Four V 's Of Leadership

Sims (2002) writes “managers motivate employees, direct the activities of others, select the most effective communication channel, or resolve conflicts among members, they are engaging in leading.”

A consultative style encourages discussion with the team; the leader presents the situation or problem and may possibly suggest a provisional decision. They then invite discussion about it and get suggestions and ideas, the leader then decides. Positives of this style include group synergy ‘none of use is as clever as all of us’, and acknowledgment that the team has something to contribute to the decision-making process. Disadvantages of this style could include slower decision making due to consultation, and the expectation of the team or individuals that they will always be consulted.

Leadership is a facet of management. It is just one of the many assets a successful manager must possess. The main aim of a manager is to maximize the output of the organization through administrative implementation. To achieve this managers must undertake the four functions of management: planning, organization, leading and controlling. In some cases leadership is just one important component of the leading function. Predpall (1994) said, "Leaders must let vision, strategies, goals, and values be the guide-post for action and behavior rather than attempting to control others". In some circumstances, leadership is not required. For example, self-motivated groups may not require a single leader and may find leaders dominating. The fact that a leader is not always required proves that leadership is just an asset and is not essential.

Followers help in problem solving techniques within a team or unit. Being able to create the unity within a team or unit, overcoming certain political issues that could have rigorous effects on its community.

This voice often refers to the ability to speak up and out about wages and working conditions without fear of reprisals. This voice is represented in the statement as follows:

Understanding the difference and similarities between managers and leaders can be enlightening. Managers develop and manage plans that impact the strategic vision of an organization while leaders set strategic visions for the organization. Managers establish plans, support strategic plans, and organizational objectives. Managers also evaluate and track the achievement of tactical plans that have been assigned to specific staff. While on the other hand leaders motivate staff to achieve the object and task set forth. Managers serve as problem solvers. Managers are the people who assign resources to groups. On the hand leaders serve as persuasive change agents.

Quoted by Ronald Reagan “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.” A manager gets things done via planning and delegation. Tasks are usually assigned and results are obtained by other efforts. A leader gets things done by holding a vision, modeling behaviors and usually have very inspiring actions. A manager is defined as, “An individual who is in charge of a certain group or tasks” (Business Dictionary). A leader is defined as “The person who leads or commands a group, organizations” (Business Dictionary).

Much has been written about the difference between management and leadership. In the past, competent management staffs ran effective companies. In light of our ever-changing world, however, most companies have come to realize that it is much more important to lead than to manage. In today's world the old ways of management no longer work. One reason is that the degree of environmental and competitive change we are experiencing is extreme. Although exciting, the world is also very unstable and confused. In an article entitled What’s the Difference between Your Hospital and the Other? Gary Campbell states that the difference between a manager and a leader is that the manager “finds himself quite willing to

Management has changed significantly over the past 50 years. The role of leaders in an organization is an ever changing thing. At one point, a manager was also the owner of the company, and thus used a carrot and a stick to get his employees to work, just like a parent personally invested in the raising of their child. Not anymore. Nowadays, leaders are there to “serve” their employees. The focus is on motivating the individual, achieving organizational goals by integrating each and every individual into the system. We no longer rely on a one size fits all approach, and management theory is no longer focused on having a winning philosophy, or motivating large groups.

As a good follower, I need to accept responsibility and I need to be aware of the tasks that I have to take on. I have to readily support my leader at all times and I should be able to voice my opinions to my leader in a very supportive way. Leaders can only lead an organization successfully if they have personalities that appeal to their followers. The individual reflection and big five

Management and leadership are viewed as two different perspectives in the business environment. As described by Dr. Warren Bennis ‘Managers are people who do things right, while leaders are people who do the right thing’, this means that managers do things by the set rules and follow company policy, while leaders follow their own intuition, which may in turn be of more benefit to the company.

In corporate America the term used to describe a person in a position of power is “Manager”. A leader can be a manager, but a manager is not necessarily a leader. Leaders motivate, challenge, and influence others to achieve goals. Great leaders have the necessary skills and attributes which allow them to connect with the team and organization. Being a leader is not the same as managing an organization. Leader’s posses the interpersonal skills needed to influence others to achieve a goal willingly. Leading is a major part of a manager’s job. Leaders do not need to be a manager to lead people, but managers must know how to lead as well as manage.

As a graduate student approaching her final semester in school, thoughts regarding my leadership abilities in the soon-to-be “real world” have occupied my mind lately. To further explore and develop my ideas about leadership, I decided to develop my personal leadership theory. So, I asked myself the following questions: What makes a successful leader? How do you recognize a leader when you meet one?, and lastly, what is my theory of leadership? With this last question I thought about what leadership meant to me personally and how I personified it in a role of authority. While I had given thought to how I led, I had rarely taken the time to fully understand what my personal leadership theory entailed. Throughout the length of this paper I will analyze how my leadership skills, traits, values and elements from both Authentic Transformational theories help me to shape my leadership philosophy. In doing so I hope to define the leadership values that influence the way I view and practice leadership.

The leader’s job is to overcome resistance and make things flow in a different direction. His or her job is to create a different reality.” (Hyatt, 2010) Leadership has been around since the beginning of time. There has always been a leader of some sort, ensuring a group is heading in the right direction.

A leader performs five basic functions: Planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling. At all the levels of being a leader the leader have to be able to perform one or more of these leadership functions. Most leaders’ main role is to achieve effective utilization of resources in an organization. He/she achieves so through coordinated human efforts. A leader has a very important role to play in achieving organizational objectives. Everyone is responsible for aligning the individual's objectives with the organizational objectives. This is very essential for achieving long-term organizational success. Most U.S. leaders feel as if effective leadership is a personal role that requires the blending of