Without being able to communicate, direct and inspire people like leaders do, organizations would struggle to be successful as they would not be able to do effectively communicate visions and help overcome hurdles to the best of their ability. To help identify what makes effective leadership several studies have been conducted and theories have been developed to help understand the fundamentals behind it. One central aspect of leadership is the contingency theories of leadership. Contingency theories refer to leaders altering leadership styles depending on the particular circumstances. The relationship between leadership style and effectiveness suggested that, under condition a, style x would be appropriate, whereas style y was more suitable for condition b, and style z for condition c (Robbins et al 2011).
A more succinct statement of power relations in the workplace would be hard to find.2 This essay is a reflection on one of the more interesting concepts in the contemporary management of human resources-employee empowerment. This innovation is considerably more complicated than it might at first appear, and its pedigree is rather longer, more convoluted and more controversial that some might expect. Essentially Contested Concepts This essay does not address the kind of question that is immediately susceptible to empirical inquiry and examination. The reason is that when we discuss concepts such as employee empowerment, we literally do not know what we are talking about or, more accurately, we do not agree about its definition. What we think about employee empowerment depends entirely on what we think employee empowerment means not only in factual terms and in particular cases, but also in sweeping historical, theoretical and essentially political terms.
This research will try to explain the relevance of the leader’s role in the effective governance organisations and how depending the role-played can alter the organizational outcomes. As a second aim, this essay will introduce the concepts “leadership” and “governance” showing the similarities and differences of both concepts to distinguish between its role and development. For this reason, research pretends to discuss these concepts to full understand the significance of governance and leadership within companies. In addition, a third aim was to expose the differences between a manager and a leader because both concepts are interrelated but also
Science will continue to surprise us with what it discovers and creates; then it will astound us by devising new methods to surprises us. At the core of science's self-modification is technology. New tools enable new structures of knowledge and new ways of discovery. The achievement of science is to know new things; the evolution of science is to know them in new ways. What evolves is less the body of what we know and more the nature of our knowing.
This is typically accomplished through a combination of control and influence. Both power and politics applies to situations where a person attempts to gain approval for an unpopular decision, or to get team members on board. Power and politics work hand-in-hand as a tool used by organizations to both survive, and fulfill company goals. Ultimately, they both work together towards the success of an organization. How does power and politics in organizations contrast?
Other qualitative data collection method under Qualitative Design includes Participant Observation and focus group. The following are challenges faced with participant observation and the strategy to be deployed to overcome this. • Time consumption is a big challenge and this is mitigated by involving researchers who already possess a solid base of cultural awareness of the region or ethnography under study to be among the data collection team. • Challenge of data documentation and this is mitigated by strict discipline and diligence to expand researcher recorded thought or observation. • The objectivity in documenting researcher observation because this process is inherently subjective.
Transformational Leadership The world of leadership has changed from focusing on qualities of distinguishing leaders and their followers to focusing on other variables, e.g., situational factors, skill levels, etc. At the onset of the Leadership theories revolution, Traditional leadership theories were clustered into different theories: Dispositional theorists taught that if one possesses certain attributes, then they could be a great leader. Behavioral theorists believed that great leadership was based on what one does and emphasized that leadership capabilities are not innate, they could be learned. Contingency theorists stressed that the ability to be a leader was dependent on various situational and environmental factors e.g., the leader’s preferred style or the capabilities and behaviors of their followers. Contemporary theorists believed that leadership was influenced by social power, context, and
The great person theory of leadership assumes that leaders possess a special cluster of traits that sets them apart from followers (Judge, 87). Using the trait-orientated focus popular with psychologist, researchers have show that leaders tend to possess high cognitive ability, inner drive, and the desire to take on a leadership role, self-confidence, integrity, and sufficient flexibility to develop novel approaches to problem solving. An individual with these traits would be more likely to emerge as a leader amongst their peers. More recent scholars have argued that effective leadership emerges from situations or crises that invoke leadership skills rather
Different theories have been developed by famous leaders to help answer some of these questions. Listed among some of the leadership theories are Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, Behavioral Theories, situational leadership theory, contingency, Transactional and Transformational. DEFINITION OF LEADERSHIP Chester Benard defined leadership as the ability of a Superior to influence the behaviour of subordinates and persuade them to follow a particular course of action (Benard 1938). According to (Pankaew, 2013) Leadership is the art of leading others to deliberately create a result that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. According to Alan Keith of Genetech cited by (UK essays n,d) states that “Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen.
More recent conceptualisations of leadership include contingency theory (), and transformational leadership (). Each of these theoretical models has a contribution to make in forming a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between leadership and organizational change and we shall explore how adopting a definition for leadership or organizational change infers the role of the other. However we define leadership, the concepts of organizational change and leadership can be argued to be inextricably linked. If a leader was not able to effect any change within an organization then it is hard to imagine a way in which such a leader could be effective in their role. Thus organizational change is at the very heart of a leader’s role.