Time Management PowerPoint Content
Uploaded by Andrew-Schwartz on WiZiQ Tutorials
Leadership
Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task”. A definition more inclusive of followers comes from Alan Keith of Genentech who said "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen."
Leadership is one of the most relevent aspects of the organizational context. However, defining leadership has been challenging. The following sections discuss several important aspects of leadership including a description of what leadership is and a description of several popular theories and styles of leadership. This article also discusses topics such as the role of emotions and vision, as well as leadership effectiveness and performance, leadership in different contexts, how it may differ from related concepts (i.e., management), and some critiques of leadership as generally conceived.
According to the late Jules Masserman, American psychoanalyst and former member of the faculty of Northwestern University medical school, leaders must fulfill three functions: the leader must provide for the well-being of the led, provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure, and provide a set of beliefs.
Theories of leadership
Trait theoryTrait theory tries to describe the types of behavior and personality tendencies associated with effective leadership. This is probably the first academic theory of leadership. Thomas Carlyle (1841) can be considered one of the pioneers of the trait theory, using such approach to identify the talents, skills and physical characteristics of men who arose to power. Ronald Heifetz (1994) traces the trait theory approach back to the nineteenth-century tradition of associating the history of society to the history of great men.
Proponents of the trait approach usually list leadership qualities, assuming certain traits or characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Shelley Kirkpatrick and Edwin A. Locke (1991) exemplify the trait theory. They argue that "key leader traits include: drive (a broad term which includes achievement, motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership motivation (the desire to lead but not to seek power as an end in itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence (which is associated with emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business. According to their research, "there is less clear evidence for traits such as charisma, creativity and flexibility".
Criticism to trait theory
Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach. The "strongest" versions of trait theory see these "leadership characteristics" as innate, and accordingly labels some people as "born leaders" due to their psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders, then training those with potential.
Behavioral and style theories
In response to the criticism of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of 'successful' leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, saw leadership skills, not so much as a set of traits, but as a pattern of motives. He claimed that successful leaders will tend to have a high need for power, a low need for affiliation, and a high level of what he called activity inhibition (one might call it self-control).
In response to the criticism of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of 'successful' leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, saw leadership skills, not so much as a set of traits, but as a pattern of motives. He claimed that successful leaders will tend to have a high need for power, a low need for affiliation, and a high level of what he called activity inhibition (one might call it self-control).
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: (1) authoritarian, (2) democratic and (3) laissez-faire.Authoritarian climates were characterized by leaders who make decisions alone, demand strict compliance to his orders, and dictate each step taken; future steps were uncertain to a large degree. The leader is not necessarily hostile but is aloof from participation in work and commonly offers personal praise and criticism for the work done. Democratic climates were characterized by collective decision processes, assisted by the leader. Before accomplishing tasks, perspectives are gained from group discussion and technical advice from a leader. Members are given choices and collectively decide the division of labor. Praise and criticism in such an environment are objective, fact minded and given by a group member without necessarily having participated extensively in the actual work. Laissez faire climates gave freedom to the group for policy determination without any participation from the leader. The leader remains uninvolved in work decisions unless asked, does not participate in the division of labor, and very infrequently gives praise. The results seemed to confirm that the democratic climate was preferred.
Themanagerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Moutoun in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.
Situational and contingency theoriesMain articles: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, Path-goal theory, and Hersey-Blanchard situational theory
Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions."
Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normatize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying in which situations each style works better. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of their followers in the day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez faire leadership style is appreciated by the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leader does not "take charge", he can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems. Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in the recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorableness (later called "situational control"). The theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good-relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented). According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favourable or unfavourable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favourability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988),[16] developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, taxonomy that was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles where connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred as situational contingency theory.
The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom. According to House, the essence of the theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance. The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, but also as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.
The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of followership-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.
