The ideal leadership position - Term Paper Example

The Ideal Leadership Position Since they are social by instinct and with their sense of organization, humans tend to put a premium on leadership qualities. It is through leadership, after all that organizations or groups are can work concertedly toward a common goal. Without it, people would be prompted [to follow their individual will, which may not be agreeable to others. Therefore, even if there are similarities in directions, anarchy would prevail, rendering it impossible to achieve common objectives. According to Yukl, “leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (2010, p. 8). Such definition clearly indicates that leadership is not a person’s attitude toward others but a process that is undertaken to rally other people toward a goal. It is in line with this clarification that I developed my style of leadership. My style of leading others in an organization is essentially a combination of democratic and autocratic or bureaucratic leaderships. These two types may be anathema to each other that it may seem impossible to implement them at the same time. However, I believe that leadership is not only tactical but more important, it is strategic. It is in the strategic sense that the combination of democratic and bureaucratic leaderships can be best appreciated although it may also work in tactical situations. I practice a democratic approach in times when I meet with subordinates to discuss problems and too seek solutions. I do the same when in activities like planning and evaluation. Democracy is important during these stages because, it is apparent that even if I am the manager or the leader, I do not have the monopoly of truth. I may be knowledgeable about the larger picture but my subordinates definitely have a more concrete understanding of their respective departments of work. To achieve viable solutions, I have to rely on their grasping of the situation of their particular fields. To arrive at an accurate evaluation, I have to consider the reports of my subordinates. To formulate workable plans, I have to grasp the situation of the people who will be directly implementing these. Without a democratic approach, it would be impossible to achieve all these. However, once the plans are ironed out and implementation begins, I shift to an autocratic mode. I would relentlessly pursue the plans by constantly monitoring the subordinates and pressuring them to work hard for the realizing the objectives. Pride, Hughes, & Kapoor define the authoritarian leader as one who “holds all authority and responsibility, with communication usually moving from top to bottom” and that “this leader assigns workers to specific tasks and expects orderly, precise results” (2010, p. 179). However, there may be a limit to the top-to-bottom communication line. I need to open channels for reports, complaints, and suggestions from the bottom just to make sure that problems are checked while they are not yet too big to badly affect the implementation of the over-all plan. With such style of leadership, I believe that the best position in a corporate setup is as a middle-level manager. The highest position that may suit me best is a department manager and, the least is a supervisor. It is through these positions that I could maintain better understanding of issues and problems of the rank and file or the subordinates as they try to implement the tasks assigned to them according to the general objective of the company and the supporting specific plans of the department that I am heading. The roles that occupy the void between the planners and the implementers or the intellectuals and the workers are certainly the most challenging in any corporate set up but are also the most important. Without middle-level managers, the upper management would not be able to grasp the conditions of the people in the lower levels who are the directly implementing the plans. Without such managerial level also the rank and file would work without direct guidance and leadership. It is clear that with my style of leadership, serving as a bridge between upper-level management and the rank and file is the ideal position. The combination of democratic and authoritarian styles benefits the entire company. Through a consultative manner of dealing with the rank and file I am in a better position to present to the upper management the conditions of the men and women who are directly part of production. The autocratic methods, on the other hand would guarantee that expected results are met by the department that I am heading. At the same time, my democratic style would be conducive to the development of the morale and sense of responsibility of the rank and file even as autocratic methods would push them to work harder and attain the goals already agreed on in meetings conducted in a consultative manner. There are studies that suggest that “different types of personalities and thinking styles are better suited to different types of leadership roles, and leaders can be more effective when they are in positions that best match their natural tendencies” (Daft & Lane, 2008, p. 121). I base my the ideal position not just on what I perceived as correct leadership styles but also on the natural attitudes that I have toward other people and to the importance of good results in work. In a corporate setup, a leadership role may be given the title of manager. However, Yukl points out that there may be difference between manager and a leader. He writes that “managers are concerned about how things get done, and they try to get people to perform better” while “leaders are concerned with what things mean to people, and they try to get people to agree about the most important things to be done” (2010, p. 7). The shifting styles in my brand of leadership of a department may follow such pattern. The democratic style projects me as a leader according to Yukl’s definition. I become a manager once I shift to an autocratic mode. Advantages and disadvantages are present here. The advantage of being democratic is that the rank and file can be more motivated about their work because they consider themselves as part of the planners. However, the disadvantage here is that the process may take a longer time and is not advisable in critical situations with time constraints. The authoritarian style is definitely very advantageous when it is time to enforce policies and decisions or implement plans. On the other hand, it could result into the alienation of the rank and file, especially when taken to the extreme. It is clear that my leadership style does not at all adhere to the ‘great man’ theory. Such theory “focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics” possessed by great leaders (Northouse, 2010, p. 15). I must admit that I was not born a leader. It took years before I realized that I have the potential of leading people. However, it was not any innate talent that did it but the ability to listen to people and to consider their ideas in formulating mine. In effect, when I try to unite my subordinates regarding a plan, they find it easy to agree because they believe that the ideas involved in it are partly theirs. The democratic style that I employ is influenced by participative theory in leadership. I do not go down to the individual level of consulting with subordinates. Instead, I call meetings where subordinates themselves freely express and criticize ideas on how to make their work more efficient. While I may also join the discussions, my primary role is to encourage good ideas and to sum up the meeting to arrive at conclusions. According to Yukl, “the role of the manager in group meetings should be primarily to guide the discussion and keep it supportive, constructive, and oriented toward problem solving” (2010, p. 59). Because I also have superiors, I must see to it that the discussions are bound by the framework of the responsibilities and limitations set by the higher management. This means that any discussion no longer in line with the management’s general direction and policy would not be entertained. Once a conclusion is reached, this becomes a policy that governs everyone in the department. My authority in enforcing this does not only come from my superiors but is also confirmed by the subordinates. Reference List Daft, R. and Lane, P. (2008). The Leadership Experience. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western. Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Pride, W., Hughes, R., and Kapoor, J. (2010). Business. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Read More