What leadership means to me

What drawing cards substance to me1. entranceAlthough put up is admitd as universe an principal(prenominal) construct, it is non a theory that holds integrity single definition. What leading actually is, or how to secure it correctly is still regarded as a mystery by many. lead is or sothing that may differ depending on the people involved, the government agency at hand, and the goals being pursued, and is in that respectfore open to subjective interpretation. Stogdill (1974 259) concluded that there be to the highest degree as many definitions of attractionship as there argon individuals who gestate attempted to define the idea. It could be askd that everyone has their own arrest of what constitutes attractership, based on personal and learning acquaintances, and situations and people, which is exactly why it is difficult to capture in a succinct definition. Grint (2004) narrows down the key reasons as to why it is so difficult to keep a single and agreed saying of attractions surgical process problems, position problems, philosophy problems, and purity problems. These problems refer to whether leading is derived from traits or a social process, whether a leader is automatically in burgeon forth with formally allocated authority, and the questions as to whether a leader has intentional influence on the behaviour of dramatizeers, and is leading embodied in individuals or groups and is it a purely human phenomenon. This es verbalize seeks to explore what leaders means to me, drawing on personal experience of leadership as a social phenomenon, and discussing my views from the survey of some(prenominal) a leader and follower. In order to make superstar of my understanding of leadership, a critical review and commentary on leadership theory is included in the discussion. 2. Personal Experience of Leadership at heart the WorkplaceFor the past five years I arrive had a part time job at tag and Spencer, and thus deign across m any types of leaders and film directors. The question much asked is whether a conductor can automatically be assumed to overly be a leader? Zalenznik (1977) was one of the starting time to contrast leadership and focusing as he argued that a leader uses creativity and intuition, whereas a manager solves problems utilize rationality and control. Since then, many academics countenance agreed and argued that severe concern brings close a degree of order and consistency to schemeal processes and goals, whilst leadership is required for driving agitate (Kotter 1990 104 cited in Bolden 2004 6). In an organisation such as Marks and Spencer then, it is essential that they shake up both good management, who offer stability, consistency, order and efficiency, and good leaders who produce important change by keeping employees pore and motivated to get the vision overhauld. In my workplace, I would say we have good managers based on the above assumptions, until now, I would non say that every manager is in like manner a good leader. For this reason I agree with Kotter and Zalenznik, leadership and management differ from one another substantially. In the workplace context I am a follower, and so from this berth I have seen what I would count on to be good leadership, and myopic leadership directions. The authors who have focused on followers suggest that they be active participants in the leadership relationship (Boccialetti, 1995 Chaleff, 1995 Kelley, 1992 Shamir, Pillai, Bligh, Uhl-Bien, 2007). The socially constructed view sees leadership as being in the eye of the beholder where it is the followers who have to agree on what constitutes leadership, and who they are prepared to follow. If the followers, and in my personal situation fellow employees, do not respect the leader, it is unlikely they will follow at all. Unless followers recognise and orient to particular behaviours, which they regard to be leadership, then the person trying to lead is not a leader whatever their intentions. There is because no course for an individual to lead unless people are prepared to follow. There have been many instances at work when one particular manager has tried to lead change in the store, however because she is not well respected, and in my opinion does not come across as being a natural leader, often her vision gets ignored until another manager provides instructions for staff about the same vision. This manager is viewed by employees as having the aim of simply instilling discipline, completing administrative tasks, and organising the shop floor, rather than communicating visions for change. Further more, although I deliberate that the voices of managers and leaders are very various, in my job there are no visible leaders who are not managers in my store. The management aggroup automatically adjudge on the role of leadership, regardless of whether they are a good leader or not. As it is because management who attempt t o provide the visions and plans for change, and employees like my self have no responsibility or say in the directions they wish to parcel out. Uhl-Bien and Pillai (2007) argue that followers who perceive the leader as responsible for making decisions are less likely to take an active role in the decision making process, and so, they give up autonomy. Many of my fellow employees, who often do not enjoy the job, also expect the leader, in this instance our manager, to motivate them rather than motivating themselves. The managers recognise this and often offer incentives, such as a bottle of wine, if we achieve certain targets. This could therefore be fenceed to be transactional leadership. A typical way of describing leadership styles inside the organisation is applying McGregors (1969) theory X and theory Y. McGregor assumes that an organisation and its leaders can have differing opinions on the motivation and abilities of their employees. My line manager presumes that her staff d islikes working and takes a negative view of human nature, accept we will avoid doing work if possible. This is evident, as she will often garbled employees up on the shop floor to prevent them from chatting, and she constantly checks up on her staff to ensure they are doing what she has asked them to do. Her actions and leadership style harbour with what McGregor describes as theory X leaders. My manager call backs that coercion and control is indispensable to ensure that people work, and she never gives employees like myself any extra responsibilities. This style is also referred to as the autocratic style. Although my manager is assumed to be the leader at work, I would argue that she is not a good leader, and there have been times when I have had better guidance from a fellow colleague. My manager has a coercive style according to Golemans sestet leadership styles. She expects immediate compliance, often provides negative and corrective feedback and controls tightly. This style does not motivate employees to see her visions or follow her lead, instead it has often turned employees against her and people have refused to do certain tasks because of her leadership style. 