Analysis of leadership and managerial effectiveness
Leadership power, influence, path-builder and director. it can defined in many ways, but most commonly Leader is person who influences the thoughts and behaviors of others; a leaders is one who establishes the direction for others to willingly follow. One person can serve as a leader or several persons might share leadership. A person may be appointed as leader or may be elected by people within his circle. Leaders play vital role in standardizing performance. Leaders can influence other to perform beyond the expectations. Managers plan, organize, lead and control so that “leading” and “managing” are inseparable, they are both integral part of each other. If one cant influence and inspire others to work willingly towards aims then all planning and organizing will be ineffective. Similarly setting direction is usually not enough, no matter how inspiring one can be, management skills are crucial.
Main characteristics of leadership:-
Self Confidence- They have complete confidence in their judgment and ability.
A vision- This is an idealized goal that proposes a future better than the status quo. The greater the disparity between idealized goal and the status quo, the more likely that followers will attribute extraordinary vision to the leader.
3.Ability to articulate the vision- They are able to clarify and state the vision in terms that are understandable to others. This articulation demonstrates an understanding of the followers’ needs and, hence acts as a motivating force.
4.Strong convictions about vision- Charismatic leaders are perceived as being strongly committed, and willing to take on high personal risk, incur high costs, and engage in self-sacrifice to achieve their vision.
5. Behavior that is out of the ordinary- Those with charisma engage in behavior that is perceived as being novel, unconventional, and counter to norms. When successful , these behaviors evoke surprise and admiration in followers.
6.Perceived as being a change agent- Charismatic leaders are perceived as agents of radical change rather than as caretakers of the status quo.
7. Environmental sensitivity- These leaders are able to make realistic assessments of the environmental constraints and resources needed to bring about change.
Main objective of leadership:-
1- Begin with the End in Mind
Clearly define AND communicate the objective; then lead unapologetically to its conclusion
2- There is no “I” in TEAM
Team players have value and are contributors to a group effort; self promoters do not have value and steal from the group. Cultivate team players and cull self promoters
3- Develop an Institutional Memory
Remember mistakes – and the costs associated with fixing them – or they will repeat themselves ad nauseum
4- Set a good example by being a good citizen at home, in your community and at work
No business success will make up for being a lousy citizen
5- Control the environment effectively, without suppressing creativity & flow
Don’t let the environment control you.
6- Do reward behavior you want repeated
Behavior (and success) that is rewarded will increase in duration, intensity and frequency.
7- Don’t reinforce and don’t ignore behavior you want stopped
Fear of conflict and avoidance of accountability will only lead to wide spreaddys function and more unwanted behavior.
8- Insure that a task is done right the first time
The project and any hope for momentum will grind to a halt if the task has to be done over again
9- Hire Integrity over Skill:-Skills can be trained; but honesty, integrity, morals and trust can not
10- Serve others
“How may I help you?” Should be asked early and often by and to every person in your organization. Earned loyalty through thoughtful service is the greatest ROI in business
MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS :-
Managerial Effectiveness is fast becoming a competitive advantage for
organisations, especially in the context of high demand for and therefore, continuous migration of competent managers from one organisation to another Organisations therefore, have started investing in retaining competent managers and putting in place systems for developing new cadre of effective managers. It is in wake of these contextual factors that this programme on Managerial Effectiveness is being conducted.
Managerial Effectiveness is often defined in terms of output - what a manager achieves. This result oriented definition leads us to look for the factors that contribute towards the “results”. Studies find three factors to be responsible for the results that an organisation achieves through its managers. These are: (a) the efforts and ability of the managers, (b) the environment in which the managers and the organisation operates, and (c) the efforts and ability of the subordinates. Thus, the managers’ ability is the key element in achieving the desired results.This programme on Managerial Effectiveness focuses by and large on the
managerial ability of Managing Self, Managing Subordinates & Relationships (which can enhance subordinates’ ability), Managing Change and Decision Making (which requires the managers to understand the environment in which she/he and her/his organisation operates).
