Definition and Meaning of Leadership - Research Paper Example

 Definition and Meaning of leadership People have become good leaders for they are made to become one (Clark, pars. 1-2). They undergo a never-ending process of education, experience, self-study, and training. Their desire and will power enables them to become effective leaders. They also inspire the workers into higher levels of teamwork and also help them become good leaders. In order to do this, they continue to work and study to improve their leadership skills. According to Concepts of Leadership, Clark defined leadership as “a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent.” Throughout this process, leaders apply their leadership aspects such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Moreover, Kurt Lewin defined leadership as the “manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people” (271-299). In the Army, leadership is defined as “influencing people—by providing purpose, direction, motivation—while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.” According to Patterns of Aggressive Behaviours, there was a group of researchers that identified different styles of leadership (271-299). Lewin’s study recognized there major styles of leadership that have been very influential: 1) autocratic, 2) democratic, and 3) delegative. Groups of school children were allotted to one or three groups where researchers have observed their behaviours in response to the different styles of leadership. The autocratic or authoritarian leadership is well applied to conditions where there is limited time for group decision-making and the leader is the most educated and experienced member of the group (Lewin, 271-299). There is a clear distinction between the role of the leader and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make independent decisions with very little or no input form the rest of the group of what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. Thus, it was concluded by researchers that decision-making in authoritarian leadership was less creative. Lewin stated that moving from an authoritarian style to a democratic style is more difficult than vice versa. The abuse of this kind of leadership is viewed as controlling, bossy and dictatorial. The authoritarian style is usually used by leaders when employees need close supervision to carry out certain tasks. It occurs when leaders tell their employees what they want done and accomplished, without getting the opinion of their followers. According to Lewin, participative leadership or the democratic kind, on the other hand, has a leader who encourages group members to participate and give their inputs (271-299). Lewin observed that members of the participative group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group though the inputs were of higher quality and the members feel much more motivated and creative. A participative leadership style is where the leader, including one or more employees are engaged in the decision-making process. Normally, this happens when the leader has a part of the information and the employees have the other parts. The leader and the employees work closely together to accomplish certain tasks. However, the leader maintains the final decision making authority which the employees must learn to respect. The delegative, mostly known as the laissez faire meaning the non-interference in the affair of others, are the least productive of all the groups (Lewin, 271-299). Researchers have found that children who belong in this group are more demanding to the leader and demonstrate little cooperation, thus working dependently. The delegative leaders leave the decision-making up to the group members and offer little or no guidance at all. Though this style can work effectively in conditions where group members are highly qualified in an area of expertise, the roles of each member are badly off and lack motivation. However, delegative leaders used this style in order to set priorities and delegate certain tasks. It is a style that is used when leaders fully trust and have confidence in the people below them. Other leadership styles are the bureaucratic leadership and the charismatic leadership. The bureaucratic leadership is very structured and follows by the procedures that are already established. The decision-making process is slow-paced for they ensure adherence to the ladders of the company. Universities, hospitals, banks and government usually entail for this type of leadership in order to guarantee quality, enhance security, and diminish corruption in their organizations. Leaders hasting the pace of the process will just experience frustration and anxiety. The charismatic leadership, on the other hand, have leaders who infuse energy and fervour into their group members. Charismatic leaders have to be dedicated and committed to the organization for the long run. They may become a danger to the company or organization by choosing to resign to move ahead to higher opportunities, especially if the success of the division or project is assigned to the leader and not the team. The company may take time and hard work to restore the employees’ confidence back with another type of leadership after committing themselves to a charismatic leader. Most leaders are required to have a degree of power which is determined by the goals that must be achieved within the organization. A leader of a country may require a different kind of power than a leader of a church. In The Bases of Social Power, power is defined to be the ability of one person possessing the control, authority, and/or influence over others’ behaviours and attitudes. This kind of power is used to achieve a certain goal and it depends on the leader what kind of goal it is. Some leaders, such as presidents, have many possessions. But others, such as Mother Theresa, might only have one influence. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding between the concepts of leadership and power. Any person can use power, but it takes skill to apply leadership. While leadership power is more on influencing others to truly want to achieve a goal, plain power forces other to only achieve the goal (The Bases of Social Power). Thus, power is not merely exclusive to leaders and managers. For example, having the authority to accomplish a certain task and objective in an organization does not conclude that the person is a leader (Clark, par. 3). This authority is the power to give orders around people, making the person the boss. It is different with leadership where the leader aims to make his or her followers desire to achieve high goals. French and Raven stated that in order to prevent conflict from happening within the organization, good leadership skills must be thoroughly developed (The Bases of Social Power). Instead of focusing on goal compatibility, power focuses on intimidation, while leadership favours on goal congruence. Power capitalizes on the importance of lateral and upward influence, while leadership maximizes on downward influence. Lastly, power focuses on how to increase compliance, while leadership directs on finding answers and solutions. In conclusion, Lewin’s study impart that participative or democratic leadership is generally the most effective leadership style among the three. This style illustrates the six principles of generating faithful employees, customers and inventors. The six principles to win the hearts and minds of members of any group or team are: 1) Recognition, 2) Participation, 3) Reflection, 4) Involvement, 5) Dialogue, and 6) Appreciation (George Reavis). Developing the concept of “we” within a participative leadership demonstrates the principle of recognition where teams or members are identified. Members grow in self-acceptance, confidence and respect for the personalities of other members to develop. The organization invites participation from the employees through leaders and members functioning as peers and colleagues. Reflection occurs when leaders and members become more open to the ideas of others and promote listening within the organization. The leaders and members of the organization design programs and systems based on the feedback they get from the involvement of everyone, each gaining satisfaction of making their own decisions. The organization is very open to suggestions and a dialogue or discussion is done in order to facilitate daily operations. All individuals are well-appreciated, especially if the desired results are achieved and each individual’s self-confidence results from Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of the styles dominant, bad leaders inclined to stick with one style. The authoritarian style, for instance, should be used only on rare occasions for power should not be abused. If the leader’s goal is to gain more commitment and motivation from employees, the participative or the democratic style is the perfect style to use. A good leader still does not know everything and needs the employment of knowledgeable and skilful employees. The result is of mutual benefit—allowing employees to become part of the team and for the leader to make better decisions. Thus, the decision-making process is about as productive as an autocratic leadership style even with the leader’s absence. Though the decision process is prolonged compared to autocratic leadership, participative leadership produce much greater products and results. The ultimate road to a successful leadership is challenge the process, inspired a shared vision with followers, enable others to act, model the way, and encourage the heart. For a boss instructs others what to do but a good leader shows that it can be done. Sources: Clark, Don R. 21 May 2008. Concepts of Leadership. 29 Oct. 2008. . French, John, and Raven, Bertram H. "The Bases of Social Power." Studies of Social Power. Ed. Cartwright, D. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1959. Lewin, Kurt, Lippit, Ron and White, Ralph K. “Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates.” Journal of Social Psychology 10 (1939): 271-299. Reavis, George. 6 Principles of Frontline Leadership. 28 May 2007. . Read More