Of A Leadership - Case Study Example

 CASE STUDY OF A LEADER A leader is an individual can influence the thoughts and actions of a segment of people based on their powerful ways of doing things as well as strong ideologies that these people adore. As a result of their status in the society, they use their manipulation by being on the forefront to spearhead operations and governing how operations are carried out. They pride in having leverage over their followers and happen to be the face of all decisions, innovations and actions amongst their people. They are a worshiped few and acknowledged by their followers as well as those they govern. Various leaders often possess different traits thereby imposing their rulings as well as operations differently. While others are born leaders, some leaders tend to use coercion as a strategy for leadership making them an enemy of the people who are left to their mercies but have to follow by default. Leaders rule based on their leadership styles that vary depending on each leader. Basing on their leadership styles, some leaders are a friend of the people and a real idol to their followers who see them as role models such as re-known African leader Nelson Mandela. On the hand, some leaders are a pain to the people as they abuse power by forcefully dictating rules making people loathe their leadership style. A perfect example for this is world’s famous African leader Idi Amini popularly referred to as Dictator Idi Amini. Traits of a Good Leader Leaders all over the world are governed by specific traits that determine their leadership skills and style of leadership. Bearing in mind the fact that a leader is the force behind many decisions guiding a bigger fraction of people, a good leader has to be emotionally upright so as to be in a perfect position to make wise decisions as well as straight rulings. Having been downed the responsibility of ruling many people all of whom share different thoughts, perceptions and ideologies, a good leader has to be able to put up with all their people, welcome views, suggestions, as well as ideas from all irrespective of their status in the society. A leader’s personal judgments should, therefore, be concealed and not be a reflection of their thoughts in the public domain. Leadership comes with feelings of mixed reactions and is bound to face criticism as well as opposition from various quarters hence a leader should be able to welcome critics and positively dissolve views from those in opposition. Noting the fact that a leader rules over different aspects of people, a leader ought to be a strong and firm person who strongly stands their grounds (Ciancolo, 2004). This tough nature is of the essence in that followers do not take their leader for granted and respect and acknowledge their authority. If a leader were to possess weak attributes, people would take them for granted and fail to heed to their propositions and rulings. It is worth noting also that in as much as it is vital for a leader to be strong and tough in their ruling that dictating over their followers is a vice that is bound to cause tension and not only break bonds but also weaken on their relationship with their followers. A tough leader should also be bold and confident in their operations not so as to instill fear in their people but to possess that authority and command of power. With confidence, a leader will be respected by those opposing their leadership and who thoroughly will scrutinize their grounds before getting into the leaders ways. A leaders ruling are also bound to be respected as with confidence; they can build the trust of their followers. People tend to associate more with sociable leaders hence a leader should be able to dissolve fully in the affairs of their people and develop a strong social bond with them. For people to fully recognize their leader and accept as well as acknowledge their authority, the leader has to be reassuring to their people in such a way that the people can not only feel their command but acknowledge the fact that they have an able person in power. A good leader ought to be passionate about the affairs of the people they govern such that they feel and act as part of them. People tend to incline and identify more with a leader who shares their feelings and plights hence a perfect leader should be passionate and speak as well as a fight for their people with passion and vigor. Characteristics of a Good Leader Ideal characteristics of a good leader are immense and not limited any situation. Among them are; the fact that a good leader should be upbeat of all his operations and state of affairs touching on the people they lead. They should also be practical and be able to keep afloat in all situations so as to be able to counter impending situations way before they arise. By keeping tabs on all affairs both within and without, a leader can effectively govern and rule over their people and understand issues affecting both their inner circles and those from their neighbors, as well as the globe. A good leader should also be quick-witted and able to adopt new practical strategies to govern his operations (Daft & lane, 2005). With the intent on keeping afloat with current as well as global affairs, a good leader should be in a position to be well acquitted with first-hand information and hands-on skills on all manner of operations. A good leader should generally be an all round person who can integrate all aspects of their leadership wisely while balancing on all with a bid of maintain stability and cohesion hence a smooth flow of operations. A good leader should also be supple and in a position to adopt as well as wisely handle any situation that comes their way. In the spirit of expressing reliability and efficiency, a good leader should be able to adapt to any given situation while adopting new strategies and mechanisms to handle different situations. Excellent interpersonal, as well as communication skills, are essential to any leadership as with leadership communication is the determining factor of one’s influence. A good leader therefore should be able to communicate effectively not only with his followers but other leaders as well so as to effectively manage operations within their jurisdiction. With excellent communication capabilities, a good leader can hit deals with the international community as well as effectively analyze and synthesize different states of affair. Knowledge is vital in any form of leadership. Thus, a perfect leader ought to be knowledgeable so as to be able to make wise decisions as well as analyzing various situations. They should also possess the art of entrustment so as to delegate effectively tasks to their cabinets. Theories of Leadership A number of theories determine leadership but of them all, there are four main theories; trait, behavioral, situational and integrative theories. The