All posts by MYORBITX

Leadership

Behavioral Leadership

Behavioral leadership is not really a type of leadership. Instead, it is the study of the kinds of actions and behaviors that make up what we can call a leadership style. This field of study relies on inter-disciplinary approach to understand the phenomenon of leadership and how leaders can effectively engage their followers.

Behavioral leadership is different from situational leadership, which tends to focus on the effectiveness of leadership styles depending on the various stimuli that can be found in the environment of the leader and the organization.

This is a kind of social science study because it does not rely on “hard” sciences to achieve understanding. Rather, it looks at case studies and quantitative approaches occasionally so as to look at the behaviors exhibited by leaders in various times and situations.

Among those who advocated behavioral leadership are Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt and Ralph White. They started doing this back in 1939 with the publication of their work on the influence of leadership performance and styles. Based on their research, they identified three leadership styles based on the behavior of the leaders.

1) Authoritarian leadership style. This kind of leaders makes decision alone and they do not involve others. They give orders and expect to be followed 100% of the time. The leader also prescribes the right way of doing it and is aloof from the followers.

2) Democratic leadership style. There is more participation and consultation in this kind of leadership. The democratic leader relies on group discussions and inputs from knowledgeable experts. The choices are arrived at based on consensus or voting. This works best in a setting where people know each other and they are fairly assertive of what they want to happen.

3. Laissez faire leadership. The group rules in this kind of situation! The leader has abandoned his leadership and just let his people do their own thing. This is dangerous in situations that require hands on assistance from the leader. But in situations where every member of the team is capable and can be considered an expert, this leadership style can easily work!

These types of leadership can be easily implemented in various situations in the organization. You just have to be sensitive to the situation and needs of your organization. If you just apply one over another because it is your preference, you become rigid. More than that, you also become unstable. And that will be a source of weakness in your leadership and in your organization. Choose carefully. The style of leadership is secondary to achieving the vision and the goals of your organization.

Get FREE articles and tips on transformational leadership from M Rasing’s social entrepreneurship blog.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/M_Rasing/182627

 

Leadership

The Difference Between Transactional and Transformational Leadership

Leadership is very important for a person as well as for an organization. Without leadership, the organization (and the individual, too) is like a boat without a rudder. It will be aimless and will just follow the flow of the powerful forces in the organization.

But leadership takes on different forms in an organization. One way of looking at it is by classifying between transaction and transformational leadership. Another is by looking at formal and informal leadership. Formal position and authority matter less than influence. Influence is raw power within an organization. A person who has influence does not need formal authority to tip the organizational balance towards himself.

Leaders who do have formal authority and leadership position may simply use transactional leadership for their subordinates and followers. This kind of leadership works in certain situations. Especially if the leader is but in transition and does not have to invest much time in the development of the people under him. Transactional leadership is not long term. It is short term. The key word here is transactions! The leader does not expect any “return business” with the people he is dealing with.

Transformational leadership, on the other hand, is a very different kind of leadership. It takes into account the motivation and the situation of the followers and subordinates. It primes up people for repeat business and continuous improvements!

As a leader, would you rather use short term transactional leadership or the long-term-impact transformational leadership? While I would advocate transformational leadership off-hand, the best leadership style depends on your circumstances and the organizational goals and objectives.

The important question to ask then is, how can you study the organizational context so as to understand the kind of leadership that is suited to it? Ask your people. Is there good morale in the organization? Or is it full of complaints and murmuring? Are the people happy to be part of the organization? Or are they simply waiting for one paycheck after another?

You also need to look at the performance of the organization. You can conduct an evaluation or even an internal audit of your organization. This way, you can assess the strengths and the weaknesses of the organization. Based on that, you can make important decisions as to the style of leadership suited for the organization.

There is no right or wrong styles of leadership to be used in an organization. What matters is how you use one style of leadership to accomplish your goals as a leader.

