research support services

Leadership

The term leadership has been defined differently by different authors according to Prentice (1961) is defined leadership as the accomplishment of a goal through the direction of human assistants‖ and a successful leader as one who can understand people‘s motivations and enlist employee participation in a way that marries individual needs and interests to the group‘s purpose. He called for democratic leadership that gives employees opportunities to learn and grow without creating anarchy.

While Mintzberg (1973) proposed that leadership role is one of ten managerial roles, albeit the most important one. The other nine managerial roles are: figurehead, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesperson, entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator. Tannenbaum & Schmidt (1973) proposed that successful leaders are those who are keenly aware of the forces which are most relevant to their behavior at any given time. They accurately understand themselves, the individuals and groups they are dealing with, and the company and broader social nvironment in which they operate.

Leadership can be described as the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of an organization or group of which they are members.

Management (or managing) is the administration of an organization, whether it be a business, a not-for-profit organization, or government body. Management includes the activities of setting the strategy of an organization and coordinating the efforts of its employees or volunteers to accomplish its objectives through the application of available resources, such as financial, natural, technological, and human resources. Management is also an academic discipline, a social science whose objective is to study social organization and organizational.

In practice both leadership and management skills are necessary to achieve organizational success. Though an individual may display both sets of skills, in many cases the different emphases required and traits utilized point toward different individuals and personality types. A leader may be conspicuous for his or her ability to present abstractions or possibilities in a compelling manner, often utilizing (to the consternation of those relying solely on analytical or quantitative approaches) artful ambiguity to engage and enlarge the scope of others’ interest and participation. A manager generally adds value by translating the vision into relatively concrete, measurable terms that enable an enterprise to quantify and better organize the work of its members.

Management involves identifying the mission, objective, procedures, rules and manipulation of the human capital of an enterprise to contribute to the success of the enterprise.

This implies effective communication: an enterprise environment (as opposed to a physical or mechanical mechanism) implies human motivation and implies some sort of successful progress or system outcome.

As such, management is not the manipulation of a mechanism (machine or automated program), not the herding of animals, and can occur either in a legal or in an illegal enterprise or environment. Management does not need to be seen from enterprise point of view alone, because management is an essential function to improve one’s life and relationships.

Managers and leaders have different values and personalities. Managers are interested in how things are done and want people to perform better; they value stability, efficiency and order. Meanwhile for leaders it is important to know what things mean to people, being concerned about flexibility, innovation and adaptation.

The main functions of the management are to set goals and plans, organize structures, give job tasks and follow the results, thus producing order within the organization; meanwhile leadership is meant to produce change by creating a vision and strategies, communicating the vision to the followers and motivating them to follow this vision. Another point of view says that managers are more reactive and less emotionally involved, meanwhile leaders are proactive and more emotionally involved (Northouse, 2007).

The overlap between the two concepts lies in how they both involve influencing a group of individuals in achieving goals, Leadership may occur in two forms: direct and indirect. Direct leadership influences immediate subordinates. Equally, a middle manager may influence lower-level employees or even customers. Indirect leadership is transmitted from a chief executive through middle and lower management, to regular employees. Another form of indirect leadership is influence over training and development programs, benefits and rewards etc. In most cases indirect leadership is effective when supported by direct leadership provided at all managerial levels. For example, top management can explain to lower employees why a vision is important and show examples through their behaviour (Yukl, 2006).

Leaders are Transparent; this is because they put the interest of the team members a head of their own interest leaders communicate to team members openly without lying to them because they know that poor performance of a team member brings down the entire group, while managers act according to organizational rules and regulations and therefore when one of the team members is not following the rules of the organization, while most of the managers may not be necessarily transparent as they donot work with the heart that they are the owners of the business or the organization.

Leaders are very focused, the leaders are often people who are focused on the future this helps the members they lead to work towards the goals, according to Gupta (2010) leaders work with the aim of achieving a future organizational goal there they keep their team members focused too on that goal and they have the natural ability to motivate others to follow suite of that specific goal, while managers work to complete a specific organizational project which has been laid down by the organizational goal while The managers are supposed to execute organizational goals in line with the demand of the share holders.

