Leadership Behaviour Issues - Term Paper Example

? Leadership Introduction Introduction Leadership is the process of influencing people socially where one individual enlists the help of other people in the achievement of certain goals and objectives. It is also the mobilization of people in an organized manner in order to accomplish certain tasks. Scholars of leadership have devised various theories relating to the characteristics portrayed by various leaders (Goleman, 1998). A leader is a person to whom an organization bestows the responsibility of showing guidance to the rest of the employees or team members. They provide a sense of direction and guidance, which the rest follow to the latter in order for the organization to achieve its intended results. In essence, the major requirement in being an effective team leader is ones ability to communicate with the team members in a manner that will not offend them. This means that the leader needs to value the rest of the team players and be an equal participant in the work process. As a result, the essence of this paper will be to evaluate the behaviors of a leader with whom I have worked with previously. The name of this leader in this paper will be ‘Martin Luther’. 1. Ohio State University – Initiating Structure and Consideration Behavior Leadership Style Research at this institution identified two styles of leadership that were applicable in the day-to-day running of organizations. First, they argued that one style of leadership would be consideration. This meant that this type of leader showed interest in the team members and regarded them with utter respect. To this type of leader looking out for the well being of the team members was the overall quest. In addition, this leader shows gratitude and supports the junior staff to ensure that the group meets target. On the other hand, they adopted the initiating structure kind of leadership whose focus was on the performance of the tasks by clearly defining his roles and those of the followers. For this leader, the attainment of the set goal becomes the primary factor to which he establishes the channels of communication towards results attainment. In comparison, the consideration leader is friendly and approachable, but the task-oriented kind of leader only interacts with the followers when he/she is delegating the duties and tasks. In essence, Martin Luther was consideration kind of leader to the team as he treated all the members of the team with high regard. This enabled the team to feel appreciated and valued and that all their efforts were commendable. Martin was accessible to the team members in case we needed any form of work related assistance, as he was willing to help at any time. Another positive attribute that he had was that he showed the willingness to adapt to any form of change, which also made the team’s transition process to changes relatively easy (Collins, 2001). In addition, he treated all the team members equally by looking out for our interests without favoritism or bias. Usually, he would consult with the team members before executing any task so that he could make sure that everyone was comfortable with the implementation plan. Remarkably, he was keen on explaining the actions that he took or intended to take which made the team feel like family. His style of leadership according to the Ohio State University model proved effective, as our department was the best in performance and output. 2. Expectancy Theory of Motivation This theory states that individuals will decide on certain behavior because of the motivation given towards the selection of a certain behavior ‘due to the possible outcome expected. These individuals choose this one behavior out of a number of behaviors. Essentially, this theory encourages organizations to reward performance by ensuring that the team members de3serve and appreciate the rewards. This theory depicts the behavioral process in which individuals decide on one behavioral option over the others. It gives the explanation as to why they make these choices to attain the product. The author of this theory was Victor Vroom of the Management School of Yale. He introduced three components of this theory that were, (I) instrumentality, (V) valence, and lastly expectancy (E). On the first variable, effort (E) is directly relational to performance (P) in that one believes that their effort leads to the attainment of desired performance. Secondly, the instrumentality variable relates the performance to the result or the outcome in that they believe that they would receive a reward if they meet the expected performance. The third variable becomes the valence, which is the level of value that an individual regards the rewards based on their needs. In reference to this theory, Luther ensured that he rewarded individual effort accordingly. For him, the determining factor used to be the quality of performance that we gave on the individual level and not the overall team output. For instance, he used to say, “This month the employee of the month title goes to Mr. X for being punctual all through the month. “It is not that we all cannot be at our respective stations on time but showing little effort in doing the same shows that we are all trying,” he would add. This not only motivated us to work harder to attain desired performance output but also made us feel that not all was lost. In that, anybody would gain recognition as long as they put in the effort. His statements made us to want to possess the title come the following month as the titleholder wore a distinctive badge, which clearly stood out above all the other followers’ attire. This bestowed a sense of pride to the holder hence them valuing the title that they had received. 