Functional theory
Main article: Functional leadership model
Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader’s main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting organisation's effectiveness. These functions include: (1) environmental monitoring, (2) organizing subordinate activities, (3) teaching and coaching subordinates, (4) motivating others, and (5) intervening actively in the group’s work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (Fleishman, 1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors’ behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those standards.
Transactional and transformational theories
Main articles: Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership
The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached.
The transformational leader (Burns, 2008) motivates its team to be effective and efficient. Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing the group on the final desired outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly visible and uses chain of command to get the job done. Transformational leaders focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by people who take care of the details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the organization to reach the company’s vision.
Leadership and emotions
Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process. In an organization, the leaders’ mood has some effects on his group. These effects can be described in 3 levels:
1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood.The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion.Mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.
2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.
3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy.Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good.The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.
In research about client service it was found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were another findings.
Beyond the leader’s mood, his behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during interactions with their employees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective events. Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders. Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective leadership in organizations. Leadership is about being responsible.
Leadership performance
In the past, some researchers have argued that the actual influence of leaders on organizational outcomes is overrated and romanticized as a result of biased attributions about leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these assertions however, it is largely recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that leadership is important, and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute to key organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). In order to facilitate successful performance it is important to understand and accurately measure leadership performance.
Job performance generally refers to behavior that is expected to contribute to organizational success (Campbell, 1990). Campbell identified a number of specific types of performance dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified. There is no consistent, overall definition of leadership performance (Yukl, 2006). Many distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the umbrella of leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness, leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For instance, leadership performance may be used to refer to the career success of the individual leader, performance of the group or organization, or even leader emergence. Each of these measures can be considered conceptually distinct. While these aspects may be related, they are different outcomes and their inclusion should depend on the applied/research focus.
Contexts of leadership
Leadership in organizations
An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards him from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position.
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the social structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, man was preoccupied with his personal security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now man spends a major portion of his waking hours working for organizations. His need to identify with a community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders.
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to gain co-operation from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.
A leader is a person who influences a group of people towards a specific result. It is not dependent on title or formal authority. (elevos, paraphrased from Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership Presence, Halpern & Lubar). Leaders are recognized by their capacity for caring for others, clear communication, and a commitment to persist. [30] An individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position. However, he must possess adequate personal attributes to match his authority, because authority is only potentially available to him. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate authority.[29] Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.
Leadership versus management
Over the years the terms management and leadership have been so closely related that individuals in general think of them as synonymous. However, this is not the case even considering that good managers have leadership skills and vice-versa. With this concept in mind, leadership can be viewed as:
* centralized or decentralized
* broad or focused
* decision-oriented or morale-centred
* intrinsic or derived from some authority
Any of the bipolar labels traditionally ascribed to management style could also apply to leadership style. Hersey and Blanchard use this approach: they claim that management merely consists of leadership applied to business situations; or in other words management forms a subset of the broader leadership process. They say: "Leadership occurs any time one attempts to influence the behavior of an individual or group, regardless of the reason. Management is a kind of leadership in which the achievement of organizational goals is paramount." And according to Warren Bennis and Dan Goldsmith, A good manager does things right. A leader does the right things."
However, a clear distinction between management and leadership may nevertheless prove useful. This would allow for a reciprocal relationship between leadership and management, implying that an effective manager should possess leadership skills, and an effective leader should demonstrate management skills. One clear distinction could provide the following definition:
* Management involves power by position.
* Leadership involves power by influence.
Abraham Zaleznik (1977), for example, delineated differences between leadership and management. He saw leaders as inspiring visionaries concerned about substance while managers he views as planners who have concerns with process. Warren Bennis (1989) further explicated a dichotomy between managers and leaders. He drew twelve distinctions between the two groups:
* Managers administer; leaders innovate.
* Managers ask how and when; leaders ask what and why.
* Managers focus on systems; leaders focus on people.
* Managers do things right; leaders do the right things.
* Managers maintain; leaders develop.
* Managers rely on control; leaders inspire trust.
* Managers have short-term perspective; leaders have long-term perspective.
* Managers accept the status-quo; leaders challenge the status-quo.