According to Deslandes G., (2014), it’s been said that leadership is making important but unpopular decisions. That’s certainly a partial truth, but I think it underscores the importance of focus. To be a good leader, you cannot major in minor things, and you must be less distracted than your competition. To get the few critical things done, you must develop incredible selective ignorance, while managers deal work according to the stated organizational goals and ensure that they maintain the status quo.

QUESTION TWO

Continually communicate your vision to members of the organization. A vital element of Roosevelt’s success as an executive was his constant communication of his vision. His uncanny ability to identify with his audiences included the members of the organizations he led. In each of his management positions he enunciated a visionary action agenda. The Rough Riders, for example, were given to understand that they were fighting not only for American honor against Spanish perfidy, but for a new American role in the world. TR imparted a sense of historic importance, of destiny, to a group of amateur soldiers who would constitute, at the turn of a new century, the first regiment of American troops representing all sections of a nation against a foreign foe since the Civil War of the previous generation. As the new President, Roosevelt presented his vision for the government he would lead in a remarkably detailed presidential message released on December 3, 1901. The signature planks of what would come to be known as the “Square Deal” could be found in this document, which TR transformed from a routine compilation of executive agency reportage and budgetary demands into a working paper unmistakably bearing his own stamp.

Caring for the team members this was on of the qualities that makes Theodore Roosevelt one of the greatest leaders of all time, as a team leader was that he consistently and conspicuously placed the welfare of the group ahead of his own. Perhaps this is best encapsulated in a single statistic. As a team leader in the Spanish-American War, TR reliably took the perspective of the troops for whom he was responsible. He declined the offer of the top command of a regiment in favor of a more experienced officer. He butted heads with the bureaucracy to ensure that his troops would be outfitted with summer clothing. He twisted arms to make certain they were equipped with smokeless rather than outdated black-powder rifles. He demanded decent food for them and was prepared to purchase it himself if necessary. He paid out of his own pocket to move the regiment to its port of embarkation for Cuba.

He Hired people more talented than yourself. Roosevelt sought talented individuals for his teams, when possible recruiting individuals of recognized, pre-existing stature. He understood that a chief executive has no more important task than attracting and retaining the ablest possible group. In The Effective Executive, Peter Drucker explains: “No executive has ever suffered because his subordinates were strong and effective. There is no prouder boast, but also no better prescription, for executive effectiveness than the words Andrew Carnegie, the father of the U.S. steel industry, chose for his own tombstone:

Ability to search for new talented people to work, In each executive position he held, TR tirelessly sought to identify talented individuals and reward outstanding performance. Perhaps from his own experience in subordinate positions, he was dubious of promotion based on seniority rather than results. At the Navy Department, he advocated changes along those lines. Acknowledging that subjective factors in judging performance created a risk of rewarding “courtier” qualities, he concluded that the exigencies of war would incline toward a down-to-earth emphasis on tangible, measurable achievements. In the presidency, Roosevelt’s cultivation of talent prompted him to rummage around in distant organizational levels under the direct authority of his subordinates. When he personally intervened to attract a particularly able assistant secretary of state, he coordinated his efforts with the secretary’s, made clear his goal was to fortify the secretary’s office, and implicitly reminded all involved that they were part of the larger Roosevelt team.

Recognize strong performers. Writing to his son Quentin in 1914, TR recalled his own father’s concern about passing along too many compliments, “because he did not think a sugar diet was good for me.” It might be said, though, that Roosevelt had no compunction about providing a sugar diet for productive members of groups he led. Elihu Root (before their falling out in 1912) “was the man of my cabinet, the man on whom I most relied, to whom I owed most, the greatest Secretary of State we have ever had, as great a cabinet officer as we have ever had, save Alexander Hamilton alone.

Overlook “minor differences.” Roosevelt recognized that he could effect more change on more fronts if he did not allow himself to be distracted by what he called “minor differences.” As he wrote to Gifford Pinchot about the Progressive Party after the 1912 election, “almost every man of any prominence in this movement has been both a burden and an asset.”

