This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
These approaches were formed in the 20th century, according to these approches leaders were born , and they believed that the great leaders were born with inherent traits and certain qualities that made them great and the characteristics were in these leaders by birth. These theories especially the Trait theory identifies certain characteristics or personity styles and types shared by leaders like BUDHA, NAPOLEON, MAO , CHURCHILL, THATCHER, REAGAN etc.
The characteristics were present naturally in them by the time they were born. That's why we can say he /she is a natural leader. Leaders who are extraverted, conscientions, and are very open do have advantage over other leaders.
Some of the traits or qualities , characteristics that must be present in the leader are mentioned below in the chart by different researches and by different researchers. They are as follow ;
Stongdill Mann Stogdill Alliger Krickpatrick Zaccaro and Bader
(1948) (1959) (1974) (1986) (1991) (2004)
Intelligence Intelligence Achievement Intelligence Drive Cognitive abilities
Alertness Masculinity Persistence Masculinity Motivation Extroversion
Insight Adjustment Insight Dominance Integrity Conscientiousness
Responsibility Dominance Initiative Confidence Emotional stability
Initiative Extroversion Self-confidence Cognitive Ability Openness
Persistence Conservativeness Responsibility Task Knowledge Agreeableness
Self -confidence cooperativeness Motivation
Sociability Tolerance Social intelligence
MERITS OF THE TRAIT THEORY:-
The trait theory has many merits , they are as follows ;
Traits can predict leadership.
According to the trait theory if we know or if we are aware of the traits that are predicted to be present in a leader, then from very earlier stage we will be able to predict the emergence of leaders, and through these trait's knowledge we will be able to differentiate between a successful efficient and unsuccessful un efficient leaders.
The traits are spontaneously appealing.
Through this trait's and characteristic's we will be able to recognize the extraordinary people. In this way we will be able to distinguish the gifted people fron ordinary people.
The triats approach has a century of research to back up.
It is very hard to say that this theory is false and it is unothentic, because it has been created after centuries of research by different researchers, it got creditability by the back up of the centuries of the research.
The trait theory is devoted to the leaders.
The rest of the theories study leader's , followers , and influencers, but this is the only theory
that is dedicated only to the leaders, it gives us deeper intricate understanding of the leaders.
Given us bench marking.
This theory is the benchmarking for us in leadership. By identical behavioral patterns we can identify or design such programs through which we can implant or train such individuals who want to be effective leaders in management.
WEAKNESSES OF THE TRAIT THEORY:-
Leaders are charismatic.
It is true that the traits are present in the leaders by birth that make them gifted , extraordinary , and charismatic. These qualities are God gifted and cannot be learned in any organization. So we can say charisma is inherited and can't be learned.
Delimit of the definitive list of leaders Traits.
As we can see throughout the different researches and various studies that have been done on the Trait theory, and different researcher's findings are ambiguous and an uncertain and endless trait list have been formed.
Traits theory has failed to take the situations in to account.
The other demerit of the Trait theory is that it enphasises on the Traits that are already present in a leader, but it ingores the situations and the context in which leadership occurs.
Trait theory is totally based on subjective interpretentions.
Trait theory is very vast and broad, lot of research has been done on this approach but the end less list of traits is not strong grounded and so we can say it is not realiable research because it is very subjective interpretentive and so this approach ignores the practical aspect which makes it totally theorotical and unrealiable.
Trait theory ignores the relationship of leadership out comes.
In this theory they talk and emphasise the character Traits that must be found in a le
ader to be effective but this approach totally ignores the out comes , like if these Traits are present in an individual then how can he polish himself ,or in other words utilize these qualities to become successful and effective.
Trait theory is not useful intraining and development of leaders.
In this approach they say that only those people can be leaders who have specific Traits or specific characteristics present in them, so this means if a person does not contain these Traits he /she can not become a leader at all, because leaders are born so they can't be trained or developed .
(b) "Modern business needs Leaders, Innovators, Entrepreneurs.....Intrapreneurs more than Managers".
Set out the main arguments of this debate with clear conclusions.
ANS:- Sometimes people usually get confused with the terms "leadership" and "manager ship", while both words are critically different and contain different meanings. Leaders can become managers but managers can't be leaders, while leadership is an important aspect of managing or management. Another difference between leaders and managers is this that;
"leaders do the right thing ; managers do the things right"
What makes a good manager or a good leader has yet to be answered as different people have different opinions and views about it. In my view or opinion is the style of work, and coping with the complexity and vibrant while some may tell you it must be a person who inspires others and contains such and such qualities and a person who can get best out of the staff. Some will say managers are those who make formal plans, make rigid structures,and keep an eye on the results. While a leader is a person with vision of the future. In the following debate I think we need both of them equally. I will give you some reasons , illustrations and conclusions to justify my point of view.
A firm needs several managers but with one leader.
As this world has been created by One creator that's why every thing is organized and in a systematic order. Like that we need many managers but only one leader, imagin a boat with lots of captains,or an army with plenty of generals, there will be a dis-order and conflicting objectives for accomplishment, like these examples we need one leader but with many managers to get the stuff done .
Change / reinforce the existing organizational structure/culture.