Transformational leadership is not rocket science! GET FREE LEADERSHIP COACHING from M Rasing’s leadership blog, http://www.mightyrasing.com.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/M_Rasing/182627

 

Leadership

Leadership Myths and Demons

We think we understand leaders and leadership. And I suppose to some extent we do. But we also work with a lot of leadership mythology-curious ideas developed over time like urban legends-and demons-either blaming leaders for evil in the world or looking upon leadership with suspicion.

Leadership myths are pervasive and persistent. What makes them troubling is that people who believe them usually fail to reach their leadership potential-and they sometimes hold others back as well. The myths and demons get in the way like barriers on an obstacle course.

Consider these myths:

 

  • Leaders are born.
  • Leaders are men.
  • Leaders are wealthy.
  • Leaders are especially charismatic.
  • Leaders are White.
  • Leaders are superb communicators.
  • Leaders are just managers who have more power.
  • Leadership is authority.
  • Leadership is hierarchical or positional.
  • Leadership can’t be taught.

 

You may be able to cite single examples for all of these statements, but one example does not make a law. On the other hand, one example to the contrary will invalidate what someone thinks is a law and we can point to plenty of exceptions. None of these statements may be generalized to all leadership in all times and cultures.

For example, I’ve never met a leader who hadn’t been born, so proclaiming “Leaders are born” like it’s a breakthrough discovery is silly. But many people still believe leadership attributes and skills are instilled at birth and that’s it. If you didn’t get the leadership gene from the stork, so the argument goes, you’re never going to be a leader.

This idea is reminiscent of the feudal perspectives of the Middle Ages all the way back to the divine right of kings. But claiming leaders are born and never “made” doesn’t stand the test of experience.

Leaders are men, and wealthy men at that. Oh really? Joan of Arc was neither a man nor wealthy. Same can be said for Harriet Tubman and Mother Teresa. Have a disproportionate number of leaders been men and have many leaders been wealthy? Sure. But this historical fact says more about lack of access for women in certain times and cultures than it does about innate ability. And more than one wife has led from behind the scenes when her husband, the elected or expected leader, wouldn’t or couldn’t lead. Ask Mrs. Woodrow Wilson.

Leaders aren’t leaders unless they exude charisma. Wrong again. President Calvin Coolidge was a smart man, but charisma certainly isn’t a word associated with his memory. Charisma isn’t essential. Non-charismatic “Silent Cal” still got a few things done.

Leaders are as different in personality and gifts as the leaves in a forest of trees. Gifted Native American speakers Tecumseh and later Chief Joseph were leaders in a lost cause, and they weren’t White. Neither was Martin Luther King, Jr., an orator of the first rank and the most important leader of the American Civil Rights Movement. The biblical Moses, arguably one of the greatest leaders who ever lived, at least initially struggled with poor communication skills.

Leaders are just hyped-up managers. No, leaders may be good managers, and some managers may possess leadership skills. But leaders are more than just managers with more clout. Leaders lead, and managers, well, they manage. We need them both.

Leadership isn’t just for those who possess formal authority, have amassed power, or hold a position. Talent and tenacity trump titles any day. That’s one lesson from the American Revolutionary War. Ragtag colonists took nearly eight years to do it, but they succeeded in chasing the Redcoats and chastening the King. Women without power or position-yet leaders-from Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Susan B. Anthony, worked throughout the Nineteenth Century to secure American women’s right to vote, finally granted in 1920 in the Nineteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Even “title-less” leaders get things done.

Consider these demons:

 

  • Leaders are robber barons.
  • Leaders are anti-democratic.
  • Leadership is Machiavellian, i.e. manipulative.
  • Leadership is tyrannical.
  • Leadership is intimidation or coercion.
  • Leadership is controlling, dictating.
  • Leadership contradicts service or “servanthood.”

 

For some reason, our ideas about leadership get twisted up with our image of “bad guys” and their desire to conquer the world. Lex Luthor in the Superman movies. Adolph Hitler in real history. Some people can’t seem to think about leaders without wincing. In this view, leaders are self-promoters, “politicians” who can’t be trusted. Only “the people” will ultimately be in the right.