Question three

Major differences between transactional and transformational leadership

According to Bass & Riggio, (2006) The phenomenon of transformational leadership was born in the 1970s, by Bernard M. Bass together with his colleagues introduced, They developed both the model and the means of measure for transformational leadership, developing the concept into the full range of leadership, which, apart from transformational, includes also passive (or laissez-faire), and transactional leadership (based on social exchange)

According to Bass and Avolio (1993) transactional leadership is built on reciprocity, the idea that the relationship between leader and their followers develops from the exchange of some reward. It involves leaders clarifying goals and objectives, communicating to organize tasks and activities with the co-operation of their employees to ensure that wider organizational goals are met (Bass and Avolio, 1993). Avolio and Bass (1994) wrote that such a relationship depends on hierarchy and the ability to work through this mode of exchange. It requires leadership skills such as the ability to obtain results, to control through structures and processes, to solve problems, to plan and organize, and work within the structures and boundaries of the organization (Avolio and Bass, 1994).

A transformational leader recognizes the needs of the employees and gives them a chance to be developed into leaders (Avolio & Bass,2004). Transformational leaders arouse follower motives for achievement, power, affiliation etc., and such motive arousal results in increased self-monitoring and self-evaluation, which in turn leads to increased commitment, Thus, followers are transformed from being concerned for their self-interests to being concerned for their group or organization (Bass, 1999).

Bass (1985) described transformational leaders as those who make their employees aware of how important it is to reach the valued results and the strategies for achieving them, encourage the employees to give up their own interests for the sake of the team or the organization, and help the employees to develop in achievement, affiliation and autonomy (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Transformational leaders possess the strong forces of leadership, which are those that motivate the employees to exceed their potential for their own sake and for the sake of a larger unit. These forces with the help of leader’s vision are able to create transformative shifts in outlook, orientation, and perspective, and are most apparent in times of despair or crisis. A new leadership paradigm should be enforced in order to turn the focus from the quantity onto quality and speed, by changing the viewpoint of the employees about what they consider meaningful in their work. Some leaders tend to blame their employees for mistakes in acceptable performance, while other leaders may suggest assistance and help learn valuable lessons from these errors. Transformational leadership releases reserve energy, making the employees capable of mastering their own work situations (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Transformational leadership consists of four components:

Idealized Influence.

Leaders perform as role models, are respected, admired, trusted, and imitated by their followers. Idealized influence is manifested in the leader’s behaviour and in attributions given to him or her by the followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

However, charismatic leaders who are considered idols are far from transformational, as they don’t empower their associates because of the threat to their own leadership. Truly transformational leaders encourage development and achievement of the associates’ full potential (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Inspirational Motivation (IM), Leaders motivate and inspire their followers by giving meaning and challenge to their work. In return, followers want to demonstrate their commitment to goals and the shared vision where team spirit is aroused (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Individualized Consideration (IC),The leader who acts like mentor and coach has individual approach to each follower and accepts every individual difference in employees, Personalized communication, task delegating, monitoring, awareness of individual concern is typical of a leader who practices individualized consideration (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Transformational leaders also induce more commitment in their subordinates, greater effectiveness and satisfaction. Nevertheless, effective leaders execute the full range of leadership styles (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Transformational leadership enhances transactional leadership in predicting effects on employees’ satisfaction and other outcomes. According to Bass’ (1985) leadership model, transactional leadership is fundamental for effective leadership, but a greater amount of Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction, comes from employees by augmenting transactional with transformational leadership (as cited in Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Transactional leadership.

According to Zaleznik (1977), managers set goals for their associates based on what they may expect from them (as cited in Avolio & Bas s, 2004). Bass (1985) described transactional leaders in a broader sense: they see what their associates wish to get from their work, and make sure that they get it; in case the performance is good enough, they give rewards for good performance, and respond to their associates’ needs when they do what is required of them (Avolio & Bass, 2004)

Transactional leadership builds upon giving rewards or compensations for successful fulfilling of the work tasks within a set up contract or agreement between the leader and the employees (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Components of transactional leadership

Contingent reward (CR) implies that the leader promises a reward to the followers in exchange for achievement of good results. It can beboth transformational (when a reward is psychological, for example a praise) and transactional when reward is material, like a bonus, (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Management-by-exception has two variants: active (MBEA) and passive (MBEP), although MBEP is related to passive-avoidant style. In active MBE, the leader tries to take measures to avoid mistakes and deviances from standards by monitoring and taking corrective action (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Transactional leaders create the needed confidence to employ the necessary effort. Anyway, the process of transaction is an essential part of the full range of effective leadership. Effective leaders are able to turn other’s self-interests for the good of their group or organization.