Objective of managerial effectiveness:-
1. To develop and understanding of concept of managerial effectiveness.
2. To help the participants to understand the importance of team work and value of resolving the conflicts for developing effective relationship and work culture.
3. To enable the participant to develop specific skills such as team work and conflict management in order to enhance their contribution to the organisational growth.
4. To provide the participants an opportunity for sharing experiences and analysing managerial styles thereby, enabling them to meet the diverse needs of your te.
Trait theory tries to describe the types of behavior and personality tendencies associated with effective leadership. In modern times, Thomas Carlyle (1841) can be considered one of the forerunners of trait theory.
Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents frequently challenge this approach. The "strongest" versions of trait theory see these “leadership characteristics” as innate, and accordingly label some people as "born leaders" due to their psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves identifying and measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders, then training those with potential. In response to criticisms of the trait approach, researchers have begun to assess leader attributes using the leadership attribute pattern approach.
Leader as a communicator the framing
Framing is a way of communicating to shape meaning.
It’s a way for leaders to influence how others see and understand events.
Selecting and highlighting one or more events while excluding others.
It is the ability of the leader to influence others to act beyond their self interests
Two contemporary theories of leadership with a common theme.
1. Charismatic leadership
2. Transformational leadership
The Charismatic Leader gathers followers through dint of personality and charm, rather than any form of external power or authority.
The searchlight of attention
It is interesting to watch a Charismatic Leader 'working the room' as they move from person to person. They pay much attention to the person they are talking to at any one moment, making that person feel like they are, for that time, the most important person in the world.
Charismatic Leaders pay a great deal of attention in scanning and reading their environment, and are good at picking up the moods and concerns of both individuals and larger audiences. They then will hone their actions and words to suit the situation.
Pulling all of the strings
Charismatic Leaders use a wide range of methods to manage their image and, if they are not naturally charismatic, may practice assiduously at developing their skills. They may engender trust through visible self-sacrifice and taking personal risks in the name of their beliefs. They will show great confidence in their followers. They are very persuasive and make very effective use of body language as well as verbal language.
Deliberate charisma is played out in a theatrical sense, where the leader is 'playing to the house' to create a desired effect. They also make effective use of storytelling, including the use of symbolism and metaphor.
Many politicians use a charismatic style, as they need to gather a large number of followers. If you want to increase your charisma, studying videos of their speeches and the way they interact with others is a great source of learning. Religious leaders, too, may well use charisma, as do cult leaders.
Leading the team
Charismatic Leaders, who are building a group, whether it is a political party, a cult or a business team, will often focus strongly on making the group very clear and distinct, separating it from other groups. They will then build the image of the group, in particular in the minds of their followers, as being far superior to all others.
The Charismatic Leader will typically attach themselves firmly to the identify of the group, such that to join the group is to become one with the leader. In doing so, they create an unchallengeable position for themselves.
Key characteristics of charismatic leadership
Vision and articulation;
Sensitivity to the environment;
Sensitivity to member needs;
Personal risk taking;
Performing unconventional behavior
Vision and articulations
Has a vision
Expressed as an idealized goal
The goal proposes a future better than the status quo
Is able to clarify the importance of the vision in terms that are understandable to others.
Willing to take on high personal risk
Incur high costs
Engage in self sacrifice to achieve the vision
Sensitivity to follower’s needs
Perspective of other’s abilities
Responsive to other’s needs and feelings.
Engages in behaviors in behaviors that are novel and counter to norms.
Personality of charismatic leaders
Articulate an over arching goal
Communicate high performance expectations
Empathize the needs of their followers
Project a powerful confident and dynamic presence
Captivating and engaging voice tone
Three step process of becoming a charismatic leader
An individual needs to develop an aura of charisma by maintaining an optimistic view, using passion as a catalyst for generating enthusiasm and communicating with the whole body, not just with words.
.An individual draws others in by creating a bond that inspires others to follows.
. An individual brings out the potential in followers by tapping into their emotions.
