Assessment Of An Organization Leader

There is a great importance put on business leadership, this is directly due to how a business not only functions but in how fruitful the company can become. A great leader essentially can take a business plan that is weak yet turn it into a success, whereas a poor leader stands a higher chance of ruining the best of business plans. That is why it is essential to develop effective leadership throughout a companies entire management program at all levels. How does one develop or retain strong leadership? Companies must be focused on hiring strategies that encompass very specific parameters, building from within whilst creating a strong foundation for employee development and succession planning. Leadership is essential in any organization. The style and theory embraced determines whether the company will or will not achieve their goals. in all cases theory must be embraced, as a companies theory, style, and strategy is greatly dependent on the industry the company is in (Sadler, 2014). “The behavioral theory is one of the widely used theories of management. It suggests that leaders are made and not born. It gives room for training to install leadership traits in leaders at the expense of denying them a chance. There are various leadership styles embraced by companies (Cyert, & March, 2005).”  This paper takes a look at the management styles of two specific

Coaching leaders help employees by identifying their unique strengths and weaknesses. They encourage employees to establish long-term goals. Coaching style is used least often because many leaders don’t have time to teach people and help them grow. Studies have shown that leaders who have mastered four our more especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative and coaching styles have the best climate and business performance. I believe in order to master the art of leadership we need to comprehensively understand human behavior and have the ability to adapt. Leadership styles can lead to different types of success, as mentioned in the article leadership will never be an exact science. But neither is it a complete mystery. I believe that the business environment is continually changing, all leaders have to respond. Leaders must know when to use the right style at the right time to gain success. Although not all skills are equally effective leaders could use multiple styles at one time to gain success. For example leaders could use the authoritative style to mobilize people towards a vision while at the same time creating bonds and harmony through the affiliative

Grojean, Resick & Diskson (2004) suggest that leaders are responsible for facilitating their follower’s to become capable and guide them to improving their capabilities and strengths. Differentiating between different leadership styles can be done in a number of ways. It was determined that the traditional styles of leaders include authoritian (autocratic), democratic, permissive (laissez-faire) and bureaucratic (Viinamäki, 2009).

A1. Leadership Style Upon conducting research, it is clear that the definition of “leadership” is not agreed upon. It is fluid, based upon many perceptions, situations, and surroundings. According to Robinson (2010), adopting a specific style of leadership is rather futile as it is, “contingent on the personal traits of the leader, the people being led, and the nature of the activity.” Tools are available to help guide potential leaders in determining a preferred style of leadership. For example, utilizing the “Leadership Self-Assessment

Leaders are some of the most influential individuals in any society. They have the ability to influence those around them with various leadership styles including coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. Effective leaders consistently adapt to the environment around them to either enhance or correct any situation facing them. Within these leadership styles the most effective style has been considered that of the authoritative style. This style brings individuals together, builds self-confidence, and easily adapts to the environment around it.

When we think about what a leader and manager is, most of us will use the same meaning. But in actual fact this is incorrect. We have to look at these two terms differently. What is a manager? A manager is someone who is responsible for directing and controlling the work and staff of a business, or of a department within the organization. So what is a leader? A leader is someone whom people follow, somebody who guides or directs others. Looking at both terms they both are very different. The question is always asked is a manager can be a leader and leader a manager. The true answer is managers are not always leaders, while leaders can be

As a graduate and employee of Eastern New Mexico University-Ruidoso (ENMU-Ruidoso), I have more than 14 years of experience with the organization. ENMU-Ruidoso is a young campus, having only three leaders in its 23 years. I have been fortunate enough to work with all three and have observed their different leadership styles and the impact those styles have had on the campus.

During this past week, I completed my leadership traits assessment and tallied the results from my friends and coworkers. This process was interesting because it has been several years since I have completed an activity like this one. My results were as follows, I received my highest ratings in being persistent, determined, trustworthy, dependable, friendly, diligent, and conscientious. On the other hand, my lowest scores are in self-confident, self-assured, and perceptive. These results were not surprising to me because they are developmental opportunities that I have been working to overcome. It was good to see that what my results are consistent with what I already knew.