As leaders it is very hard for them to follow , so if a leader has the opportunity to run the organizations , he/ she will rarely want to follow the existing structure / culture and will rather preffer to change it .while a manager will keep the existing structure / culture of the organization and by reinforcing it.
Long term / short term focused.
Leaders are not focused on the short term as they are horizon, and are more interested in the long run for what's going to happen next , while managers are more focused , and tactically interested in quarterly figures.
Vision / direction.
Leaders are the ones who show direction through their vision ,while the managers get the people there, they break the large task in to small phases and gets it done by bits and pieces and by taking the people right at the spot.
Dramatic and incrementary change.
Leaders would like to have a dramatic change to occur at once , but once the top-level management has its vision in place ,then we require managers to reinforce the culture and vision throughout the organization.
Leaders are ones that hold the vision about the future, they are very imaginative, passionate, and are risk takers. While managers on the other hand are very controlled and rationals, problem -solvers, they are very tough minded hard working, intelligent and analystic
Leaders have vision and then they try to promote their own ideas without paying attention on the current affairs and situations, they can't reshape their ideas and they can't re-organize themselves in accordance with the changes happening, they are active. While managers are passive, they decide which goals and objectives to be accomplished by the necessity instead of desires.
Conception of work.
Leaders have the vision through which they excite people and they focus people on attained a shared desired goal and by raising their expectations, in this way they make people to take high-risk positions, because they dislike ordinary , boring , unexcited work. while managers on the other hand have different perception about the work , they establish strategies,they involve people's ideas and views in decision making , they have a strong -survival instinct that makes them tolerate, practical and mundane work.
Relations with others.
Leaders relations with other people are instinctive and sympathetic, they focus on events and the current affairs they attract people by developing strong feelings and differences of love and hate, they create turbulent , intense and disorganised human relations . while managers develop low level of emotional involvement in relations, they resolve differences, seek compromises, they establish balance of power.
Self identity v/s strong past.
All the leaders of the world if we study them we will come to know that they had a hard time , and their life was a continuous struggle, they don't take things for granted ,so they have a profound sense of seperateness, they sense of self is independent of roles , memberships and other social identities. They are self masters.
While managers on the other hand are straightforward, they focus on socialization and this prepared them to guide organizations ,as they are conservators and regulators.
This table summarizes the above and gives a sense of the differences between being a leader and being a manager.
Excitement for work
Money for work
What is right
Question 2 addresses:
Leadership and Change unit learning outcomes 3,4,5,6,7,8
Corporate Management in Action learning outcomes 4 and 7
Please refer to the outcomes and indicative contents as closely as possible when preparing your assignment.
Assignment (minimum 850 words for each question set)
Question 2 is divided in three parts (a) (b) and (c)
As Manager you are aware that improvement of personal and managerial effectiveness as well as management of change amongst others is key to withstanding the challenges of an increasingly competitive environment.
(a) Identify and illustrate the impact of the main triggers of change on the company you are working.
(b) Critically discuss ways you would handle resistance to change that might occur while implementing a change program in your organisation.
(c) Prepare a reflective account identifying and analysing the main criteria on how your effectiveness in managing change can be assessed
Identify and illustrate the impact of the main triggers of change on the company you are working.
" Management job is not to seethe company as it isâ€¦..but as it can become."
( JOHN W TEETS,CEO, GREYHOUND CORPORATION)
" It is not the strongest of the species that survive ,nor the most intelligent ,but the One most responsive to change."
( CHARLES DRAWIN)
As we all know that todays business world is very complex and competitive, to survive in it is to reshape your self to adapt the changes that are accuring in the business world. Not only we are surviving in the ever changing environment also the customer needs and demands are changing with their environment on daily basis as well , so to meet the needs of our customers we need to adapt the change, because competition and change are very rigid in the business world.
Any organization in the business world naturally changes because of the SLEPT factors. And also the competitive stregnths in side the organization can make a difference. There is a specific way to become accustomed with change incrementally, it first has to unfreeze the present obtainable way of doing things, second is to bring the change we want to bring or adopt , the third and the last way is to refreeze ,do the things in a newly learned manner.
First point emphasises the behavior, attitude of people.
Second point deals with the structure of the organization.
Third we have to change the processes of doing things.
There are and can be many reasons for change, but the following are few triggers for change in an organization, they can be internal as well as external factors that can become the reason for change. They are as follows;
EXTERNAL TRIGGERS. INTERNAL TRIGGERS.
Globalisation - organisational silence
Workforce diversity - falling effectiveness
Technological change - crisis
Managing ethical behaviour - changing employee expectations
Government policies - change in the work climate
Scarcity of reources
Organisations must be ever ready for learning , innovating and for adopting change, if the organization has its clear vision of the future and it knows which way it is headed then change will not be a treat to it , it will become associated force. Organizations must become masters of change in learning and adopting change.
Leadership-----vision-----communication-----action-----feedback, these are the building blocks of change.
People who are born into Power
Prince William of England, Sultan HassanalBolkiah of Brunei and Emperor Akihito of Japan are examples of leaders who are born into power. Regardless of their characteristics or personality, these people were born into positions of leadership. They are exposed to various leadership situations, causing them to be influential and in their own rights
Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/308139_leaders-are-born-not-made#ixzz1FTrz9P4z