* Managers have an eye on the bottom line; leaders have an eye on the horizon.
* Managers imitate; leaders originate.
* Managers emulate the classic good soldier; leaders are their own person.
* Managers copy; leaders show originality.
Paul Birch (1999) also sees a distinction between leadership and management. He observed that, as a broad generalization, managers concerned themselves with tasks while leaders concerned themselves with people. Birch does not suggest that leaders do not focus on "the task." Indeed, the things that characterise a great leader include the fact that they achieve. Effective leaders create and sustain competitive advantage through the attainment of cost leadership, revenue leadership, time leadership, and market value leadership. Managers typically follow and realize a leader's vision. The difference lies in the leader realising that the achievement of the task comes about through the goodwill and support of others (influence), while the manager may not.
This goodwill and support originates in the leader seeing people as people, not as another resource for deployment in support of "the task". The manager often has the role of organizing resources to get something done. People form one of these resources, and many of the worst managers treat people as just another interchangeable item. A leader has the role of causing others to follow a path he/she has laid out or a vision he/she has articulated in order to achieve a task. Often, people see the task as subordinate to the vision. For instance, an organization might have the overall task of generating profit, but a good leader may see profit as a by-product that flows from whatever aspect of their vision differentiates their company from the competition.
Leadership does not only manifest itself as purely a business phenomenon. Many people can think of an inspiring leader they have encountered who has nothing whatever to do with business: a politician, an officer in the armed forces, a Scout or Guide leader, a teacher, etc. Similarly, management does not occur only as a purely business phenomenon. Again, we can think of examples of people that we have met who fill the management niche in non-business organisationsNon-business organizations should find it easier to articulate a non-money-driven inspiring vision that will support true leadership. However, often this does not occur.
Patricia Pitcher (1994) has challenged the bifurcation into leaders and managers. She used a factor analysis (in marketing) technique on data collected over 8 years, and concluded that three types of leaders exist, each with very different psychological profiles: Artists (imaginative, inspiring, visionary, entrepreneurial, intuitive, daring, and emotional), Craftsmen (well-balanced, steady, reasonable, sensible, predictable, and trustworthy), Technocrats (cerebral, detail-oriented, fastidious, uncompromising, and hard-headed). She speculates that no one profile offers a preferred leadership style. She claims that if we want to build, we should find an "artist leader" if we want to solidify our position, we should find a "craftsman leader" and if we have an ugly job that needs to get done like downsizing, we should find a "technocratic leader". Pitcher also observed that a balanced leader exhibiting all three sets of traits occurs extremely rarely: she found none in her study.
Bruce Lynn postulates a differentiation between 'Leadership' and ‘Management’ based on perspectives to risk. Specifically,"A Leader optimises upside opportunity; a Manager minimises downside risk." He argues that successful executives need to apply both disciplines in a balance appropriate to the enterprise and its context. Leadership without Management yields steps forward, but as many if not more steps backwards. Management without Leadership avoids any step backwards, but doesn’t move forward.
Leadership by a group
In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the traditional leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In some situations, the maintenance of the boss becomes too expensive - either by draining the resources of the group as a whole, or by impeding the creativity within the team, even unintentionally.
A common example of group leadership involves cross-functional teams. A team of people with diverse skills and from all parts of an organization assembles to lead a project. A team structure can involve sharing power equally on all issues, but more commonly uses rotating leadership. The team member(s) best able to handle any given phase of the project become(s) the temporary leader(s). According to Ogbonnia (2007), "effective leadership is the ability to successfully integrate and maximize available resources within the internal and external environment for the attainment of organizational or societal goals". Ogbonnia defines an effective leader "as an individual with the capacity to consistently succeed in a given condition and be recognized as meeting the expectations of an organization or society." Additionally, as each team member has the opportunity to experience the elevated level of empowerment, it energizes staff and feeds the cycle of success.