Charismatic Leadership Issues
People following these leaders will be exerting extra effort, express greater satisfaction.
Charismatic effectiveness and situation
Charisma works best when:
The follower’s task has an ideological component
There is a lot of stress and uncertainty in the environment
The leader is at the upper level of the organization
Followers have low self-esteem and self-worth
Dark Side of Charisma
Ego-driven charismatic allow their self-interest and personal goals to override the organization’s goals
Very effective leaders who possess the four typical leadership traits:
Ability to stimulate others to high performance
Plus one critical new trait…
A blend of personal humility and professional will
Personal ego-needs are focused toward building a great company
Take responsibility for failures and give credit to others for successes
Prided them on developing strong leaders inside the firm who could direct the company to greater heights after they were gone.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
It is argued that the fate of any society is determined by the quality of its leadership.
This discusses the various managerial styles with the aim of buttressing the role of leadership in attaining organizational goals and objectives. This relies on extensive review of literature and employs content analysis of managerial leadership styles. This reveals that the correct style of leadership depends on: nature of the job; preference of the followers; the leader’s attitude and the situation at a point in time. However, emerging economies are bereft of good and effective leadership in all fields of human Endeavour’s due to self-aggrandizements. Therefore, they recommends that: leaders should be made to be accountable for their stewardships both when in office and afterwards; and there should be general social re-orientation, for people to be honest, God fearing and to remember the day of reckoning when they will be asked to account for their deeds in this world.
According to him leadership is the exercise of power and authority in collectivity; such as groups, organizations, communities of nations. This power can be addressed to any of the three very general and related functions: establishing the goals, purposes or objectives of the collectivity. This implies that exercise of authority involves making things happen though others. In achieving such purpose, leaders may engage in any of the following activities: coordinating, controlling, directing, guiding or mobilizing the efforts of others.
He suggested that the leader is a person who always suggested that leadership is the quality that a leader can act as a manager in performing all managerial function as well as with power and authority he can easily manage the things.
He defines leadership effectiveness as success of the leader in achieving the organization’s goals. To be effective, the leader must help individuals in the group to satisfy their needs; for instance by giving responsibility to those with high power needs, close involvement to those with high inclusion needs and so on. Therefore, the most effective leaders are capable of dealing with the groups’ problem that depends on leader’s ability to persuade his followers, which in turn depends largely on how much power he possesses.
Manager includes leadership qualities to achieve the organizational goals. They help individual in group to satisfy all the organizational needs.
Weick 1979, Kiesler and Sproull 1982, Streufert and Swezey 1986:-
This model is one of few that allows for an empirical test of some of the central ideas developed by the paradox perspective. There study also contrasts the recent emphasis on cognitive complexity in the organizational literature with the relative lack of attention given to behavioral complexity. Cognitive complexity, the paper argues, may well be a necessary condition for the effective practice of leadership. Behavioral complexity, however, must certainly be the sufficient condition.
Leadership must inevitably be performed through action, not cognition, and it would thus appear to be time for leadership researchers to begin to develop theories of behavioral as well as cognitive complexity.
Burke and Day (1986)
They applied meta-analysis to available managerial training and development studies to determine the types of management training that were effective, to what degree they were effective, and the relative effectiveness of the different training methods in improving learning or the acquisition of skills. The meta-analysis conducted by Burke and Day is commonly regarded as the principal empirical support for the effectiveness of managerial training and leadership development programs.
Burke and Day (1986) incorporated the following training content areas in their analysis: general management, human relations, and self-awareness, problem solving/decision making, rater training, and motivation/values. Descriptions of those content areas were as follows:
1) General management training taught facts, concepts, and skills and included training topics such as labor relations, a broad focus on management theory and practice, company policies and procedures, labor economics, and general management functions.
2) Training in the human relations content area focused on the human relations problems of leadership, supervision, attitude toward employees, and communications.
3) Studies that were coded into the self-awareness training content area involved the understanding of one’s behavior, how others view one’s behavior, and learning one’s strengths and weaknesses. Examples in the self-awareness content area were sensitivity training and transactional analysis.
