Good Management and Leadership - Essay Example

? Section/# Leadership is a difficult term to encapsulate in a short definition. However, for purposes of this brief response, the student will consider and define leadership as the process and action of guiding and direction a group of people towards a given end. Moreover, good leadership engenders the quality of inspiration over coercion; choosing to allow for the possibility of trailblazing new ideas rather than merely following a prescriptive playbook of actions based upon needs. Further, leadership, although prized and likely a commodity that is lacking within the current professional and political world, is not often appreciated within many of the largest multinational corporations throughout the world. This is of course due to the fact that oftentimes management is expected to be carried out utilizing a rather formulaic approach that does not rely upon the leadership capacity or imagination of the individual. However, leadership itself entails a great deal more than mere direction. Corollary parts of trust, belief, and mutual understanding between people are necessary components that cannot and should not be diminished. With respect to what leadership means to me, the answer to this deviates slightly from the textbook definition of what defines leadership. In this way, leadership must engender a great deal of selflessness, tacit yet clearly discernible levels of trust, and the continual dedication to considering the needs of those under your supervision prior to your own needs (Mutalib & Ghani, 2013). As a function of defining and understanding these nuanced concepts to a greater degree, the following analysis will focus upon understanding the following quote: “A leader’s true test is his or her ability to inspire behavioural changes required to transform organizational performance throughout the ranks” (Caldwell et al., 2012). This will in turn be analyzed leveraging an appreciation for the many schools of management theory that have existed and been promoted throughout the years; attempting to gain a level of oversight with regards to how leadership is viewed as a transformational process through which greater degrees of cohesion and increasing levels of utility/profitability can be engaged. Before delving into the step-by-step discussion of how the different management theories relate to an interpretation of leadership within the current model, it must be understood that leadership and management are two distinctly interconnected concepts. Whereas management refers to the actual process of accomplishing tasks, focusing resources, and mitigating risks, leadership engenders a more nuanced and personal understanding of how a given individual can encourage cooperation and respect within the employees/stakeholders in question (Mayer et al., 2012). By much the same token, management has a number of roles and functions whereas leadership is not judged by easily quantifiable metrics. For instance, management roles and functions can include, but are not limited to, decision-making, problem-solving, motivation, influencing, negotiating, delegation, and communication. This is not meant to state that leadership does not engender many of the same requirements. However, leadership is something that should not be understood to exist wholly separate from the management process. Rather, the two, in an ideal interpretation and application, must exist side-by-side as a means of providing the best overall product and experience to all individuals involved within the process (Muethel et al., 2012). In such a way, one of the best means of measuring effective leadership is to seek to engage with effective management and ensure that these determinants are met first and foremost. Only once effective management is realized, can true leadership tickets form. This is not to state that leadership must follow managerial process and/or theory 100% of the time. Rather, past instances have proven that many times there is a market deviation from standard managerial protocol and the means through which effective leader’s impact upon the decisions and consequences for the individuals under their purview. However, notwithstanding this fact, the following analysis will discuss and analyze effective management as a means of delineating the first steps through which effective leadership should in fact take place. Accordingly, prior to having the ability to effectively mobilize and instill a level of respect within the employees/stakeholders of a given group, it is necessary for any individual to first have a command of the management skill set (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Classical management theories, such as scientific management, bureaucratic management, and/or administrative management do not focus upon the degree and extent to which visionary leadership can and should be an outgrowth of effective management. Rather, these theoretical approaches are contingent upon the way in which a stratified and rather rigid approach to management delineates success and measurable metrics within the business world (Mallia et al., 2013). Whereas there is some truth to each of the classical management theories that have thus far been discussed, it has broadly been understood, within the past several decades, that glaring inconsistencies and the fact that cooperation between the stakeholders involved is not placed on a premium is perhaps the greatest shortcoming for these classical theoretical models that prompted a focus upon human resource management theories. As such, the ability to recognize and focus upon the goals and expectancies of interpersonal relations helps to underscore the ultimate weakness of the classical approach which has previously been denoted. However, just as the classical management theories reflected shortcomings and were ultimately unable to recognize the importance of human behavior and interaction, the human resource management theories, proposed by such individuals as Maslow, Herzberg, and McGregor, oversimplified management and involving workers and largely ignoring the external factors that may very well exist (Schuh et al., 2013). Naturally, a focus upon the way in which