There is strong sufficient evidence to support that practices in leadership have changed in the post bureaucratic era. Since the end of World War 2, leadership and it’s many forms have been altered to become even more bureaucratic through employee participation rather than task orientated. This has become a crucial pillar to society, but has possessed ethical concerns, not only in the world of political context, but also corporate structure in leadership including CEO’s all the way down to the supervisors. Winston, (2003) view’s leadership in society as sole individuals or groups of individuals who lead in different aspects of society such as organisations and politics. This includes one or more people who select, prepare, develop, and influence

Warren Bennis’ novel, On Becoming a Leader, is the book I was able to read. Bennis worked years on this novel constructing it off of one of his former creations. Finally, in Cambridge, Ma Bennis published his story by Perseus publishing. Throughout this book he centers around the search to understand exactly how leaders are made. Bennis uses a unique approach to portraying his opinion. This is not an ordinary “how to” book on becoming a leader. Nor is it an autobiography of one’s personal experience. Bennis was a teacher and student all his life, he has never run a country or even a company. Bennis is not directly reciting his own experiences as a leader. This paper outlines Bennis’ basic thoughts, theories, and his contributions to the field of leadership.

From Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela’s charisma, to Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King’s intelligence and Steve Jobs’ analytical nature, there can be as numerous ways to lead as there are leaders (Crossman, 2010). Leadership is a hot debate both in the business world and other areas of the society. Throughout the world's, there have been as many leadership models as there have been their commentators (Burns & Peltason, 1966). Fortunately, psychologists and businesspersons have established useful frameworks that refer to the main ways of leadership.

When we analyze the success of large corporations like Ford, General Electric and International Business Machines, it is evident that they had series of leaders who were visionary and believed in empowerment of people. When we analyze tough phases of a company or companies that had a fall and ultimate demise, we clearly see a linkage between failure of company and absence of effective leadership (Canwell, Dongrie, Neveras, & Stockton, 2014). The successful organization had leaders who made right decisions at right time and implemented them strategically. The implementation part needs excellent human resources and the ability to lead to them to get the task done. While different situations may need different style of leadership, the sophisticated manpower fueled by technological advancements and globalization have made some leadership styles less effective and some leadership styles to be highly effective (Feser, Mayol, & Srinivasan, 2014). This paper will discuss a tough situation faced in one of my former organization. The organization needed a different leadership style to tide over the falling sales and attrition. Three different leadership styles, their pros and cons, and the likely success in solving the problem will be discussed in this paper.

Who are more effective leaders’ managers or informal leaders? Both possess the quality to lead and while some have positional power to effectively lead they lack the qualities that make them desirable leaders. Every job or position has a host of bosses and different figureheads that guide the overall mission of the organization. Some have only positional power and are people you don’t want guiding others and on the other hand there are people who have no actual authority to lead but you want on your team because they possess the qualities that make them natural leaders that people want to follow. In this paper I will be discussing the differences between the two, the qualities that define both and why having an informal leader will actually make any organization run smoother. I will also be making the case that informal leaders while not necessarily chosen by their organization actually wield an unprecedented influence over their organization.

An effective leader influences their employees in a desired manner to achieve goals and objectives. Different leadership styles can affect an organization’s effectiveness and performance. The objective of this paper is to analyze the review of literature on various leadership styles over the past years and how effective and ineffective different leadership styles are in the workplace.

Traditional leadership began during the Industrial Era (IE) when businesses focused on producing the most product in the least amount of time by standardizing processes (Baker, 2014). Creative problem-solving was not necessary during the IE environment and therefore could support chain-of-command hierarchies where a foreman said what to do, and the workers performed the task (Baker, 2014). Traditional leadership built America. Eventually, tasks became more complex, and the need for creative problem-solving entered the office. With the new requirements came a new way of leader performance. Empowerment, trust, and influence are words in the vocabulary of competent leaders (Tost et al., 2013). Examples of famous figureheads in this category include John D. Rockefeller, Lorne Michaels, Bill Gates, and Howard Schultz (Gill, 2014; Spahr, 2016).