4) Problem solving training included studies with a wide range of work problems that managers encounter including generalized problem solving and decision making skills.
5) Rater training programs taught participants to minimize errors in observing and evaluating subordinates.
6) Motivation/values training included programs designed to increase the manager’s motivation and modify manager’s values or attitudes.
He used organizational variables as outcome criteria. Some studies in their research had mixed results in demonstrating that managerial leadership development programs enhanced individual, group, and/or organizational effectiveness.
He described the status of the field of leadership as being “in a state of ferment and confusion”. Most of the theories are beset with conceptual weaknesses and lack strong empirical support. Several thousand empirical studies have been conducted on leadership effectiveness, but most of the results are contradictory and inconclusive… The confused state of the field can be attributed in large part to the disparity of approaches, the narrow focus of most researches, and the absence of broad theories that integrate findings from the different approaches”.
The status of the field of leadership is in a state on ferment and confusion. Leadership is necessary for the manager to perform affectively within an organization by integrating different approaches. This helps in applying different approaches results in better managerial performance by possessing better leadership qualities.
(Bass and Avolio, 1993)
He proposed another type of leadership which is known as transactional leadership, which is e. Instead of being communal, the emphasis is on individuals or small groups of employees within organizations or businesses who vie for favored status with a manager. Cooperation occurs through negotiations and loyalty is bought with reward to individuals. In these cases, some employees demonstrate little or no commitment to the organization’s mission or vision, and cooperation is the result of negotiations. This model emphasizes marginal improvements in performance based on exchange relationships with subordinates. Conclusion: - leadership is a systematic relationship where “no leader leads without followers”. To measure leadership effectiveness, Avolio believed that the focus should be less on what the leader does and more on what the followers do. This committed to a “full range” of leadership.
Fleishman et al. (1991) developed taxonomy of descriptive leader behaviors from 65 authors, which provided a systematic definition of leadership behavior for use in designing leadership development interventions. The major approaches to leadership study were identified as the power-influence approach, managerial behavior approach, trait approach, situational approach (nine different ones including path-goal, situational leadership, contingency theory, and leader-member exchange) and transformational or charismatic leadership (Yukl, 1989) Conclusion: - he explained the different leader behaviours and different approaches applied to leadership study.
He states, “Managerial leadership is indeed a subtle mixture of formal authority, skills, knowledge, information, intelligence, courage, tenacity, instinct and hard work”. As individuals rise to higher levels of formal leadership in organizations, the balance between leader and manager behavior shifts, but there are very few instances where a person can develop leadership skills without also being competent at managerial functions.
There should be a balance between leader and managerial behaviour. To enhance leadership styles sometimes becomes at the managerial level in performing different functions of management.
He used meta-analytic procedures to describe and statistically integrate 25 studies from the empirical literature regarding the effectiveness of cross-cultural training for managers. A great majority of the studies (88%) used control group design. Chen’s meta-analysis produced a highly significant average effect size (1.60) for the comparisons between those who received cross-cultural training and those who did not, indicating that the average trainee was 1.60 standard deviation higher than controls on the cross-cultural training effectiveness measures. Chen discovered that control group studies produced lower effect sizes than single group pretest-posttest studies. Chen also found that the longer the time between cross-cultural training and the measurement of training effectiveness, the less effective the training was judged to be by the primary study participants, with almost 56% of the variability in effect size magnitude caused by the time of outcome measurement.
The results of Chen’s meta-analysis did not conclude that any certain type of cross-cultural training program was more effective than another one as he generally impact the effectiveness of cross-cultural training for managers.
He suggested the that leadership development efforts will result in improved leadership skills appears to be taken for granted by many corporations, professional management associations, and consultants. In essence, many companies naively assume that leadership development efforts improve organizational efforts. Leadership development is defined as “every form of growth or stage of development in the life cycle that promotes, encourages, and assists the expansion of knowledge and expertise required to optimize one’s leadership potential and performance.”