Transactional leaders have Self-interests for the good of their group or organization, the transactional leader works within the existing organizational culture, the transformational leader changes it. When individual needs are met, transactional leadership starts its shift towards transformational. Employees’ perceptions of their own efficacy or potential for development are augmented through the transactional leadership process. Transactional leadership alone is incomplete since transaction based changes represent small, however sometimes significant, improvements in employees’ performance and effort. Transformation occurs when subordinates understand that they are interested in their work and they want to work as a contribution to their own self-development (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Transformational leadership does not replace, but enhances transactional leadership when it comes to reaching the goals. Transactional leadership is effective at lower levels of performance or non-significant change, especially when a leader employs passive management-by-exception, interfering only when the standard requirements are unmet. Focus on failures is necessary, especially when mistakes are resulted in high costs. Nevertheless, if the leader only focuses on mistakes, the development of the employees will decline (Avolio & Bass, 2004). expectations, and therefore gain reputation for man aging to give pay, promotions and recognition. Other transactional leaders fail to deliver the needed rewards and lack the necessary reputation, and are therefore considered ineffective (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Adequate performance may be evoked by feeling of obligation for providing non-contingent rewards. Immediate feedback concerning the learning potential and performance of an individual is very important (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Contingent punishment makes transactional leadership much less successful though it can have a positive impact on performance, or sometimes even on satisfaction and motivation. In other situations contingent punishment can be motivational and improve performance, According to Bass (1990), employees might comply in order to avoid punishment (as cited in Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Contingent punishment makes transactional leadership much less successful though it can have a positive impact on performance, or sometimes even on satisfaction and motivation. In other situations contingent punishment can be motivational and improve performance. According to Bass (1990), employees might comply in order to avoid punishment (as cited in Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Contingent punishment should be applied when poor performance is delivered, if a leader makes clear what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable and sticks to the given Standard, then employees will see contingent punishment as effective and fair. Non-contingent punishment is negatively related to performance, especially when employees feel that any amount of the effort they put into their job is not enough to decrease the frequency of punishment (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Clark et al. (2009) examined how a manager’s commitment to service quality and leadership style influence the frontline employees’ way of doing their job. When hotel employees are satisfied with and committed to their job they provide the highest degree of service quality, especially when managers demonstrate commitment themselves. Particular working conditions in hotel industry demand creative approaches to guarantee that employees are motivated to provide excellent service.

According to Bennett (2007), “servant leaders practice leadership as hospitality” (as cited in Brownell, 2010). Employees, inspired by their leaders, give unselfish and sincere care to guests, which results in high customer satisfaction. The trust given to the employees by their leaders inspires them to take more initiative and results in better productivity, the management task in our society is becoming increasingly complex and difficult. Our deregulated and highly competitive business environment places a premium on quality management and leadership, more so than at any time in the past. Moreover, people in our organizations today raise the questions. They want to know why. Many workers today do not know ―their place‖. They are smarter and better informed. We no longer have servants or slave. Their approach is not servile but competitive and adversarial. This undoubtedly makes the leader‘s role more difficult, at least more challenging.

REFERENCES

Deslandes G., (2014), “Management in Xenophon’s Philosophy : a Retrospective Analysis”, 38th Annual Research Conference, Philosophy of Management, 2014, July 14–16, Chicago

Prentice, W. C. H. “Understanding leadership.” Harvard Business Review 39.5 (1961): 143-151.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

Clark, E. V. (2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

Ardichvili, A., & Manderscheid, S. V. (2008). Emerging practices in leadership development: An introduction.