Leadership and Professional Management - Coursework Example

Leadership and Professional Management Presented by Name Presented To Lecturer Institution Topic Date Leadership and Professional Management Introduction: Leadership can be defined as the process of directing the behavior of others towards the accomplishment of some common objectives (House 2004). It involves influencing others to get things done to a standard and quality above their norm. According to McGovern, Donald, and Gaken (2008), a professional leader is one who understands the goals of an organization. Accordingly, he has the capacity to plan for the steps required to accomplish the goals through projects and schedules that are within his scope of work. Excellent leadership requires a clear understanding of what it takes to accomplish the set objective effectively. This calls for integration of speed, quality, time and budget limits. For one to be regarded as a prominent leader, he must have willing followers, who are motivated to work with him in order to accomplish the set goals (McGovern, Donald, and Gaken 2008). Such leaders understand well that when followers put in their best efforts, something in return must be offered, which includes respect, appreciation and/or reward. In fact, getting the best out of the people in an organization is the hallmark of a good leader. A country’s reputation is based on the advancement in almost all aspects of life. Advancement in technology has been identified as the driving force of all this factors (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, and Cardy 2008). Without technology, a country is bound to lag, and this will lower its economic superiority. Leaders have, therefore, been factored in as the drivers for this change and their positive contribution will be of immense benefit to their country and globe at a large. Over the years, prominent leaders have emerged, who have accomplished numerous projects for the benefit of the human race. They have solved problems that seemed like theories to many, thus, transforming human life to comfort zones. This includes areas of energy, telecommunication, building and construction, material science, design and innovation, and research work in general. A leader is much recognized based on the achievements gained in any of this area. He is also recognized for his or her directives based on the study project that was accomplished under his or her leadership. The responses from the beneficiaries of the project clearly credit them and push them to prominence status. Bill gates and Steve Jobs are among the leaders who have achieved the status of prominence. They have been known for their accomplishments in the research activities, in the development of innovative technologies, which have been well received and implemented in many sectors and the feedback has been welcoming. They have demonstrated admirable leadership qualities in their fields and their charismatic management skills have seen most of their innovations functional to present. This paper strives to outline various leadership and management styles through describing two prominent leaders: Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The paper outlines the differences between the two leaders in terms of leadership situations, their leadership styles, management styles, and their leadership situations. Prominent leadership: Leadership usually goes hand in hand with management in that an exemplary leader will always adopt sound management skills (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, and Cardy 2008). In every field, one needs to show credibility in organizing the workforce in an industry as well as develop a working schedule that is functional and adaptable the respectful individuals. Being able to embrace all of this, and maintain a cordial relationship with your followers clearly demonstrates the quality of one’s leadership and management skills. Leaders in many fields, such as engineering, can either be in a technical environment or education-based environment (Mumford et al. 2000). Leaders in the technical environment are those who are practically applying the skills learnt in industries and companies whilst those in the education based environment are those dealing with training. Majority of them carry out research work that is beneficial to the technical environment. The two are an integral part of each other and trying to disintegrate them will lead to stagnation in research and application of various concepts. Therefore, a leader can gain prominence in either of the two fields depending on his or her accomplishment. Professional management: Management means using other people to accomplish a task through mental and physical efforts by people assuming leadership roles (Singh, Kundu, and Singh 1998). This implies that leadership and management run together. According to Adeniyi (2007: 19), the difference between leadership and management is that “managing is doing things right while leadership is doing the right things.” This implies that leadership is the core of professional management. For example, a leader will determine that a ladder is leaning against the right wall while a manager will ensure that the ladder is climbed correctly. The essence of professional management is based on the ability to use resources in such a way that they add value as desired by the various stakeholders in an organization. In several instances, the role of management lies in the management of workers and the work they do with the sole aim of making the work (and the workers) productive. Accordingly, professional managers are those who are capable of optimizing the worker’s output. A manager is effective if he can achieve admirable results in an organization through the use of different strategies. According to Adeniyi (2007: 22), such strategies aim at developing staff and employee effectiveness through “day-to-day decision making, staffing and planning, forecasting, nurturing, coaching, directing, organizing, marketing, encouraging, and controlling quality.” Effective leadership and professional management results from the use of different styles that not only compatible with one’s personality but also compatible with the values of the organization under consideration. Whichever the case, there are key characteristics that define effective leaders and professional managers. Such characteristics also aid in the process of leading and managing. They include transparency, honesty and effective