Some of this attitude toward leadership is fostered by American democratic culture. We haven’t fully trusted a leader since we threw off England’s King George and our George left the first presidency.

Some of this suspicious attitude is justifiable. A few leaders haven’t deserved the allegiance and power they commanded or usurped, and some leaders have left lasting bitterness in their wake. Richard Nixon is America’s highest profile recent example. And historically, the world has certainly endured evil leaders-from the Old Testament King Jehoram, about whom it was said, “He passed away, to no one’s regret,” to Genghis Khan to Nero to Pol Pot to Saddam Hussein to Kim Jong-il. Sadly, the rogue’s gallery is full.

Dishonest, anti-democratic, manipulative, tyrannical, coercive, and dictatorial demagogues are the bad people. Yet their record shows us morally questionable individuals holding leadership positions, not a record of something intrinsically irredeemable about leadership in general.

Leadership is a tool. As free moral agents human beings can use leadership for good or for evil. Leadership always gets back to character.

As people who can choose, we can choose to lead. None of these common myths or demons ultimately hold water and none of them should stop anyone from becoming a leader if desire and opportunity calls for it.

Part of what makes leadership so fascinating is that leaders come from all walks and byways of life. No one is excluded. For this we can be grateful to God and to a democratic and open country where individuals matter.

Tom Brokaw described an entire generation as leaders. He noted in his book The Greatest Generation that America is losing several thousand per day who survived the Great Depression and World War II. This generation was the “greatest” because they answered the call time and again. They led by example, commitment, and participation. These men and women took the measure of their challenges and in some cases gave “the last full measure” to defend what they believed in.

The question we now face is who will take the Greatest Generation’s place of leadership? It can be you, and false mythologies and demons shouldn’t get in your way.

Dr. Rex Rogers is President, SAT-7 USA, the American advancement arm of SAT-7, a Christian satellite television organization based in Cyprus, which reaches 22 countries across 7 time zones via four channels in Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish. He is former president, Cornerstone University, and writes a column, “Good News from the Middle East.” Contact him at w http://rexmrogers.com/ or http://www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Rex_Rogers/180433

 

Leadership

Bad Leadership – What it is, How it Happens, Why it Matters – A Review

There are shelves full of books available that chronicle the lives and histories of the world’s bad leaders. For the most part though, these bad leaders are discussed as tyrants, dictators, and despots. Seldom is serious writing dedicated to them as leaders. To fill the gap, Barbara Kellerman gave us Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. Her approach addresses what she calls the “elephant in the room; bad leadership.” Most discussions tend to cast leadership as good, either ignoring bad leadership or presenting it as something other than leadership. In fact, leadership is leadership and there are good and bad examples everywhere. Bad leadership shouldn’t imply a bad person, but rather leadership which is ineffective. Hitler was an evil person and his goals and methods were despicable, but, at least during the early years of his reign, he was actually a good leader. It’s important to be able to clearly recognize bad leadership, and the sooner the better.

There’s an element of leadership, often overlooked, but essential: followers. By definition, a leader must have followers, and those followers often are the catalyst that enables the bad leadership. Throughout the book, Kellerman includes bad followers as a part of bad leadership, making the point that immoral leaders usually have immoral followers. This is probably one of the most important components of her work; find a bad leader and, most likely, you’ll find close followers who are just as bad for the same reasons. This is something too often overlooked by those who study leadership.

Kellerman divides bad leadership into seven types and provides examples of each. Discussion is not reserved just for the leader. Again, emphasizing the importance of followers, she clearly identifies where followers enabled bad leaders. For instance, discussing Marion Barry as an “intemperate” leader she points out several of his family and close associates who not only enabled, but could have prevented, Barry’s descent which eventually led to arrest and incarceration for illegal drug use.