human impacts can have an effect on the way in which effective management can be leveraged was most certainly a move in the right direction; however, just as with any form of management skill sets or expertise, proper and effective management/leadership cannot be instituted merely following a simple step by step process that does not take into account the many different aspects and nuanced approaches that must be integrated in order to realize a degree of success. Further approaches to management theory include Barnard’s systems theory; which put forward the understanding the complex systems and subsystems are responsible for delineating the way in which the entity and culture of a given organization takes place. This is of course something of a unique approach due to the fact that the systems theory was one of the first to pioneer the understanding management processes can and should be impacted by the organization, the systems themselves, the unique nuances of interpersonal relationships, as well as the external environment. Of all the theories that have thus far been discussed, it is perhaps the systems management theory that is most applicable to fostering a degree of effective leadership above and beyond management processes in and of themselves. This is of course due to the fact that it considers a range of different impacts and the way in which these can affect decision-making process and/or the culture of the entire entity. A focus them on culture and upon the way in which decisions are formulated based upon a range of different in acting factors represents the most nuanced approach to management/leadership that has yet been engaged. Furthermore, the focus of seeking to integrate different systems and subsystems as a means of effectively and efficiently working together, the systems management approach portends a great deal of importance with regards to affect leadership/management theory. Yet, rather than taking systems theory as the most nuanced and complete approach that has thus far been discussed, it must be understood that contingency management theory should also be analyzed. Within contingency management theory, an understanding of the fact that different systems and/or different approaches are required based upon the specific type of organization helps the practitioner to come to the realization of the fact that there is indeed no universal paradigm that is equally suited to each and every situation (Karakas & Sarigollu, 2013). Such a realization is perhaps the most important realization of management theory that has thus far been discussed. Within this particular realization, the practitioner is made aware of the fact that universality with regards to management and/or leadership is in fact an elusive and nonexistent entity. Whereas many of the other approaches which have been discussed put special emphasis upon the way in which a given approach can and should be leveraged as a means of engendering success within any given organization/entity, contingency management theory promotes the understanding that such a level of universalism is not only elusive but in fact most likely nonexistent (Ishikawa, 2012). With regards to the inference that this has with respect to leadership, the reader can and should appreciate the fact that leadership is ultimately an outgrowth of each of the approaches and theories that have thus far been engaged. More importantly, management and effective leadership through effective management must integrate with the idea that no single approach is aptly suited to each and every group, system, subgroup, or culture. By realizing the relativity of the process overall, the reader is brought to an understanding for why leadership has so often struggled for an effective and nuanced definition. Whereas it is easy to delineate how effective management can and should take place, the difficulty and specifying a particular leadership strategy that is equally suited to creating success regardless of the situation involved is as elusive as our the increased levels of profitability that can be discovered through its application. Returning to the quote which encourage this analysis to take place, “a leaders true test is his or her ability to inspire behavioral changes required to transform organizational performance throughout the ranks”, the reader can come to an understanding of the fact that if a universal approach were to exist, the quote in question would have specified it and likely have gone on to explain how a prescriptive and systematic level of approach could affect positive benefits upon a given entity or organization. However, due to the fact that no such definition exists, the contingent and operative statement within the above quote is with regards to the ability to inspire behavioral change through transformation. Oftentimes, this can take place with respect to integrating with a systematic approach, sometimes an approach is best suited that deals with the bureaucratic level of management, oftentimes, contingency management is the most effective in understanding how such a process can be affected; even scientific management can be utilized within a given organization/group of individuals to encourage transformation (Sawar, 2013). In effect, what has been presented to the reader is a situation in which effective management and the ultimate outgrowth of this effective management, effective leadership, is a nuanced process that requires an understanding and appreciation for the differentials that exists within the compliment parts of an organization, culture, and environment (SCHYNS, 2011). Even though all of the theories which is been analyzed can be utilized, at least in part, as a means of affecting leadership, one aspect of leadership that can certainly be defined and at least partially measured is with respect to its visionary nature (Ertureten et al., 2013). Accordingly, it is this visionary nature, and ability to change and evolve with the demands and determinants of the organization and the environment which allow for effective leadership to be exhibited. Without vision, a leader will be completely and entirely incapable of analyzing his/her surroundings and determining which approach is