communication, integrity, skillful or knowledgeable about the tasks under consideration, and easy to be followed by workers. Leadership and management styles: Different people use different leadership and management styles depending on their personalities and the values of the organizations they present. Leadership and management styles are about the behavior of an individual and are cultivated from the personality, philosophy, and experience of an individual under consideration (Miner, 2005). According to Adeniyi (2007), there are four common types of leadership styles: autocratic style, participative style, Laissez-faire style and missionary leadership style. In autocratic style of leadership, the leader is the main decision maker and he does not expect or tolerate any decision any help from the workers or subordinates. It is also known as authoritarian style of leadership. Although the style undermines the subordinates, it is facilitates speedy decision making. However, leaders and managers using this leadership style risk making the wrong decision and spending a lot of resources pursuing them since subordinates cannot advise them otherwise. In participative style of leadership, the leader or the manager welcomes ideas from his subordinates during the decision making process. Therefore, the decision making process in this leadership style is more like a consultation since the leader consults with his subordinates when making a decision. This style is also called democratic style. Unlike in authoritarian style, leaders and managers using participative style are not likely to make wrong decisions and pursue wrong goals. However, it takes long before such leaders make decisions due to the lengthy process of consulting with subordinates. Finally, Laissez-faire style of leadership involves letting the group under consideration free to make any decision required. This leadership style is also called free rein style. Missionary leadership involves leading by beliefs. This involves leading a team to accomplish a mission, which the leader believes is attainable. Effective leaders and professional managers use more than one of these leadership styles since each of them is essential at different times and situations (Adeniyi, 2007). For instance, a leader using participative leadership style will find that autocratic leadership style is exceedingly essential when time is limited to allow decisions from the subordinates. On the other hand, a manager using autocratic leadership style will find that some decisions require the opinion of the subordinates. Therefore, such a manager will turn to participative style during such circumstances. When a manager or a leader is in charge of a team comprising of professionals, it might be essential to employ laissez-faire style. This is especially the case when the team is motivated, and the level of expertise in the team is high and homogenous. A leader may be task-oriented (his primary source of satisfaction is the work done) or relationship oriented (he is satisfied by having a strong relationship with his subordinates). A study conducted by Fielder (Koontz and Weihrich 2007) on leadership styles indicated effective leadership is dependent on two factors: organization under consideration and the personal attributes of the leader. Accordingly, it is not possible to talk of an effective leader since a leader will be effective on one attribute but ineffective on the other attribute. For instance, a leader may be task-oriented implying that he will do anything possible to have tasks accomplished. Such a leader will not be concerned so much on interpersonal relationships with the subordinates. Accordingly, Fielder came out with a contingency model that tries to determine the situations that a leader would be most effective. Fielder, according to Koontz and Weihrich (2007: 324), described a favorable situation as one that enables a leader to be influential to the group he is leading. From the graph, it is evident that when the leader is proficient in one attribute, for example, task oriented, he will be poor in the other attribute, for example, relationship with subordinates (determined using least preferred co-worker). Figure 1: Fielder's Model of leadership. Retrieved from Koontz and Weihrich (2007), Essentials of Management: Three factors determine how a situation is favorable to a leader: position power, structure of the task under consideration, and the relationship between the leader and the team members. According to Koontz and Weihrich (2007), position power is the power held by the leader in the organization, which determines his ability to exercise authority over his team members. This is essential in determining how a leader makes his team members follow his instructions. Task structure is concerned with the description of a task as being structured or unstructured. It is also concerned with clarity of its description, which determines the ability of the leader and the team to carry out the task according to the detailed instructions. The relationship between the leader and the team members is concerned with how the team members trust and heed to the leader’s directions. These attributes are presented in Fielder’s model shown in figure 1. According to Koontz and Weihrich (2007), research indicates that when situations are extremely favorable, task-oriented leaders are effective in their work. The same applies when situations are extremely unfavorable. When situations are optimum (between the two extremities) relationship oriented leaders are effective in their leadership tasks. The implication of such a revelation is that professional leaders and managers should adjust their leadership behaviors in accordance with the favorability of the situation. Bill Gates: Bill Gates is an American Entrepreneur, an investor, philanthropist, and author. However, he is well known in the computer industry for having founded Microsoft along with Paul Allen. In addition, he is well known as the wealthiest person in the entire world (Wahba 2008). Currently, Bill Gates is the chairman of Microsoft, which is a company that makes computer software. He has worked for Microsoft since they founded the software company. In the company, Bill Gates served the position of the chief executive officer (CEO) and later as the chief software architect (CSA) before becoming the chairman of the company, a position that he holds up to date. Bill Gates has authored and co-authored many books, and he has been known for his charity work (philanthropic