Good Leadership Styles - Essay Example

Although it may be tempting to believe that leadership success can only be determined by seeking to analyze whether or not the stakeholders process have had their needs represented in satisfied, the fact of the matter is that success and leadership also extends to any and all individuals impacted upon by the decisions of such a leader. In such a way, seeking to maximize the level of social responsibility and cultural competence is vital as a means of ensuring the success that a particular leader can hope to achieve. As a function of discussing each of these determinants and analyzing personal experience, the following analysis will seek to discuss the means by which these metrics heavily impact upon the success and positive or negative attributions that a leader can have. Within the model of cultural competency, the analyst realizes that the increased level of globalization and integration that the current world model experiences necessarily demands that any leader of any value must at least have some measure of cultural competency. Evidence of this can be seen in any large multinational firm as it employs individuals from across the globe and from a variety of different cultures and backgrounds (French, 2010). Though it may be seen as some type of human resource training that has little if any real application, the fact of the matter is that a heightened sensitivity and attention to different backgrounds and the means by which individuals relate with metrics and one another is part and parcel of good leadership. Leadership can be broadly defined as the process of social influence to others as a means of enlisting their aid. From even a cursory level of analysis, the reader can come to the appreciation that leadership represents more of a macro process whereas management is more definitive and specific; at least with relation to eliciting a certain behavior or result from the process. Good leadership styles tend to focus upon innovation, originality, development, a focus on the shareholders, inspiration and development of trust, and keeping an eye on the future (Laksham, 2013). Yet perhaps the most important issue that has yet been discussed with regards to leadership and management has to do with whether or not a leader/manager should alter their style as a means of integrating with the needs of different individuals/workgroups. As such, effective leadership engenders the unique ability to mold and integrate with changes as a means of seeking the best path. It is further important to understand that such a level of approach does not specify one or the other must be engaged upon. Accordingly, it is possible and desirable for an individual to accomplish both of these styles of oversight in order to be an effective vehicle for change within a given institution. Although not all individuals can fulfill the requirements of each of these categories, the individual that does is able to see from both perspectives and seek to direct the firm/group/ or entity in the most appropriate way (Nelson, 2014). The first aspect of leadership that can be observed is with regards to the fact that leaders are tasked with providing a unique level of interest with regards to the issues at hand. In this way, acting as a prime motivator for how the shareholder views the product or the situation in question is a vital component of whether or not the leader will be effective. In such a manner, many leaders have found it necessary to focus, tailor, or “laser” their style as a means of engaging core components of the teams they seek to lead. This a skill that many might otherwise overlook; however, it is one that is of the utmost importance; due to the fact that without the ability to target the given shareholder with identifiable and gripping information, no matter how important the subject or how great the need to increase sales might be, the message will doubtless appear flat and otherwise stale. Comparatively, a good leader must utilize keen levels of communication to engage stakeholders with the excitement and uniqueness of an idea or a particular workflow situation; serving to drum up support and interest for the products long before they were even able to integrate with the market. As a means of presenting himself as the sole individual on an otherwise empty stage and methodically yet engagingly discussing these products with both a physical and multimedia audience, the leader must be able to convey a sense of leadership awe and excitement that would likely not have been engaged by a lesser individual. With regards to the second determinant, an effective leader must be able to represent a distinctive appreciation for the manner through which language and approach is understood within the firm/entity/organization (Mendenhal et al., 2013). What is meant by this is that even if a leader seeks to engage different groups of people utilizing different techniques, they must be ever mindful of the fact that such an approach, although potentially effective, could create a level of confusion with respect to what actual goals are being striven for throughout the organization as a whole. As a function of this, developing a communication style must be concentric upon the function of not allowing the scope of a particular project to shift or expectations to be redefined. One of the realities of management is that the manager is responsible for managing different types of people. In addition to the different types of people that the manager should lead, there are also many different types of contacts in which leadership and management should take place. As a way of understanding this, it is the intention of this author to write a research essay that will focus on the topic of managing in different contexts. Although there are many different types of management styles that could be analyzed, the research will specifically review democratic management and what is known as the laissez-faire management. As the name implies, Democratic management is a system through which the manager determines what approach is best based upon a consensus of the individuals he or she is managing. By means of comparison, a laissez-faire manager will attempt to take the course of least resistance and allow the individuals working under his/her direction to choose which path would be best (French, 2010). Instead of saying that one particular management style is better than another in each and every instance, the focus of the paper will be based upon determining context and how these different management styles engage in different situations. Ultimately, it is impossible for any single individual to be exceptional in all of the forms and best practices for management and/or leadership. However, with the proper level of dedication and a commitment to realizing that growth can take place within a litany of different areas, effective leaders have been able to maximize their potential and hone the ability that they have to lead individuals. Moreover, from the distinction between management and leadership that has thus far been put forward, the reader can come to the appreciation for the fact that although these two aspects are merely contributions that can increase the ultimate utility that a firm or individual can express, it should also be appreciated that they are unique and distinct unto themselves. Obviously, the greater of these two is with regards to the leadership potential that an individual can have. Whereas it is true some leaders find it best to approach different stakeholders utilizing different styles of communication and engagement, performing such a level of engagement is ultimately risky. As has previously been denoted, the underlying risk is not due to the fact that the leader might not engage this process properly; instead, it is predicated upon the fact that different stakeholders will doubtless understand core concepts of the leader’s communication and engagement strategy to mean that different levels of expectations are in fact required. This invariably creates a situation in which the singularity of purpose for an organization comes into question. Although the necessity for a leader to be mindful of motivating different individuals in different ways is an ever present issue, the fact of the matter is that the leader should be perennially mindful of the danger that such an approach entails; namely the potential for different stakeholders, depending upon their culture and/or background, to take away different meanings from the information that is presented to them. Although it is of course laudable for leadership to engage these stakeholders based upon their unique differences and levels of engagement, such an approach oftentimes borders on patronization and can lead to a situation in which confusion can be caused within the ranks of an organization. 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 (Nelson, 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. 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. 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. 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. Bibliography French, R. (2010) (2nd ed) ‘Cross Cultural Management in Work Organisations’ CIPD London. Nelson, R 2014, Leadership, Personal Values, and Cultural Context in Brazil, China, and the USA, BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, 11, 1, pp. 47-63, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 February 2014. Lakshman, C 2013, Biculturalism and attributional complexity: Cross-cultural leadership effectiveness, Journal Of International Business Studies, 44, 9, pp. 922-940, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 February 2014. MENDENHALL, M, ARNARDOTTIR, A, ODDOU, G, & BURKE, L 2013, Developing Cross-Cultural Competencies in Management Education via Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 12, 3, pp. 436-451, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 19 February 2014. Read More