Leaders who demonstrate persistence, tenacity, determination and synergistic communication skills will bring out the same qualities in their groups. Good leaders use their own inner mentors to energize their team and organizations and lead a team to achieve success.
Leadership among primates
Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence present evidence that only humans and chimpanzees, among all the animals living on earth, share a similar tendency for a cluster of behaviors: violence, territoriality, and competition for uniting behind the one chief male of the land. [1] This position is contentious. Many animals beyond apes are territorial, compete, exhibit violence, and have a social structure controlled by a dominant male (lions, wolves, etc.), suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's evidence is not empirical. However, we must examine other species as well, including elephants (which are undoubtedly matriarchal and follow an alpha female), meerkats (who are likewise matriarchal), and many others.
It would be beneficial, to examine that most accounts of leadership over the past few millennia (since the creation of Christian religions) are through the perspective of a patriarchal society, founded on Christian literature. If one looks before these times, it is noticed that Pagan and Earth-based tribes in fact had female leaders. It is important also to note that the peculiarities of one tribe cannot necessarily be ascribed to another, as even our modern-day customs differ. The current day patrilineal custom is only a recent invention in human history and our original method of familial practices were matrilineal (Dr. Christopher Shelley and Bianca Rus, UBC). The fundamental assumption that has been built into 90% of the world's countries is that patriarchy is the 'natural' biological predisposition of homo sapiens. Unfortunately, this belief has led to the widespread oppression of women in all of those countries, but in varying degrees. (Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1995 by Thomas Laird, Michael Victor). The Iroquoian First Nations tribes are an example of a matrilineal tribe, along with Mayan tribes, and also the society of Meghalaya, India. (Laird and Victor, 1995).
By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of man, do not unite behind the chief male of the land. The bonobos show deference to an alpha or top-ranking female that, with the support of her coalition of other females, can prove as strong as the strongest male in the land. Thus, if leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of followers, then among the bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most effective leadership. However, not all scientists agree on the allegedly "peaceful" nature of the bonobo or its reputation as a "hippie chimp".
Historical views on leadership
Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of the ten types of leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology.
Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's blue blood or genes: monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction: see the divine right of kings. Contrariwise, more democratically-inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with matriarchies.
Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right living" relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.
Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline . . . Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu
In the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources - human and material - and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.
For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesman.
Action Orientated Team Leadership Skills
This is a unique approach to team leadership that is aimed at action orientated environments where effective functional leadership is required to achieve critical or reactive tasks by small teams deployed into the field. In other words leadership of small groups often created to respond to a situation or critical incident.
In most cases these teams are tasked to operate in remote and changeable environments with limited support or backup (action environments). Leadership of people in these environments requires a different set of skills to that of front line management. These leaders must effectively operate remotely and negotiate both the needs of the individual, team and task within a changeable environment. This has been termed Action Orientated Leadership. Some example action orientated leadership is demonstrated in the following ways: extinguishing a rural fire, locating a missing person, leading a team on an outdoor expedition or rescuing a person from a potentially hazardous environment.
Titles emphasizing authority
At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied different degrees or ranks of leadership in society. Thus a knight led fewer men in general than did a duke; a baronet might in theory control less land than an earl. See peerage for a systematization of this hierarchy, and order of precedence for links to various systems.
In the course of the 18th and 20th centuries, several political operators took non-traditional paths to become dominant in their societies. They or their systems often expressed a belief in strong individual leadership, but existing titles and labels ("King", "Emperor", "President" and so on) often seemed inappropriate, insufficient or downright inaccurate in some circumstances. The formal or informal titles or descriptions they or their flunkies employ express and foster a general veneration for leadership of the inspired and autocratic variety. The definite article when used as part of the title (in languages which use definite articles) emphasizes the existence of a sole "true" leader.
Criticism of the concept of leadership
Noam Chomsky and others have criticized the very concept of leadership as involving people abrogating their responsiblity to think and will actions for themselves. While the conventional view of leadership is rather satisfying to people who "want to be told what to do", one should question why they are being subjected to a will or intellect other than their own if the leader is not a SME.
The fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the leadership principle is challenged by the introduction of concepts such as autogestion, employeeship, common civic virtue, etc, which stress individual responsibility and/or group authority in the work place and elsewhere by focusing on the skills and attitudes that a person needs in general rather than separating out leadership as the basis of a special class of individuals.
Similarly various historical calamities are attributed to a misplaced reliance on the principle of leadership.
What Is SWOT Analysis?
A SWOT Analysis is a strategic planning tool used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or in a business venture or in any other situation requiring a decision. The required first step in SWOT analysis is the definition of the desired end state or objective. The definition of objective must be explicit and approved by all participants in the process. This first step must be performed carefully because failure to identify correctly the end state aimed for leads to wasted resources and possibly failure of the enterprise. In relation to objectives the following terms have been used in the literature: desired end states, plans, policies, goals, objectives, strategies, tactics and actions. Definitions vary, overlap and fail to achieve clarity. The following concept has been found useful. The items listed above may be organized in a hierarchy of means and ends and numbered as follows: Top Rank Objective (TRO), Second Rank Objective, Third Rank Objective, etc. From any rank, the objective in a lower rank answers to the question "How?" and the objective in a higher rank answers to the question "Why?" The exception is the Top Rank Objective (TRO): there is no answer to the "Why?" question. That is how the TRO is defined. An example may help to clarify the concept presented above.
Once the objective has been identified, SWOTs are discovered and listed. SWOTs are defined precisely as follows:
Strengths are attributes of the organization that are helpful to the achievement of the objective.
Weaknesses are attributes of the organization that are harmful to the achievement of the objective.
Opportunities are external conditions that are helpful to the achievement of the objective.
Threats are external conditions that are harmful to the achievement of the objective.
Correct identification of SWOTs is essential because subsequent steps in the process are all derived from the SWOTs.
First, the decision makers have to determine whether the objective is attainable, in view of the SWOTs. If the objective is NOT attainable (in view of the SWOTs) a different objective must be selected and the process is repeated.
If, on the other hand, the objective seems attainable, the SWOTs are used as inputs to the creative generation of possible strategies, by asking and answering the following four questions many times:
1. How can we Use each Strength?
2. How can we Stop each Weakness?
3. How can we Exploit each Opportunity?
4. How can we Defend against each Threat?
Ideally a cross-funtional team or a task force that represents a broad range of perspectives should carry out SWOT analyses. For example, a SWOT team may include an accountant, a salesperson, an executive manager, an engineer, and an ombudsman.
Alternative Viewpoint
Typically seen by managers as being the most useful planning tool of all, SWOT groups some of the key pieces of information into two main categories (internal factors and external factors) and then by their dual positive and negative aspects (Strengths and Opportunities, as the former aspects, with Weaknesses and Threats representing the latter):
- Internal factors - The 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' internal to the organization, its strategies and its position in relation to its competitors.
- External factors - The 'opportunities' and 'threats' presented by the external environment and the competition.
The internal factors which may be viewed as strengths or weaknesses depending upon their impact on the organization's positions (for they may represent a strength for one organization but a weakness, in relative terms, for another), may include all of the 4 Ps; as well as personnel, finance and so on. The external factors, which again may be threats to one organization while they offer opportunities to another, may include matters such as technological change, legislation, sociocultural changes and so on, as well as changes in the marketplace or competitive position.
The technique is often presented in the form of a matrix. You should note, however, that SWOT is just 'one' aid to categorization. It is not, as many organizations seem to think, the only technique. It also has its own weaknesses. It tends to persuade companies to compile lists rather than think about what is really important to their business. It also presents the resulting lists uncritically, without clear prioritization; so that, for example, weak opportunities may appear to balance strong threats.
The aim of any SWOT analysis should be to isolate the key 'issues' that will be important to the future of the organization; and that subsequent marketing planning will address.
