Effective Leadership - Essay Example

?Running Head: Effective Leadership Effective Leadership [Institute’s Effective Leadership Introduction Without any doubts, leadership is one of the most researched topics on the field of management, organizational behavior, psychology, sociology and others. In fact, right from the day one, the topic of leadership has amazed and fantasized many experts all over the world (Griffin & Moorhead, pp. 23-24, 2009). Traits of leadership, characteristics of leaders, what makes a leader, are leaders born or made and there are many other questions, which have been able to catch the attention of researchers and experts for the past many decades (Fulmer & Goldsmith, pp. 74-78, 2001). This paper is attempt to look at different types of leadership and the recent developments in the field of leadership by briefly looking at the literature available on Fred Fielder’s Situational Leadership Model, Level 5 Leadership, 360-degree leadership and Charismatic leadership. Discussion Fred Fielder’s Situational Leadership Model Fred Fielder is considered as one of the most notable gurus of leadership. During the mid of the 20th century, when most of the leadership experts were occupied by the discussion that whether leaders are born with certain characteristics which distinguish them from others or whether people can acquire these skills to become leaders. Fielder took the liberty of providing an entirely different perspective to the management and organizational behavior experts by giving his situational leadership theory (Kellerman, pp. 234-238, 2010). He divided the leadership styles into two groups namely relationship motivated and task motivated. Relationship motivated leaders are the ones who would place their emotional bonds with their people over the tasks and jobs. These leaders are more concerned about their image, respect, and perception amongst their followers. However, task motivated leaders are the ones who are more interested in numbers, targets, figures and objectives, and in the pursuit of the same, they are ready to sacrifice their image and bonding with their employees (Robbins & Judge, pp. 223-228, 2010). Furthermore, fielder proposed three elements, which have the ability to determine the situational control of the person. These are leader member relations, task structure and position power. Leader member relations refer to the degree to which the leader enjoys the backing, support, and loyalty of his sub ordinates. Second, task structure is high when the job descriptions are clear, structured, and well defined. Third, position power refers to the degree to which the leader enjoys the formal power to hire, recruit, select, reward, punish, or obtain compliance from the employees (Fulmer & Goldsmith, pp. 74-78, 2001). Furthermore, Fielder suggests that when the above-mentioned factors are high, the situational control is high and vice versa. A task-motivated style remains the most favourable option when the situational control is either extremely high or extremely low. Nevertheless, when the situational control is moderate, the leader should opt for a relationship motivated leadership style (Kellerman, pp. 41-49, 1999). 360 Degree Leadership Maxwell (2006) gave one of the most modern and influential concepts in leadership known as the “360 degree leadership” (pp. 15). Maxwell focuses on the most basic and simplest definitions of leadership, which says, “Leadership is nothing but the art of influencing people towards the achievement of shared goals” (Maxwell, pp. 84-86, 2008). Quite understandably, one cannot only influence the people who are underneath the individual in the organizational hierarchy but also who lie at the same line or even who are over him in the organizational hierarchy. This means that one cannot only lead his subordinates but also his peers, colleagues, friends, bosses, bosses’ peers, and others. Many leaders fail to view the concept of leadership in a board way of leading down, leading across and leading up but they fall into the trap of leading down only. Maxwell (2006) argues that 99 percent of the leadership in an organization has its roots in the middle layers of management (pp. 41). Therefore, leadership is proactive choice, which one makes. It does not come with job status, position, job title, place in the organizational hierarchy, office, or other but it depends on the ability of the person to influence people (Kellerman, pp. 234-238, 2010). It is not necessary that people who make it to the top of the any organization are true leaders and at the same time, it is not true that middle managers cannot be the leaders. A 360-degree leader leads up by helping his boss, proving himself as a valuable team player and by standing by the side of his boss through thick and thin (Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn & Uhl-Bien, pp. 240-244, 2010). It helps the individual to acquire “referent power” over his powers and he enjoys authority over his bosses because of the respect and recognition that he has earned from them. A 360-degree leader leads across by helping and supporting his peers, by creating reducing any political tensions and by creative a competitive environment in his teams and groups (Fulmer & Goldsmith, pp. 74-78, 2001). Important here to note is that a 360degree leader would always want “competition” but would never engage in any activity which could convert that into “rivalry” (Maxwell, pp. 84-86, 2008). When competition creates an environment where individuals strive to prove themselves better as others and in the process of doing the same, they create value, skills, learning, and development opportunities for everyone. The passion to surpass others actually forces them to be more active, efficient, and hardworking and towards the end, whoever wins on paper, in reality, everybody wins because they all find themselves at a much higher level of development. Rivalry on the other hand, is the process by which the rivals try to attack each other and take away the share of the other. Rivalry leads to nothing good until and unless all other rivals are eliminated (Maxwell, pp. 36-37, 2007). This is true because rivals are determined to fight back until the end of their resources. The point here is that a 360 degree leader would always refrain himself from any rivalry with his colleagues would always ask for healthy competition. Furthermore, a 360 degree would lead down by walking the talk, developing empathy, realizing the worth of people, letting people take charge of their jobs, being a visionary and seeing everyone as a 10 (Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn & Uhl-Bien, pp. 240-244, 2010). Level 5 Leadership It was in the late 1990 when Jim Collins came up with his research and then his book with the title of “Good to Great”. The target of the research was 11 firms, which went through a transformation of “good to great” during the 1965 to 1995 era. Collins found out that all these firms shared certain characteristics, which were the pre requisite of this transformation. Amongst many other characteristics, leaders with Level 5 Leadership characteristics led all these firms. According to Collins, there are five levels of