endeavors). Example of philanthropic work of Bill gates is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that he established in the year 2000 (Lesinski 2009). Leadership and Management Style of Bill Gates: At the time Microsoft was started, it was worth only 1 million USD (Lesinski 2009). This is the time Bill Gates assumed the responsibility of leading the company. Within a period of 24 years, (1978 to 2002), Bill Gates had managed to make the company a leader in the market worth about 28.37 billion USD. Even at the time the company had secured the position of the leading software company, Bill Gates was never satisfied. According to Lesinski (2009) he was always for the idea that continuous re-invention was exceedingly essential for Microsoft success. The major role that Bill Gates played at the company was executive and management roles (Lesinski 2009). He was extremely aggressive in diversifying the products of the company. He was extremely vigorous to defend the company when it reached stand points. Analysts suggest that the development of aggressive and innovative marketing strategies was one of the exceedingly essential contributions of Bill Gates to Microsoft Company (Lesinski 2009). To accomplish this, Bill Gates spend a considerable amount of his time meeting with customers. He was known as a deal master since a majority of the deals he made with the company’s customers ended up being successful. In addition, he was known for his ability to predict the future of his company. Accordingly, this helped him to position the company such that it coped with the trends and its products sold best during such trends. Nevertheless, Bill Gate’s management style receives a lot of critics. For instance, Freiberger (1981: 49) describes Bill Gates as a person who distanced himself from his subordinates. However, when he attended meetings with his subordinates, Bill Gates was known for being combative. As an executive, he was particularly keen to proposals being presented by his managers, and he would seek to get every point especially when the proposals or business strategies seemed to put the company at risk (Ballmer 1997). Steve Jobs: Steven Paul Jobs (Steve Jobs) was an inventor and a businessman, who is remembered for finding Apple alongside Steve Wozniak (Brashares 2001). At Apple, he worked as chairman and chief executive officer of the company. Besides Apple, Steves Jobs also co-founded NeXT, which is a company that was focusing on business markets and higher education. He returned to Apple computer after Apple decided to purchase NeXT where he served as an interim CEO and then as the permanent CEO of the company (Brashares 2001). During this period, Steve Job made several restructuring programs in company with the aim of boosting the profits of the company. According to Imbimbo (2009), Steve Jobs helped the company to increase its sales significantly. Under his leadership, the company increased the range of products from computers to other electronics, such as cellular phones. Leadership and Management Style of Steve Jobs: Steve Jobs was a missionary leader at Apples computers. This means that he was a leader driven by beliefs. He had organization and employees behind him with the same set of beliefs. He was forcing the pace of change in Personal Computer market. The board threw him out when they found his missionary leadership not appropriate in a multi-billion dollar company. After several years, he was invited back to lead Apple again. He was the driving force behind the launch of the different and interesting iMac computers (Imbimbo 2009). Steve Jobs was also an autocratic leader since always felt that what he did was right (Imbimbo 2009). He was an unassuming leader who was down to earth. Steve Jobs was not boisterous in his style of management, and he understood well why there was a need for outstanding public relations. He was a transformational leader being enthusiastic and passionate about his work. He created visions and injected motivation and energy to his team. He was also an unconventional leader. He was a high maintenance co worker who was demanding excellence from his staff. People knew Steve Jobs for his delivery of criticism which was blunt. However, being a genius and able to articulate his vision and bring investors, customers and staff, along with him and, in addition the lessons he learned, in his career setback made everything work out. In relation to Apple Company that he founded, he was often described as a visionary (Brashares 2001). Steve Job was a manager by meaning. This means recognizing people are human; they have cultural emotional and rational dimensions, and that they acknowledge the person who creates meaning that they can embrace. Job would design products that were not only beautiful, but that would create new meanings for the users. He was driven by search for products that would make sense to all people. For instant, iMac G3 changed meaning of computers to home devices from office objects while iPhones turned smart phones meaning from business objects to social entertainment objects (Brashares 2001). Steve Jobs offered to mean to all his employees. Apples employees worked extremely hard to meet targets, and on visionary projects and to satisfy their leaders attention to detail. He infused these employees with a sense of mission. Apple left a mark in the computing world, improved lives of people. It was bold and different in thinking. Comparative analysis between the leadership of Bill Gates and that of Steve Jobs: The two people are excellent at getting brilliant ideas and turning them into delightful products. This is evidenced by the fact that the two people co-founded organizations that ended up becoming extremely successful organizations. They are risk takers, who do not fear risks and their consequences. Of great importance, the two gentlemen are characterized by having a focus or mission, which they do anything to accomplish even if they do not get the right outcome at the first trial. For example, under the leadership of Bill Gates, Microsoft purchased MS-DOS at an extremely low price and turned it into a high cost product (Brashares 2001). For Steve Jobs, he led into the development of Apple II, which became the most innovative computer at the time (Lesinski 2009). In terms of management style, the two people share some commonalities in that they were task oriented. They were aggressive at the employees in order to ensure that tasks were successful in order to make their