Assumptions
It is essential to spell out assumptions. However, most companies do not even realize that they make such assumptions. IBM's key product marketing document was titled "Forecast Assumptions"; and the agreement on what the assumptions are is often the key to understanding the marketing plan. You should, however, make as few assumptions as possible and very carefully explain those you do make.
As an extension to this process, when you estimate the results expected from your strategies, you should also explore a range of alternative assumptions, in the same way that there might be a range of forecasts, each meeting different needs. The most useful component of this part of the exercise may well be a "sensitivity analysis," since this determines which factors have the most influence over the outcomes - and hence which factors should be most carefully managed.
Possible examples
Strengths and Weaknesses
- Resources: financial, intellectual, locational- Customer Service
- Efficiency
- Competitive Advantages
- Infrastructure
- Quality
- Staff
- Management
- Price
- Distribution Channels and Hours of operations
- After sales service and Sales promotion techniques
- Transportation and Delivery time
- Diversified fields, Product line and multiple services/offers (Technical, Commercial, Designing & Turnkey Projects)
Opportunities and Threats
- Competitors' actions- Economic conditions
- Interest rates
- Increasing market saturation
- Changes in laws and regulations
Errors to Be Avoided
The following errors have been observed in published accounts of SWOT Analysis. Making these errors can result in serious losses.
1. Conducting a SWOT Analysis before defining and agreeing upon an objective (desired end state). A moment of reflection will reveal an indisputable truth: SWOTs cannot exist in the abstract. They can exist only with reference to an objective. If the desired end state is not openly defined and agreed upon, each participant may have a different end state in mind and the outcome is confusion.
2. Opportunities [external to the company] are often confused with strengths [internal to the company]. Keep them separate.
3. Another error is to confuse SWOTs with possible strategies. This error is made especially with reference to Opportunities. To avoid this error, it may be useful to think of Opportunities as "Auspicious Conditions." It may also be useful to keep in mind that SWOTs are descriptions of conditions. Possible strategies define actions.
Quiz : How Much You Know About Your Best Friend
Hey friends! Let’s check out how much you know your friend and how much your friend knows you. It’s a very simple game. You have to come with your friend. There are some simple questions below. All you have to do is just think how your friend will react to the given circumstance and if your friend agrees that he/she will be doing the same then give yourself 5 points. At the end, add your points and see the result to know how much you know your friend.
QUESTIONS :
1) You and your friend are in a coffee shop. When the bill comes-
a)You pay the bill
b)Your friend pays the bill
c)Both pay 50-50
2) In the examination hall, you ask something to your friend. Your friend-
a)Gives you the answer
b)Tells you to wait sometime for safety
c)Doesn’t encourage any cheating. Tells you to be honest.
3) Your friend comes to know that you have also developed a liking for the same boy/girl which your friend likes. Your friend –
a)Tells you that he/she is your interest. So back away
b)Will admit his/her liking but will himself/herself back away
c)Will never tell you about his/her liking but will sacrifice silently for you
4)You had a great quarrel with your friend. Your friend will-
a)Wait for your apology
b)Try to explain you his/her viewpoint with the help of some common friend
c)Take the initiative and apologize
5)Your friend comes to know that you have an interest in his/her sister/brother. Your friend-
a)Breaks friendship with you
b)Stops you from going ahead
c)Lets you be with his/her sister/brother trusting you
6) You promised your friend to meet him but couldn’t keep it. Your friend-
a)Will revenge by not coming at your appointed place and time
b)Will not speak with you for a long time
c)Will try to find out the reason of your not turning up
7) You and your friend are out for a movie but during the climax you get sick. Your friend-
a)Will tell you to go home
b)Will tell you to wait for sometime and then go together
c)Would, at once, take you out and see to it that he/she drops you at your place
8) You forgot your friend’s birthday. Your friend will-
a)Not invite you to his/her party
b)Will not wish you either on your birthday
c)Will be angry but then forgive you and will celebrate his/her birthday with you
9) You are doing a part time job. You ask your friend to prepare notes for you as well. Your friend will say-
a)“I don’t have time. Even my notes are incomplete”
b)“Of course, I will. You don’t worry”
a)“Doing part time job was your decision. So you need to strike a balance between your studies
and work”
10) After college, you loose track of your friend. You meet him/her as your new boss after around 10 years. Your friend will-
a)Try not to bring your friendship issue now
b)Say,”Good to see you. Let us begin the meeting now”
c)Recognizes you in an instant and will run and hug you. He/she will spend the whole day with
you talking about the college days.