Unfortunately, Kellerman selects some questionable examples. For instance, to illustrate “callous” leadership, she cites Rudolph Guiliani, specifically referring to the case of the shooting of Amadou Diallo by New York City Police officers. To be sure, the shooting was wrong, as even the involved police officers freely admitted in court; however, in her analysis, she claims that Giuliani was callous in his relationship with the minority community and that the Diallo case brought the issue to a head and illustrated that callousness. While Guiliani may appear callous, he willingly took on an extremely difficult crime problem in New York and made a significant difference. Sometimes a leader may appear callous by not swaying to the wind of individual groups. It is a true leader, a good leader, who keeps his or her eyes on the ultimate goal when others around him are following other agendas. I think it’s safe to say that his success in significantly reducing crime in the city was of great benefit to the minority community, since that was where a lot of crime was happening. The fact that he didn’t kowtow to minority leaders such as the Rev Al Sharpton (not exactly a paragon of virtue himself) doesn’t make him callous. Could he have responded better to the Diallo case? Yes. Does that make him an example of a callous leader by Kellerman’s definition? No.

In another example, Kellerman sites May Meeker as an example of a “rigid” leader. Meeker was a financial analyst for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co and in that position was an enthusiastic advocate the dot com stocks of the mid 90s. When the dot com market began to turn, Meeker didn’t, instead remaining bullish on her tech stock picks. The dot com market collapsed and many of those who invested based on her advice lost large sums of money. Was Meeker a leader? Kellerman calls her an “opinion leader” rather than a leader in the conventional sense. There’s a big difference though between someone in a position of authority and someone who merely issues opinions which others are free to follow or not.

Kellerman concludes her study by proposing what she calls corrections for leaders to prevent their descent into bad leadership. Like so much in the study of leadership, these corrections are simple, yet so often overlooked or ignored. True to her mode throughout the book, she also includes corrections for followers. These suggestions are exactly on target, though they do sometimes seem to overlook the extreme difficulty and even hazard some followers would face when implementing these corrections.

Notwithstanding my disagreements with her examples, Bad Leadership is a good book with a great focus on two things often overlooked in today’s study of the subject: leadership that is not good, and followership that enables it.

Bob Mason is a speaker, trainer, and author with a passion for good leadership. He uses his 30+ years of leadership experience to help organizations eliminate bad leadership. See what he can do for you at http://www.planleadexcel.com.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Bob_Mason/5533

 

Leadership

Leadership – Motivation From the Heart

“Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (ASV, Mt. 20: 26-28).

Are you a leader? What type of leader are you? Why?

Many management books point out various types of leadership styles based on achieving organizational goals as well as provide guidance to leaders on influencing followers to meet and exceed those goals. Some leadership books teach people leadership transformation by providing practical, “how-to” sections, such as changing behaviors or attitudes. Although researching and writing these books is certainly a noble endeavor, real leadership change occurs from the inside–out. The leader looking for actual leadership style transformation must first explore his or her intrinsic motivations from the heart and, then, acknowledge the behavioral impacts on the people and the organization.

Organizational Leadership Styles

Many types of leadership styles used in organizations achieve outcomes with the hope of producing effective results. For instance, charismatic leadership may produce loyalty to the leader and his passionate ideals; transactional leadership may achieve urgent project goals through the use of bonuses; while humane-oriented leadership, preferred in Southern Asia, shows achievement based on collaboration. Regardless of which leadership style is socially and culturally accepted, leaders are influenced both by their own intrinsic motivations, as well as perceived outcomes, when operating within organizational parameters trying to achieve “effective results.”

Whether an individual or a group achieves effective results is a subjective opinion laced with cultural, personal, and ethical biases–one manager may demand fast-paced task completion to achieve goals, while another manager may discourage the intense pace because he considers it employee hounding. According to author Peter Northouse, balancing both types of leadership styles, task-oriented and relationship-oriented, make it possible to achieve organizational goals. However, Northouse’s research does not show “a consistent link between task and relationship behaviors and outcomes such as morale, job satisfaction, and productivity.” Therefore, it is doubtful employees operating with low morale, mediocre job satisfaction, and average productivity generate effective results. Is this effective leadership?