Leadership development will leads to the improvement leadership skills with in the corporations, to improve the organizational efforts by developing their employees.
Managerial leadership development through on-the-job experiences has emerged as a powerful source of learning. He believed that on-the-job experiences were the primary classrooms for the development of leadership skills. These developmental jobs provide transitions that put the manager into new situations with unfamiliar responsibilities and tasks where they create change and build relationships (Brutus, Ruderman, Ohlott, & McCauley, 2000; McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988; McCauley & Brutus, 1998). According to McCall, et al. (1988), most 31 developments of successful business leaders took place on the job and not in seminars, classrooms, and MBA programs. Additional literature regarding on-the-job experiences will be cited in the Leadership Development.
He explained that the managerial leadership development through on-the job experiences. It develops leadership skills with in a manager to enhance their skills. It helps them in handling unfamiliar responsibilities and tasks in which they can easily make changes.
He emphasized that outcomes can be encapsulated as the awareness of the importance of organizational motivation and understanding, the flexibility to adapt to individual organizational needs, the openness to encourage continuing discussion and interchange, and a readiness to continue learning. Examples of outcomes in the current literature were improved subordinate and human relationships, improved knowledge skills and attitudes, improved trainee leadership and group effectiveness, improved decision-making style, sensitization of trainees to their management role, and development of a shared personal and organizational vision.
He explained that managerial effectiveness is analysed by motivating and understanding the organization needs by improved trainee leadership.
Aurelio M. Montemayor, M.Ed:-
He defines leadership as the individual qualities of assertiveness and ambition that shine through a charismatic individual. Leadership means collective commitment to progress – wise and tough actions that create new systemic regularities in our institutions of education. It means constructing a seamless pipeline for all our children from preschool years to completing college...It means institutions and communities work for the greater good of our world.” Conclusion:- Leadership leads to progress which help in regulating our institutions of education. They generally work for the greater good of our world.
Swanson &Holton, 1999:-
The Results Assessment System was used in this research to analyze the outcomes of leadership development studies from both a learning and performance perspective. The Results Assessment System (Swanson & Holton, 1999) enables practitioners to measure results within three domains: performance, learning, and perception, each of which has two options. Performance results are either system or financial results. System results are defined as “the units of mission-related outputs in the form of goods and/or services having value to the customer and that are related to the core organizational, work processes, and group or individual contributors in the organization”. Financial results are defined as “the conversion of the output units of goods and/or services attributable to the intervention into money and financial interpretation”.
Performance-level assessment requires that mission-related performance outcomes be connected to the mission of the system (Swanson & Holton, 1999).
Performance outcomes typically are assessed in terms of being counted or time taken to produce the units of goods or services. Swanson and Holton clarified that performance outcomes are classified in terms of “the performance levels at the whole system level (organization), the work processes within the system (subsystem), or the contributor level (individuals or intact work groups)”. According to Swanson and Holton, “within the performance domain, a complex organization can have a variety of performance outcomes” but a “unit of performance must be selected as the focal point of the assessment”.
Learning results as defined by the Results Assessment System (Swanson &
Holton, 1999) are delineated into expertise or knowledge results. Expertise results are defined as “human behaviors having effective results and optimal efficiency, acquired through study and experience within a specialized domain”. Human expertise is the most complex of learning results. The premise is that people with expertise have knowledge and are able to act on that knowledge (Swanson & Holton, 1999). Measuring human expertise requires that an individual demonstrate his or her behavior in a real or simulated setting.
Knowledge results are defined as “mental achievement acquired through study and experience” (Swanson & Holton, 1999,). Swanson and Holton believed that knowledge, an intellectual or cognitive result of learning experiences, was the basic learning result of an intervention. Measures of knowledge confirmed the level of knowledge held by individuals within a particular subject area.