3. Myself as a Leader Badminton Coach and CaptainFrom a young age I have been told that I am a natural leader, possibly because I am bossy and like to get things done Ever since I remember I have had certain personality traits, which I consider to be those of leaders I am confident, ambitious, dominant, and so naturally take the lead in most situations. Based on what I have learnt from leaders I have come across, when leading my badminton team I keep in mind what styles I believe will be most successful. I consider myself to be a transformational leader (Bass and Avolio 1994) when in the role of badminton captain. As a leader I believe it is important for me to have a clear vision, and most importantly, be able to communicate it effectively to the whole team. remote the traditional t ransactional theory of leadership, which emphasizes corrective action, change control and rewards only when performance presentiments are met, transformational leaders trust their subordinates and it is a more receivemental and constructive form of leadership. In a sports team context it is also important for me to articulate our teams goals, which should be realistic and achievable. For example, in the first place entering a tournament I will state where I expect us to finish, and that the vision is to win a gold medal. In order to achieve this goal I also have to motivate the team, and make sure they put the team and tournament at the hap of their priority list, above any other self-interests at that time. Additionally I have to get the team members to understand how their style of play affects others, therefore encouraging them to view their game from others perspectives. And finally I have to develop the team in many ways, both physically to prepare them for a big tournamen t, and mentally so they reach their highest levels of ability. It could therefore be argued, that as a leader I follow what Bass and Avolio (1990) call the tetrad Is Idealised Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualised Consideration. As a person I have previously been told that I am very charismatic. I imagine this also shows in my leadership style and I think I am also a charismatic leader. Northouse (2004) described the major(ip) characteristics as dominant personally with the desire to influence others, strong role model behaviour and competence, articulation of ideological goals with moral overtones, and high expectation of followers and confidence that they will meet these expectations. Although I believe I have the personality traits required to wrench a leader, I am aware that there have been occasions when my leadership styles have been unsuccessful, as I have become impatient or intolerant of the followers. From these experiences I believe I have learnt a lot and therefore also see the importance of situational leadership and having the ability to alter the leadership styles I adopt.4. Could Parents be considered to be Leaders?When considering leaders and leadership, and what it means to me, I vox populi about what my first experience of leadership ever was. Although leadership in an organisation is the key focus of the module and course, it cannot go ignored that my parents were the first influential leaders in my life. My parents have been very influential leaders in my life. As managing directors of their own company, they have always played the role of managers, however in our home their leadership style varied to that of in their work place, and to the styles of each other. My parents have led me in the right direction. Unlike the traditional theories of leadership such as The Great Man theory I would argue that my mum is the strongest leader in our home. It has been argued that women are more likely to use transformational leadership (Rosener 1990), and as the follower, this is the style I find motivational, inspirational and therefore successful. She uses more interactive leadership styles in compare to my dad as she encourages participation, power and information sharing and enhanced self worth. Although the leadership styles of parents are arguably very different to those of leaders within an organisation, my parents and their styles have had a massive influence on my understanding of leadership and on my whole life They have led me to where I am today. I have been extremely lucky to be able to experience their leadership styles whilst running their company, therefore within an organisation. In this situation they both use different methods of leading than they do at home, thus support Hersey and Blanchards (1969) theory that leaders could adapt their styles to suit the situation. Situational or contingent leadership models recognise this, and support the argument that what c onstitutes effective leadership will be influenced by the situational factors such as the people involved, the task to be carried out, and the organisational culture. It is therefore essential that leaders employ a variety of approach pathes across a range of situations. 5. ConclusionFrom taking the time to consider what leadership means to me, it has only become more apparent about how complex the concept of leadership actually is. I believe leadership is different to different people. Whom I consider to be an effective leader, others may not, and what I consider to be traits that create a successful leader, others may not. Leadership to me is something that comes naturally, however in different situations, there needs to be different forms of leadership in order for your followers to follow. Although there have been many studies on leadership, and many theories produced, I agree with Burns statement that leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on ear th. (Burns, 1978 3)5.1 My theoretical understanding of leadershipI have found it difficult to truly understand and specify my theoretical stance of leadership. Generally speaking, it is assumed that a person either believes that leadership is a consequence of a set of traits or characteristics possessed by leaders, or that leadership is a social process that emerges and is learned throughout life and from group relationships. I, on the other hand, believe there is truth in both approaches. I would argue that some people are simply born leaders due to their dispositions and personalities, however they also need to learn and understand how to use these traits to become a successful leader, hence leadership capability must also be partly learned. I have this opinion because of my experiences. I often become the leader in group task situations, at university for example, and although I survive it often comes naturally to me, I have had to learn how to use my leadership trait effectivel y in order to succeed and lead the followers. I agree with Gallies statement that Leadership appears to be, like power, an essentially contested concept (Gallie 1995 cited in Grint 2004 1). Furthermore, I have the same opinion of the situational leadership approach due to personal experiences with leaders, and as a leader myself. Zaccaro (2007), Sternberg (2007), and Vroom and Jago (2007) argue that neither trait nor situational attributes alone are sufficient to explain leader behaviour and effectiveness. It is the interaction between traits and situations that counts.