companies successful. The two people had elements of autocracy and would combat their employees. For instance, Steve Jobs was exceptionally demanding and aggressive to employees. He always aimed at making the products of Apple be the best in the information technology industry. Similarly, Bill Gates was known for being extremely combative to his managers especially when their proposals appeared to put the company (Microsoft) at risk. Like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates had a passionate concern for how Microsoft operated and succeeded, aiming to make the company’s products ranks highest in the computer industry. In terms of leadership, the two leaders have some similarities and differences. The two leaders were visionary, and they led their companies towards success. The success of Bill Gates in the computer software industries is based on his character as a foresighted and visionary person. He spent a considerable amount of his time meeting and interacting with the employees and customers of the company. He had a vision of making computing easy, effective, and affordable to all people all over the world. On the other hand, Steve jobs may be described as a transformational leader, who was always passionate with his work. He had some elements of autocracy in his leadership evidenced by his feeling that everything he did was right and should not be questioned. For instance, he left Apple since the management felt that he was forcing the pace of change in Personal Computer market (Imbimbo 2009). These two people had characteristics of distancing themselves from other employees. For instance, Freiberger (1981: 49) describes Bill Gates as a person who distanced himself from his subordinates. It was often difficult to get him even on the phone since he could fail to pick up calls or call back. Another difference exists in terms of leadership situation that was forcing each of the two leaders. First, the companies that the two leaders were involved had different philosophies and purposes. Secondly, the products were different for the two companies, making their leadership situation different. For instance, Microsoft was focusing on computer software while Apple was focusing on computer hardware. This implies that the two leaders had different leadership situations, which required the application of different leadership styles. Conclusion: Leadership usually goes hand in hand with management in that a exemplary leader will always adopt sound management skills. Different people use different leadership and management styles depending on their personalities and the values of the organizations they present. Leadership and management styles are about the behavior of an individual and are cultivated from the personality, philosophy, and experience of an individual under consideration. Effective leaders and professional managers use more than one of these leadership styles since each of them is essential at different times and situations. Three factors determine how a situation is favorable to a leader: position power, structure of the task under consideration, and the relationship between the leader and the team members. These include position power, structure of the task under consideration, and the relationship between the leader and the team members. When situations are extremely favorable, task-oriented leaders are effective in their work. The same applies when situations are extremely unfavorable. When situations are optimum (between the two extremities) relationship oriented leaders are effective in their leadership tasks. The implication of such a revelation is that professional leaders and managers should adjust their leadership behaviors in accordance with the favorability of the situation. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs achieved success in different ways. Their leadership styles were similar and different in a number of ways. The two leaders co-founded companies, although different companies in different fields, which indicates that their leadership was aimed at making their companies successful. In other words, they were missionary leaders who lead by meaning. Both leaders were risk takers and pursuers until they got what they wanted. Neither of them can be considered perfect or wrong in the way he led. In order to understand the reason behind the leadership style of any of them, it is crucial to consider the factors that contributed to such a leadership style as outlined in Fielder’s leadership model. However, the two leaders provide excellent examples that other leaders and those under training can learn from instead of finding fault with their leadership styles. The two people have been known for their success, which implies that their leadership styles were effective in bearing fruits. Bibliography Adeniyi, M. A., 2007. Effective Leadership Management: An Integration of Styles, Skills & Character for Today’s CEOs. AuthorHouse. Ballmer, S., 1997. Steve Ballmer Speech Transcript — Church Hill Club. Microsoft. From Retrieved November 29, 2011. Brashares, A., 2001. Steve Jobs: Thinks Different. Hong Kong: Twenty-First Century Books. Freiberger, P., 1981. Bugs in Radio Shack TRS-80 Model III: How Bad Are They? InfoWorld. P 49. From . Retrieved November 29, 2011. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., and Cardy, R. L., 2008. Management: People, Performance, Change, 3rd edition. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, p 19. House, R. J., 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Imbimbo, A., 2009. Steve Jobs: The Brilliant Mind behind Apple. U.S.A: Gareth Stevens Publishing. Koontz, H., and Weihrich, H., 2007. Essentials of Management: An International Perspective, 7th Edition. New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. Lesinski, J. M., 2009. Bill Gates: Entrepreneur and Philanthropist. Minneapolis, U.S.A: Twenty-First Century Books. McGovern, G. S., Donald, C. S., and Gaken, D., 2008. Leadership and Service: An Introduction. Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Miner, J. B., 2005. Organizational Behavior: Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A., 2000. Leadership Skills for a Changing World Solving Complex Social Problems. The Leadership Quarterly. 11(1), 11-35. Singh, S. K., Kundu, S. C., and Singh, S., 1998. Professional management. New Delhi, India: K. M. Rai Mittal Publications. P 3 Wahba, P., 2008. Bill Gates Tops U.S. Wealth list 15 Years in a Row. Reuters. From . Retrieved November 29, 2011. Read More