3. Types of Power and Influencing Tactics According to Lussier and Achua (2010), there are seven types of power which, when explored, can increase with influencing tactics. For one, there is the legitimate power bestowed legally by the organization that a leader works. Therefore, the employees feel that they have to do what the job pertains as the managers in authority exercise the necessary action if they do not perform the task. Secondly, there is the reward power, which bases on the leader’s ability to influence the performance of the team members with things of value to them (DuBrin 2009). Thirdly, there is the coercive power which entails with holding of employee rewards so that employees can comply to what the organization expects of them (Lussier & Achua 2010). Fourthly, there can be the application of the connection power, which is the leader’s relationship with other influential people. Fifth and sixth powers are Expert and persuasion powers which are when a leader has relevant knowledge above his peers and when a leader gains influence by persuading people to give them leadership (Khurana & Nhoria 2010). Lastly, there is the referent type of power that comes from individual personal traits, which in turn make him command a following. In the case of our leader Martin, he possessed both the reward and the referent kinds of powers. His good leadership traits made him stand out above all his predecessors, as they were very admirable (Cotton, 2007). In essence, the managerial post given to him deserved because what he exhibited commanded a following. He truly was a leader with reward power as he used rewards to entice the followers to work harder for the benefit of themselves and for the company. Essentially, he developed followers and not employees for himself and among us. 4. Transformational Leadership In order for one to pass as a transformational leader, he/she has to possess two styles of leadership (McManus 2006), which are transformational and charisma leadership traits. Charismatic leaders exhibit emotions that are appealing to the heart and mind (DuBrin 2011). They give faith, vision, and often take risks to influence their followers to perform better. On the other hand, transformational leaders have the ability to create a change-enabled atmosphere, which inspires the followers to achieve beyond their target (Daft & Lane 2008). These leaders propel their followers towards change, as they are instruments of change. To us Martin was this kind of leader because he showed us that change was better. For instance, he was the first to go for training on computer efficiency. To us the relying of old forms of data capture used to work out well for the team, as we were more comfortable that way. As an encouragement, Martin told us that using computer would make our work easier and that it was not that hard to learn the computer application since he had done it (Cotton, 2007). Amazingly, this inspired many followers to take up the courses on software applications, which yielded many results for the company as the quality of the output went up. Conclusion Martin Luther portrayed the many good traits of an effective leader though he did have shortcomings. For one, he used to be very harsh when we did not execute tasks as expected. He used to reproach us with the most terrible of words to try to pinpoint the mistake (Garrow, 1987). This instilled fear in us where no one attempted to go wrong under his leadership. Therefore, he portrayed poor communicative skills when it came to employee correctional approach. On the contrary, as I evaluate the behaviors and characters of my previous manager I feel that leadership is a continuous process, which needs not stop because one can only be better, and not the best. References Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 Leadership. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on 6 October, 2012, from http://www.tree4health.org/distancelearning/sites/www.tree4health.org.distancelearning/files/readings/Collins.%20Five%20Leadership%20Levels.pdf Cotton, T.R. (2007). The Leadership principles of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and their relevance to surgery, Journal of the National Medical Association. 99(1): 7–14. Daft, R. L., & Lane, P. G. (2008). The leadership experience. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western. DuBrin, A. J. (2009). Essentials of management. Mason, OH: Thomson Business & Economics. DuBrin, A. J. (2011). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Garrow, J. D. (1987). Martin Luther King, Jr., and the spirit of leadership. The Journal of American History, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 438-447. Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on 6 October, 2012, from https://www.mercy.edu/faculty/Georgas/inbs640/files/WhatMakesaLeader.pdf Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2010). Handbook of leadership theory and practice. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press. Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2010). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development. Australia: SouthWestern/Cengage Learning. McManus, J. (2006). Leadership: Project and human capital management. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann. Morrill, R. L. (2010). Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in colleges and universities. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Read More