best suited towards affecting the given transformation that is needed. Moreover, without a visionary leader, being able to determine what needs to be changed and how it should be changed, as well as what the finished product should look like, is unlikely to ever occur. It is this very determinant of vision that separates an effective manager from an effective leader (Du et al., 2013). Whereas an effective manager is oftentimes demanded and required as a means of fulfilling key objectives, leadership, regardless of the managerial level in which it is evidenced, demands that the individual pay particular attention to the way in which key determinants can be changed as a function of meeting goals that have not even yet specified. The visionary component is of such great importance that without it it is arguable that effective leadership can be evidenced at all. Naturally, leadership also involves strong compliments of respect, trust, and confidence (Rao, 2013). As such, it is not the intent of this author to intimate that the vision itself is enough to delineate good management/leadership from bad. Rather, just as with the necessity to incorporate a range of different theoretical approaches and seek to suit them to the need in question typifies a good leader, the ability to engage stakeholders with the degree of trust, confidence, and respect are all secondary components that are required in order for an individual to reflect a level of leadership (Kalaluhi, 2013). In conclusion, good management can be considered as the ability to meet deadlines, evoke utility, and ensure that one’s team meets or exceeds output standards. This process in and of itself is important; however, it has a distinctly impersonal side to it. Ultimately, the metrics of management are somewhat distinct from what the metrics of good and effective leadership are. As has been elaborated upon above, effective leadership takes on a distinctly more personal side and seeks to leverage the way in which an individual leader interacts with his/her stakeholders. Ultimately leadership is so difficult due to the fact that it is necessary to gain stakeholder buy in and trust/respect from such a range of different individuals. Although a person might be exceptionally well liked, this does not mean that they will be trusted and/or respected as a leader. In short, good leadership engenders so many qualities that it becomes painfully obvious why good leadership is so difficult to find within the world. References Caldwell, C., Dixon, R., Floyd, L., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas, G. (2012). Transformative Leadership: Achieving Unparalleled Excellence. Journal Of Business Ethics, 109(2), 175-187. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1116-2 Du, S., Swaen, V., Lindgreen, A., & Sen, S. (2013). The Roles of Leadership Styles in Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal Of Business Ethics, 114(1), 155-169. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1333-3 Ertureten, A., Cemalcilar, Z., & Aycan, Z. (2013). The Relationship of Downward Mobbing with Leadership Style and Organizational Attitudes. Journal Of Business Ethics, 116(1), 205-216. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1468-2 Ishikawa, Jun. 2012. "Transformational leadership and gatekeeping leadership: The roles of norm for maintaining consensus and shared leadership in team performance." Asia Pacific Journal Of Management 29, no. 2: 265-283. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 25, 2013). Kalaluhi, S. (2013). LEADERSHIP IN CONTEXT: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF FOLLOWER NEED FOR AUTONOMY ON DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP STYLE, EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP STYLE, AND LEADER EFFECTIVENESS IN VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS. Global Conference On Business & Finance Proceedings, 8(1), 139-143. Karakas, F., & Sarigollu, E. (2013). The Role of Leadership in Creating Virtuous and Compassionate Organizations: Narratives of Benevolent Leadership in an Anatolian Tiger. Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(4), 663-678. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1691-5 Mallia, K. L., Windels, K., & Broyles, S. J. (2013). The Fire Starter and the Brand Steward: An Examination of Successful Leadership Traits for the Advertising-Agency Creative Director. Journal Of Advertising Research, 53(3), 1-25. MAYER, D. M., AQUINO, K., GREENBAUM, R. L., & KUENZI, M. (2012). WHO DISPLAYS ETHICAL LEADERSHIP, AND WHY DOES IT MATTER? AN EXAMINATION OF ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ETHICAL LEADERSHIP. Academy Of Management Journal, 55(1), 151-171. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0276 Muethel, M., Gehrlein, S., & Hoegl, M. (2012). Socio-demographic factors and shared leadership behaviors in dispersed teams: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 525-548. doi:10.1002/hrm.21488 Mutalib, M., & Abdul Ghani, A. (2013). LEADERSHIP TRAITS, LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR, AND JOB AUTONOMY OF IMAMS IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA: A MODERATED MEDIATION ANALYSIS. International Journal Of Business & Society, 14(1), 17-40. Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts.Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6 Rao, M. S. (2013). Soft leadership: a new direction to leadership. Industrial & Commercial Training, 45(3), 143-149. doi:10.1108/00197851311320559 Sarwar, C. (2013). Future of Ethically Effective Leadership. Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(1), 81-89. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1283-9 Schuh, S., Zhang, X., & Tian, P. (2013). For the Good or the Bad? Interactive Effects of Transformational Leadership with Moral and Authoritarian Leadership Behaviors. Journal Of Business Ethics, 116(3), 629-640. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0 SCHYNS, B., KIEFER, T., KERSCHREITER, R., & TYMON, A. (2011). Teaching Implicit Leadership Theories to Develop Leaders and Leadership: How and Why It Can Make a Difference. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 397-408. Read More