trait theory of leadership tends to argue on what type of person makes a good leader. Under this theory, a good leader is determined by who they are in person. It analyzes an individual’s individuality traits, their cognition, perception and rational abilities as well as collective abilities that differentiate one from the rest of the people (Goethals et al., 2004). The trait theory of leadership also overlooks physical attributes of a person depending on individual characteristics as different people have varying perceptions on physical attributes and associate various physical characteristics with different ways of thinking and judgment. According to the trait theory, a leader is not analyzed basing on their perceptions, proactive or being skills rather than what they present themselves. A leader’s individual characteristics are thus essential in determining and choosing on the ideal leader. Therefore, the emphasis is laid on the outward analysis of an individual and not what they possess from the inward self. Examples of traits sought by the trait theory are such as ambitious individuals who are confident, assuring, knowledgeable, intelligence, objective among many others. With all said, the trait theory of leadership, however, faces criticism in that critics argues that there all no overall characteristics that foresee perfect management skills at all times. In essence, this is to show that there is no perfect trait that can tell or determine how leaders behave. There is also no clear substantiation of how an individual’s presentation of personal traits influences their thoughts and actions and eventually determining how they rule over people. The trait theory is also evidently biased in that it clearly portrays how a leader ought to look like but rather does not spell out the thin line between good and bad leaders. Behavioral theories, on the contrary, argue leadership on the basis of how leaders perform their duties and how they relate with those they command. According to this theory, the leader is determined by who they are and not what they do. A leader is thus analyzed by what one does and how they behave. Basing arguments of leadership from this theory, it is easy to point clearly out good leaders and bad leaders based on their actions and performances. The behavior of a leader is clearly affected by their performance that forms the basis of the argument for their analysis. Three subcategories are thus acquired from this theory; autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire forms of leadership. Autocratic leaders are more of dictators as they pass on leadership based on their personal decisions and judgments. Such leaders do not consult with their followers or team of leadership making all decisions purely theirs. It is most applicable when hasty decisions need to be sought and out into place or when a certain move is outright. However, it can be a risky affair in an event that public inclusion is essential then a leader goes ahead to pass on judgment own their own even without putting public interests at heart. Democratic leaders on the hand value the contribution of their team as well as followers hence in all matters judgment, they seek public views and opinions making everybody part of their leadership. Depending on situations and circumstance at hand, a leader can choose to include their team and followers on the entire decision-making process or a fragment of it fully. It is effective in that by including one’s team and the public at large; a leader can gain public trust and loyalty as well as strengthen the bonds between themselves and those they govern. It also increases cohesion and boosts on a leader’s relationship with their people. On the other hand, democracy in leadership can be a risky affair in that fully dissolving each’s ideas can be tough (Hahesy, 2002). The public, one’s team as well as opposing team might all have varying ideas which they all feel the need to be included in leadership making it difficult for a leader to dissolve fully all of their views and make them all satisfied. Biases tendencies can, therefore, portray themselves as well as enormity where parties that feel sidelined blame the leaders for not diffusing their issues into their operations. It is, therefore, important that leaders who choose this form of leadership to be prudent so as to avoid cases of biases culminating into built trust to some people and mistrust to some other people. Laiseez faire leadership contrary to the former forms of leadership allows for the leader to allow room for their people to make decisions while they only act in passing decisions made. Such leaders are immensely loved upon as they give their team all the freedom to be their selves (Hiebert & Klatt, 2001). It is also relieving to such leaders in that they do not have to work much doing all the work by them. By their team coming in, they are relieved and saved of a lot of hustles as they do not have to work much. Nevertheless, it can also be risky in an event that a leader’s team is less motivated or tends to work towards achieving their selfish interests. Under such circumstances, the team can choose to make biased or wrong decisions that can see to the leader’s downfall. Cases of blood between a leader and members of his team can also arise culminating into vengeance that in the end emanates from cold relationships between them. It is thus also advisable just like in the democratic form of leadership that a leader trades wisely while involving other people in helping them make decisions lest defamation arises. The contingency theory, on the other hand, does not have a specific basis of the argument but rather tends to analyze how a given situation determines a given form of leadership. Leaders are thereby determined by how they relate to any given circumstance that affects them. According to this theory, analysis is made on the basis of the mode of style a leader uses in his leadership process, analyzing the situation at hand and analyzing how the leader best fits his leadership style with the given situation. Critics argue that key among all in leadership is determining the leadership style sought by an individual. It helps in analyzing a leader and giving a proper synopsis of who they are. By so doing, people can clearly tell what type of people their leaders are. While analyzing the situation that eventually determines a leader, certain scopes are overlooked; the relationship between the leader and their members with which respect, confidence, and trust are paramount. In any given set of individual, people follow their leaders based on their levels of respect and trust in them. Confident leaders also portray high levels of trust making their followers have faith in them. The manner in which a leader carries out their duties as well as designating tasks to their members is also essential in