leaderships. Level 1 leader is a Highly Capable Individual which “makes productive contributions through talent, knowledge, skills, and good work habits” contributes individual capabilities to the achievement of group objectives and works effectively with others in a group setting” (Collins, pp. 51-58, 2001; Robbins & Judge, pp. 223-228, 2010). Level 2 Leader can be named as Contributing Team Members, which “Contributes individual capabilities to the achievement of group objectives and works effectively with others in a group setting” (Collins, pp. 51-58, 2001; Robbins & Judge, pp. 223-228, 2010). Level 3 Leadership can be termed as “Competent Manager, which.” organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives” (Collins, pp. 51-58, 2001; Robbins & Judge, pp. 223-228, 2010). Level 4 Leadership is known as effective leadership, which “catalyzes commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and compelling vision, stimulating higher performance standards” (Collins, pp. 51-58, 2001; Robbins & Judge, pp. 223-228, 2010). However, it is Level 5 Leadership, which stands out of the crowd, which “Builds enduring greatness through paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (Collins, pp. 51-58, 2001; Robbins & Judge, pp. 223-228, 2010). These Level 5 leaders were brave and strong enough to stand up and come forward to take the responsibility of the failures of the company, their subordinates, and even the people around them. Unlike other leaders, they are less likely to externalize the blame on people, luck, and other situational factors (Northouse, pp. 47-49, 2009). However, interestingly, when the times are good and the leaders are given credit for their skills and performance of the company, they are more likely to share the credit and glory with all their team members and less likely to take the all the credit themselves. Despite the fact that these leaders remain the center and base of organizational performance, they are self-effacing, quiet, reserved, and even shy for most of the times. Modesty and humility remain the center of their personality (Collins, pp. 256-258, 2001). Another vey important and rather less researched aspect of Level 5 leaders is their approach to create their successors. During their careers and lifetimes, they not only put themselves and the organization on the path of growth but they also put great emphasis on the development of the individuals around them. They do not view their efforts towards building leaders as a source of potential threat. When these leaders leave or retire, their subordinates are ready to take over the position and lead the company towards the path of long-term growth. In short, when they leave, it is less likely that they would be missed and that is what makes them Level 5 Leaders (Collins, pp. 256-258, 2001). Charismatic Leadership The concept of charismatic leadership can trace back its origins back the ancient Greek times and even in the bible (Northouse, pp. 47-49, 2009). However, Robert House deserves much of the credit for giving a professional framework for understanding charismatic leadership. Robert House uses four important phrases to define charismatic leadership, which are dominant, strong desire to influence others, self confident and strong sense of one’s own moral values (Miner, pp. 158-162, 2007). Charismatic leaders are often seen as heroes with magic wands in their hands to turnaround their companies, inspire a dead crowd and motivate them to the highest possible levels. These people show faith in their followers and remain optimistic at all times. Furthermore, they are more likely to have great communication skills (Lussier & Achua, pp. 418-423, 2009). Over the period, these leaders would also develop catch phrases and start communicating with symbols and other means as well. These leaders are extremely effective when they have a clear vision. Furthermore, charismatic leaders have led most of the classic examples of organizational turnarounds or organizational change (Griffin & Moorhead, pp. 23-24, 2009). However, important here to note is that much of the recent research in this field of charismatic leadership says that charisma does not guarantee leadership success. It is true because charisma highly depends upon the perception of the people and followers. Any change in their perceptions would leave the charismatic leader as an ordinary person. Furthermore, if a leader is only leading based on his charisma then it is highly likely that he or she would turn into a narcissist and egoistic (Northouse, pp. 47-49, 2009). Charismatic leaders are also less likely to make mistakes because it can hurt their followership. In fact, there are more chances that charismatic leaders would gather a crowd of “yes men” around themselves, which would obey the orders of their charismatic leaders in an unquestionable manner (Greenleaf & Spears, pp. 27-29, 2002). In fact, there is huge difference between the profile of a charismatic leader and the one, which has been mentioned as the Level 5 Leader. Conclusion Leadership still appears to be an emerging field that has still has a lot of potential to accommodate many different points of views. There is certainly no right answer to the question of leadership but there are some wrong ones. Despite all the disagreement on frameworks and other aspects, experts do agree on the basic definition of leadership, which is all about influencing people, which also remains as the bottom line of leadership. If you can influence people, no matter in what way, you are qualified to label yourself as their leader (Griffin & Moorhead, pp. 23-24, 2009). References Collins, James Charles 2001. Good to great: why some companies make the leap--and others don't. HarperBusiness. Fulmer, R. M. & Goldsmith, M. 2001. The leadership investment: How the world’s best organizations gainstrategic advantage through leadership development. Amacom. Greenleaf, Robert K., & Spears, Larry C. 2002. Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press. Griffin, Ricky W., & Moorhead, Gregory. 2009. Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Cengage Learning. Kellerman, Barbara. 1999. Reinventing leadership: making the connection between politics and business. SUNY Press. Kellerman, Barbara. 2010. LEADERSHIP: Essential Selections on Power, Authority, and Influence. McGraw-Hill Professional. Lussier, Robert N., & Achua, Christopher F. 2009. Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. Cengage Learning. Maxwell, John C. 2006. The 360 Degree Leader Workbook: Developing Your Influence from Anywhere in the Organization. Thomas Nelson Inc. Maxwell, John C. 2007. The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership. Thomas Nelson Inc. Maxwell, John C. 2008. Leadership gold: lessons learned from a lifetime of leading. Thomas Nelson Inc. Miner, John B. 2007. Organizational behavior: From theory to practice. M.E. Sharpe. Northouse, Peter Guy. 2009. Leadership: Theory and Practice. SAGE. Robbins, Stephen P., & Judge, Timothy A. 2010. Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall. Schermerhorn, John R., Hunt, James G., Osborn, Richard N., & Uhl-Bien, Mary. 2010. Organizational Behavior. John Wiley & Sons. Read More