RESULT :
0-15
- Are you sure you have answered by keeping your friend in mind? If yes, then friend you need to know your friend a little more. Just spend some more time with your friend to know his/her likings and disliking. This will help you in knowing your friend better.
20-35
- You and your friend share a good bond. You know much about your friend. You don’t have to put any extra efforts for your friendship but try strengthening your bond still more. With the passing of years the seeds of your friendship will definitely blossom.
40-50
- Awesome. You and your friend have a great rappo and nothing can ever separate both of you. You both make an ideal pair. I am speechless.
Jealousy in Friendship Relation..
Jealousy doesn't just exist in love! It can crop up in friendships and be just as destructive. Here's our advice on understanding and preventing jealousy.
How is jealousy born?
Jealousy is a feeling like any other emotion, that often crops up in love but also in friendship. When we give our friendship to someone, we also give them an important place in our lives. The friendship is based on a notion of sharing, exchange and satisfaction, and it also places us in a situation of dependence with the person. When this relationship is being built and in the case of fusional relationships .We can worry that it wil disappear, and a feeling of insecurity is born that can little by little transform into jealousy if we feel the friend is distancing themself or trying to escape.
The object of jealousy
Jealousy can take different forms but it is rarely found without an object. We're not jealous without reason: whether we admit it or not, the object of our jealousy is often well known to us. We can be jealous of a situation for example (our best friend's top job or promotion) of trivial things (her hair or designer wardrobe) or be jealous of another friend who threatens our friendship.
A revealing feeling
Whatever its intensity, jealousy is synonymous with unease and can reveal a lot about our state of mind, our needs, mental state and general attitude to life. It also tells us about the way that we manage our emotions and the relationship in question, whether it’s friendship or love. Jealousy can reveal a situation of rivalry or a possessive attitude.
Channelling your emotions
Whether we feel it or suffer it, jealousy can soon become oppressive if it gets out of hand. It is a normal feeling but must be channelled and controlled for the future of a relationship and for the wellbeing of each person, because jealousy can be a source of conflict and lead to animosity. It can even, in certain cases, be downright destructive, especially if it is transformed into unhealthy possessiveness or the opposite, deep hate. This is why jealousy must be expressed in a positive and constructive way, so that it allows us to progress and improve.
When jealousy helps us to progress
So that jealousy does not overcome us it must be honestly analysed. Putting a finger on the problem allows us to react to it. Rather than envy your friend’s fab job, why not use this energy to negotiate a pay rise, or find a job that's better suited to your ambitions? It can also be the trigger that kick starts that diet you've been putting off. Whatever the object, jealousy should always be thought of as a motor that gives us the energy that we lack to take control of things and change what we don't like about ourselves and our lives.
How to overcome jealousy?
Admitting jealousy is already a step forward. But to control and overcome it, you need a lot of investment and sometimes a lot of time.
- Why am I jealous?
Where does this feeling come from? What is it hiding? Do I have good reasons to be jealous? Ask yourself the right questions: analysing the situation well is important because only you know the responses and can find the solution.
- Express yourself.
Jealousy often reveals fear (of losing a friend, for example) or lack of self-confidence. Putting your feelings into words is another step to healing: it will get it all out and help diffuse a weighty situation. And who knows: your friend may have the same feelings, so talk about how you feel!
- Act.
You don't get something from nothing, so to turn the object of your jealousy into an object of joy and personal pride, you need to work at it. This task requires energy and courage, so don’t be afraid to ask your friend for help. That's what friends are there for - and it will strengthen your friendship and trust.