that by dutifully and confidently carrying out tasks effectively, they build on their followers’ loyalty. A leader’s capability in effectively expressing their powers determines how well they relate to their team (Meindl & Schyns 2005). Good cohesions are sought through good relationships that are created by offering incentives and bonuses, as well as frequent hiring and promotions. On the other hand, in an event of hiring, all parties ought to be included, and it only becomes an option available for choice in worse scenarios alone. Based on the analysis above, a leader is matched with a given situation and analysis of them made based on results gotten. The effectiveness and reliability of a leader can be sought by either bending the leader to dissolve best in a certain situation or bending the situation to best fit according to the standards of the leader. By so doing cohesion, is sought and there is a guarantee of perfect relationships between the leader and their people. The integrative theory tends to argue based on analysis of the combination of how various individual traits, behavior, and situational based operations all merge to determine an individual’s relationship with their people. Based on this theory, a leader is determined based on their transformational as well as transactional skills (Winkler, 2010). Under the transformational leadership, a leader is characterized by accepting the need to do things differently, set and perform clear strategies for guiding the transformation as well as dissolving other team members into the expected change. Through transformational leadership, a leader also adopts motivating factors so as to boost the morale of their followers by offering incentives, bonuses as well as improving their living standards so as to raise them a top notch to fit into raised levels. Through this theory therefore, both the leaders and their followers can upgrade each other hence building on levels of enthusiasm and decency. Through it, there is clarity in setting goals that are sought with raised levels of the prospect. Teamwork is encouraged with the intent of heartening each other so as to work towards achieving a common goal. By so doing, evenhandedness is essential based on a high degree of veracity and people do not act towards achieving their selfish interests but rather rousing people to reach for the implausible. A good transformational leader works towards motivating their team by building strong, trustworthy bonds so as to strengthen their relationships, as well as build strong networks (Ulrich et al., 1999). They also help in rousing on the future of their people by effectively being relied upon to meet to set visions. Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is propagated in a hierarchical manner that is well strategized and emphasizes on command, association and teamwork. Through it, team members are motivated by incentives, rewards and recognition. Members who fail to dissolve in the leadership process also receive chastisement with the intent of avoiding instances of defaming the leader and their work. In transactional leadership, operations are best laid out when visions are clear so as to outline clearly everybody’s tasks. Motivation is also paramount so as to enhance the morale of team members. For good cohesion, command of authority is fully felt, and the leader has to be tough-minded so as to gain respect from their followers. (Maxwell, 2002) Comparing both transactional and transformational leadership clearly shows vast discrepancies in how operations are carried out. While in the former leadership is approachable, with the latter, it is practical. Transactional leaders work under hierarchical structures while transformational leaders bring aboard new thoughts so as to change the face of their leadership. Motivating factors such as rewards and incentives are a must in transactional leadership while in transformational leadership motivation is by enhancing on an organization’s operations so as to lure employees. Transactional leadership is aimed at bringing drawing team members so as to suit their selfish gains while with transformational leadership; the overall interests of both leaders and team members are put into consideration. Case Study of a Renowned Leader in Australia This research paper is focused on analyzing a case study of an influential leader in the history of Australia; Tonny Abbott, Australia’s prime minister. Tonny is faced with all manner of critics with many opposing his leadership abilities. According to Tim (Dunlop, 2015) the dissatisfaction is palpable a trend reflected in the numerous polls. He is an enemy within his party in which he only happens to be living in out of default from the topical attempts to relieve him off his duties and send him packing. The entire government seems dissatisfied in his leadership as public opinions have repeatedly reflected distrust in him. Accusations of incompetence and mishandling public resources take center stage in his flaws. He is also accused of carrying out decisions by himself without including members of government. He is also accused of using the transformational leadership theory by changing previous trends to sway in his liking. Reshuffling members of his cabinet is also a flaw that has seen to his dissatisfaction in that he does not emphasize on motivating his team. According to (Kenny, 2015), Abbott’s beleaguered; leadership has entered the phase where even baseless rumors tend to have a locomotive force. The jeopardy of his leadership is evident and risks political instability. Conclusion In summary, every leader ought to adopt effective leadership strategies with the intent of winning the loyalty of their team while enhancing on good relations. It is essential to note that for a perfect leadership, the leader has to be in perfect cohesion with his team and boost on teamwork. References Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. and Sternberg, R. (2004). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Daft, R. and Lane, P. (2005). The leadership experience. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western. Goethals, G., Sorenson, G. and Burns, J. (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Hahesy, M. (2002). Transformational leadership theories, attribution beliefs, and self-efficacy. Hiebert, M. and Klatt, B. (2001). The encyclopedia of leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill. Maxwell, J. (2002). Leadership 101. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Schyns, B. and Meindl, J. (2005). Implicit leadership theories. Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Pub. Ulrich, D., Zenger, J. and Smallwood, W. (1999). Results-based leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Winkler, I. (2010). Contemporary leadership theories. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Read More