Leadership Approaches Of Leadership And Leader Member Exchange

The intention of this paper is to introduce my leadership philosophy. I will start off defining leadership as well as explaining my leadership philosophy. I will then share a summary of an interview with a Squadron Commander about a difficult situation that he needed to use his philosophy to work through and analyze how my philosophy applies to the same situation followed by a brief summary.

Collective leadership is a recent concept of leadership where individuals are given authority in their own work areas of an organisation which empowers them. Collective leadership is opposite to the well-known system in which members of an organisation or society are ranked according to relative status or authority: As effective

Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 933-958. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.008

Leadership is the elaboration of group inspiration. One person entrusted as leader can implore the aid, and support of supporters in the accomplishment of a common mission. According to Gurdjian, Halbeisen, and Lane “Becoming a more effective leader often requires changing behavior. But although most companies recognize that this also means adjusting underlying mind-sets, too often these organizations are reluctant to address the root causes of why leaders act the way they do” (Gurdjian, Halbeisen, and Lane, 2014) However, today abundant businesses engross importance on the improvement of leaders. Some of the ultimate leaders were formerly followers, such as in instructive businesses. One aspect as leaders many have to contemplate in striving

Joseph Raelin (2016), a Northeastern University professor of management and organization development, recently published the article “Rethinking Leadership.” He said, “Leadership is really not about the leaders themselves. It’s about the collective practice among people who work together— accomplishing the choices we make together in our mutual work” (Raelin,

In leadership, leaders get his power from his group members. He proceeds in this position at the pleasure of members in his group collectively. The position of leadership exists in most settings regardless of group size. For instance, a leader of national or universal standing has vast influence over an expansive number of individuals while the influence of small group in a company is extremely constrained. Both are leaders in their own right and satisfy our definition of

Classical organisational theorist defined leadership in terms of achieving a group’s objectives R.C Davies (1942) referred to leadership as “the principle dynamic forces that motivates and coordinates the organisation in the accomplishment of its objectives.” Similarly, Urwick (1953) stated that the leader is “the personification of common purpose not only to all who work under taking, but to everyone outside it.” K. Davies (1962) defined leadership as “the human factor which binds a group together and motivates it towards goals.” Cattell (1951) took the extreme position that leadership is whatever or whoever contributes to the group’s performance. To measure each members Leadership, Cattell noted, removed him or her from the group, one at a time, and observe what happens to the group’s performance. Calder (1977) and Pfeffer (1977) “stated that leadership is mainly influence and is even attributed to participants after the fact.

Leadership can take many different forms, depending on the person and the situation in which it is needed. Collaborative leadership is a leadership style in which a leader brings together a large group of people, with a variety of backgrounds, to make a productive decision and act upon it. According to Chrislip and Larson (1994):

Leadership is a process of influencing activities of a particular group of people with the aim of attaining certain stipulated goals. In defining leadership there is need to consider a particular group, the common goals and the duties that are allocated to specific members of the group depending on their abilities (Fiedler 1976). Leadership therefore cannot successfully occur unless members of the group are given different considerations in terms of personality, traits and responsibilities. In considering leadership, it is important to look at the leader, the group or organization they are leading, the members as individuals and the situation; these are

In such leadership models, leaders work with other people (always their subjects or inferiors) to achieve a common good. Often, the common good might be a competitive advantage in business, brand identity, community support or expansion and growth of the business (Crossman, 2010). Additionally, to these collaborative approaches leaders seek to ensure that their employees are involved in decision making to make a contribution and bring impact in their specific departments (Burns & Peltason, 1966).

Beginning in boot camp and continuing throughout my career, I’ve seen the Coast Guard promote the leadership model to be: “You” influencing “Others” to achieve a “Goal”. With all the different ways leadership can be defined, this simplistic model which has been permanently engrained in my thinking definition still rings true for me. As such, when defining my own personal definition of leadership, I align it to this same model. More specifically, while I support the fact that leadership involves influencing others to achieve a common end I propose that is not the whole story. Leaders must not be stagnant in their vision and must lend themselves to the possibility they may have to adjust their leadership styles depending on the goal. The best leaders are the ones that understand their own personality traits as well as those traits of the people they are trying to lead.

Leadership has been studied extensively and many varying definitions exist. Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy (2015, p.4) review many of these definitions and consequently describe leadership as ‘the process of influencing an organised group towards its goals’. Leadership involves the interplay of a range of different factors, not least the leader themselves, the followers and the situation. For

The author introduced the article with an abstract that provided a brief summary of main points as well as the outlook developed by the article. It is evident from the abstract that the article explores a multi-theory integrated approach that consolidates classic leadership theories into one feasible framework that is based on findings from both past and present research on leadership. The abstract mirrored the article and in the proper form; the reader can understand the article’s overall objective from the abstract and can therefore whether or not to continue reading.

Conventionally, leadership had been long assumed to be thought of the following of a group or many a groups under a single leader, as described in Peter Gronn 's article "Distributed Leadership as a unit of analysis.” However, according to Gronn, this traditional form of thinking where one person or unit rules all (“leadership is basically doing what the leader wants done”) is faulty and ultimately leads to a counterproductive performance from the group as a whole, as everything falls upon one layer of responsibility. In addition, he identifies three major chinks in the solo-style leadership model’s armor: the almost-too simplistic dualism of the “leader-follower” set-up; the exact qualifications of what constitutes a leader and said leader’s leadership (which harkens back to the classic English idiom, “Who died and made you king?”); and anti-leadership, which as its name suggests, is the dismay of the idea of any form of necessary leadership. Rather, what the article suggests is leaning towards the opposite end of the spectrum; a multilayered infrastructure of leadership and command - a “distributed leadership.” What is distributed leadership, exactly? "Distributed Leadership for learning and teaching is a leadership approach in which collaborative working is undertaken between individuals who trust and respect each other’s contribution. It occurs as a result of an open culture within and across an institution. It is an approach in which reflective practice is an integral

Shared collective and leader-member exchange (LMX) represent two types of leadership approaches utilized in organizations. Each approach represents a different set of relationships between leaders and followers and the impact the relationship has on organizational outcomes. Baghai and Quigley (2012) write the definition of leadership has continued to evolve and symbolizes different concepts such as productivity, purpose, and people. This paper will explore both the shared collective approach and the leader-member exchange approach and the relevance of each approach to current organizations.