks to achieve and carry everyone along with him. (The Next Generation Responsible Leaders, 2010) An excellent example would that be of President Obama who was a non entity at the beginning of the presidential campaign. However by the end of it he had garnered the support of all Americans by his powerful speeches and his ‘yes we can’ motto which lifted the spirit of all Americans. He was considered as superhero that could solve America’s entire economic and military problem with a wave of his magic wand if he was voted to power. How far has president Obama actually been successful in finishing the goals he set out to achieve however remains a matter of debate? Reference List 1. Gary Yukl, 1999, An Evaluation Essay on Current Conceptions of Effective Leadership, European Journal of Work and organizational Psychology, p33-48. 2. The Next Generation Responsible Leaders, 2010, Centre for Responsible Leadership Conference Proceedings, First International conference in Responsible Leadership, p.88-90 3. Rothwell Dan, 2010, In Mixed Company-Communicating in small groups and teams, Wadsworth Cengage learning, p 177-193. Read More