Consideration: the Heart of the Matter

Although management and leadership books champion effective leadership, surprisingly, researchers “have not been able to identify a universal set of leadership behaviors that would consistently result in effective leadership,” according to Northouse. Gary Yukl, leadership scholar and author, purports “the only strong finding about leadership styles is that leaders who are considerate (emphasis added) have followers who are more satisfied.” In essence, this satisfaction encourages follower motivation, which, in turn, produces desired organizational outcomes.

Merriam-Webster defines consideration as: continuous and careful thought; thoughtful and sympathetic regard, esteem; an opinion obtained by reflection. Imagine a self-centered leader with greed as his motivation trying to have real “consideration” for other people. It just does not work. Consideration is rooted in thinking about others and, therefore, a heart-felt value not instantly attained by reading about leadership behaviors in a book. Trying to change leadership behaviors on the surface may produce short-term results; however, people see right through somebody acting insincere and inconsiderate. Therefore, a leader attempting to transform leadership style without transforming values in the heart, still finds it difficult to reach organizational goals.

Change of Heart, Attitudes, and Behaviors

Author Bruce Winston believes a leader who embraces the leadership values and behaviors as described in The Beatitudes of the Bible ultimately achieves leadership effectiveness. A person striving for this type of values-based leadership operates in a continuous self-reflective mode, filtering feedback from others, whether followers, peers, mentors, or other leaders. According to leadership consultants Chris Watkin and Ben Hubbard, “the willingness to engage personally and change as a result of feedback is what differentiates the best leaders from the rest.”

Once a leader makes a decision for heart transformation, changes in attitudes and behaviors evolve based on embracing a new or transformed set of values. Followers notice because the leader exhibits true behaviors on the outside reflecting internal motivations. Christians believe values engraved in the heart eventually come out in spoken words, whether good or bad, in healthy conversation or heated debate. Further, although leadership experts and organization development theorists group people by leadership style labels, every leader has a unique moral foundation and, therefore, a different leadership style.

“Consider-Others” Leadership

Many moral values exist within religious and social belief systems. The Buddhists believe in “Right Intent,” a commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement, such as the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion. Hindus believe in “karma,” a moral law of cause and effect, and “moksha,” a realization of the unity of all existence–perfect unselfishness and knowledge of the Self. Muslims embrace Islam by accepting, surrendering or submitting to God. Christians believe in loving one another, loving your enemies, and loving your neighbor as yourself. One aspect stands out among all these religions–a dying to self. A type of selflessness that puts the believer last and the other person first–true consideration.

Jesus believed in serving others; what leadership experts consider a “servant-leadership” style. Robert Greenleaf first coined the term “servant-leadership” in an essay: “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first; perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types.” Leaders, motivated by a deep sense of consideration, look at others first and not at their own interests, and this shapes their personal leadership style.

Motivate Your Leadership Style

Leaders motivated by consideration from the heart courageously and genuinely exhibit outward behaviors of honesty, trust, respect, friendliness, and helpfulness, regardless of social norms or what others say. Once leaders embrace heart-felt consideration, then motivation is directed toward achieving organizational goals using transformed leadership styles. Followers experiencing consideration through their leaders transformed leadership style exhibit increased job satisfaction and higher morale that enables motivation, which, in turn, produces desired organizational outcomes.

Once a leader recognizes his or her leadership style is based on intrinsic motivation, achieving effective organizational goals suddenly seems much easier.

What motivates your leadership style?

LISA R. FOURNIER is a doctoral student in the Doctor of Strategic Leadership (DSL) program with the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship at Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Lisa is also the President of Idea Evolutions LLC, a consulting company serving entrepreneurial leaders.
Email: lisafou@regent.

Continue reading →