He applied meta-analysis procedures to experimental evaluation studies to find out the magnitude of the effect of management training from 1983-1997 on trainee’s learning, job performance, and organization results. The study followed Burke and Day’s coding criteria and included forty-seven empirical studies on training for managerial personnel in business and industry and in education. Zhang included experimental and quasi-experimental studies, most of which were found in journal articles, while one-third were doctoral dissertations. The results indicated that evaluation was being conducted beyond the reaction and learning levels. Zhang’s research produced a .47 effect size for studies with knowledge-subjective outcomes, .80 for knowledge-24 objective, .50 for expertise-subjective and .49 for studies with system-objective outcomes. A major finding was that management training made a significant difference in trainees’ learning when self-efficacy and various knowledge tests measured the outcomes. A human relations leadership program made a significant difference in trainee’s job performance when performance appraisal instruments measured their on the- job behavior. Management training programs were effective when measured by subjective result criterion, such as employees’ commitment to the organization and job satisfaction. There was a significant difference in the training effect measured by objective organization result criterion, such as job accuracy, turnover and productivity.
He recommended that more quantitative reviews be conducted using meta-analysis to accumulate quantitative data of training effectiveness across studies and that more high quality empirical studies are conducted. It also concluded that measurement of organization results outcomes needed more research in which the organizational indicators that are most relevant to training are prioritized.
The nature of management and leadership has changed significantly and organizations are experiencing an increased number of outcome-based demands on their time and resources. Organizations also are committing to an increased number of managerial leadership development interventions and take for granted that those interventions enhance their organization’s effectiveness. But, there remains a void as to what is known about managerial leadership development and the contribution of managerial leadership development interventions to individual knowledge and expertise as well as organizational performance.
Interventions results in enhancing organisations effectiveness this leads to development interventions for individual knowledge and expertise. Interventions results in better managerial effectiveness.
Leadership development interventions have gained more attention because most organizations are facing a multitude of outcome-based demands on their time and resources – demands that stem from a variety of driving forces including federal mandates, increased global competition, and national accreditation standards. Leadership development is also important in global organizations because of dual reporting structures, proliferation of communication channels, overlapping responsibilities, and barriers of distance, language, time, and culture (Friedman, 2000).
Leadership development interventions due to outcomes. It is important because of various factors as barriers and reporting structures.
Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001
He will assist in determining the effectiveness of managerial leadership development interventions, in their enhancement of organizational performance, individual knowledge, and expertise. Little is known about what knowledge and skills or processes in managerial leadership development interventions contribute to organizational performance. Therefore, this research focused on outcomes, or the effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs, in terms of knowledge, expertise, financial or system results at the individual, team or group, or organizational level.
Managerial leadership effectiveness leads in the enhancement of organization performance. They set different programs which results in better organizational performance. It is in the form of knowledge, expertise, team etc.
A preliminary study of leadership development interventions from 1986-2000 conducted by preliminary study of leadership development interventions from 1986-2000 conducted by him located 18 out of 54 studies with organizational performance as the outcome variable and four of these studies had negative results. With an apparent increase in organizational level studies and organizations taking for granted that leadership development programs enhance organizational performance, the researcher wondered if managerial leadership development interventions truly are effective.
A cumulative study of the outcomes of managerial leadership development interventions is needed to identify the intervention content areas or types of managerial leadership development interventions that enhance individual, group or team, or organizational effectiveness. The findings of this research should be of theoretical interest to researchers as well as of practical use to organizational decision-makers. Organizations will hopefully use results of this type of research to design more effective managerial leadership development interventions and justify the return on their training investment. Located 18 out of 54 studies with organizational performance as the outcome variable and four of these studies had negative results. With an apparent increase in organizational level studies and organizations taking for granted that leadership development programs enhance organizational performance, the researcher wondered if managerial leadership development interventions truly are effective.
The outcome of managerial leadership development interventions is needed to identify the intervention content areas or types of managerial leadership development interventions that enhance individual, group or team, or organizational effectiveness. There must be practical use to organizational decision-makers. Organizations will hopeful relly use results of this type of research to design more effective managerial leadership development interventions and justify the return on their training investment.
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: