Organizational Culture And Leadership Effectiveness

A toxic leader can be defined as leader motivated by egocentrism, self-interest and show no concern for those below him, and his actions negatively affect the organizational climate. They exalt themselves in turf protection, fighting and controlling their followers instead of uplifting them. Toxic leaders are very destructive and they only focus on short term accomplishments and they destroy their followers to achieve those objectives. Their decisions are made hasty and they change their decisions without any justified rationale. Mostly, they lazy around only to make hasty decisions when it is too late and the crisis is already in place. Such decisions have no time to be thought over and therefore, they are continuously changed throughout implementation so as to work effectively and may even be altered completely thereby making the whole process messy (Seeger, 2005).

Leadership development in the military is critical to its mission and objectives. Understanding and embracing leadership will foster an agile culture and facilitate attainment of strategic goals. People desire quality leadership to assist with achieving their goals, albeit personal or professional development. Having a clear vision and the motivation to perform at high-levels influences others to work synergistically together to achieve organizational goals. Insomuch, employees value being treated respectfully, fairly, and ethically. Leaders serve people best when they help them develop their own initiative and good judgment, enable them to grow, and help them become better contributors.

This paper on Leadership will compare the primary differences and characteristics between the tactical leader and the organizational leader. I will provide you with the basics for development, characteristics, and the fundamentals that help guide and influence each leader’s style and how they influence Soldiers to follow them. Leaders at all levels demonstrate their values, knowledge, skills, and abilities in many different means and methods in

Poor leadership, or the more widely known phrase “toxic leadership”, has been a topic of concern throughout the history of the Army. The Army’s recently published leadership doctrine says that, “Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.” (ADP 6-22, 2012) There are many examples of leaders in recent years that have been relieved due to negative effects on their organizations. Poor leadership is commonly portrayed by telltale characteristics of those in leadership positions, revealed by detrimental effects on subordinates and mission accomplishment, and must be addressed through consistent education and

As an officer in the United States Army, it has been imperative for me to understand every facet of leadership and why it remains important to be an effective leader. During this course, I have learned some valuable lessons about myself as a leader and how I can improve on my leadership ability in the future. The journal entries along with the understanding of available leadership theories have been an integral part of my learning during this course. For all of the journals and assessments that I completed, I feel it has given me a good understanding of my current leadership status and my future potential as a leader. All of the specific assessments looked at several areas in regards to leadership; these assessments covered several

Toxic leadership and climate defines the critical leadership problem within 4th ABCT. In conjunction, a lack of care for Soldiers and their families, favoritism, SHARP issues, and hazing have caused a unit to lose all trust in the previous Command Team. To combat these issues I will develop and implement my vision and a way ahead for the BCT using the 7 Step Model. Furthermore, I will focus on specific portions of the Rocket Model, Organizational Culture “Iceberg”, and correcting the Five Dysfunctions of a Team to solve the problem.

In today’s business environment, leadership is a major topic of discussion and concern. Having the right leaders in place could be the difference between a successful business and unequivocal failure. There are many different leadership styles that are proven to be effective and then there is the type of leadership that leads a business in the opposite direction. This type of leadership is known as toxic leadership. Research has shown there to be many defining characteristics of a toxic leader and there are identifiable signs that may be indicative of a toxic workplace. The effects of this type of leadership and the environment that it creates can be far-reaching. However, there are ways to assist individuals with protecting themselves from a toxic leader and the negative results of working in a toxic environment.

Leadership is critical and it refers to the process of influencing followers towards achieving the groups’ goals. Toxic leadership refers to the leadership offered by leaders who abuse power and leave the group they lead in a poorer condition after they are left. Toxic leadership is associated with incompetence, insularity, evil, intemperance (lack of self control), callousness, rigidity and corruption among other bad leadership characters. The leaders involved in toxic leadership are not concerned about uplifting the people they lead (followers). Instead, they make sure they satisfy their self interests. They fight and control instead of caring for their followers. In most cases, the leaders with this leadership style are leaders who bully, abuse, and discriminate the subordinates. In addition, they create a hostile climate, self serving and arrogant, threaten and even yell at their followers among other fierce characters. They do not lead based on their qualifications. However, they apply force to be in leadership positions thus making the lives of their followers a misery . They are selfish in that they work to promote themselves without regard to the welfare of their followers. In most cases, do this by not minding about the future of their group and its members. This paper explores the effects of toxic leadership in the United States.

Leadership, according to the Army doctrine, represents individuals’ ability to influence people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization (“Leadership” FM 6-22). However, the varying characteristics of individuals that the Army attracts may instill this doctrine in many different ways, leading to different representations of leadership. Some individuals choose to lead their subordinate in a stern matter, only displaying matured emotions and a “tough-loving” attitude to guide them in the right direction. Others

Leaders that demonstrate a commitment to behaving in an ethical manner are viewed as trustworthy and subordinates gravitate toward them. Ethical leaders have a foundational belief in honesty and trustworthiness and disseminating these principles throughout the organization. This paper will present ethical leadership models as tools for merging diverse cultures into the existing organizational culture. An overview of which leadership models, styles, and traits are most commonly accepted as ethical across the greatest array of social cultures will be discussed. The paper will culminate with a selection of a particular leadership model as a tool for shaping organizational culture and the rationale for selecting that model.

Leaders are considered toxic when they promote a culture of division and fail to listen or work on employee concerns. It is important to distinguish between bad leaders and toxic leaders where the effect of the leader having on followers will determine this fact. Whereas, toxic leaders have long lasting psychological and physical effects on followers (Pelletier, 2010), and it can range from managerial incompetence to genocide (Ashforth, 1994; Reed, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005c). Toxic leadership causes harm to employees and negatively impacts organizational success (Ashforth, 1994; Tipper, 2007; Kusy & Holloway,

Toxic, bad, abusive, destructive, incompetent, and unethical all introduce the vocabulary of toxic leadership. This makes any discussion of the subject confusing and limited by the ongoing debate about what does and does not constitute the construct of toxic leadership. Certainly, the differences between such terms are beyond the scope of this proposal. However, some toxic leadership is global and violent such as genocide, while other toxicity is nonviolent and repeatedly experienced in organizational life. There is variation in toxic behaviors, and some attempts have been made to establish toxicity classifications of what is toxic leadership such as Pelletier (2009) which help identify behaviors rather than the toxic leader profiles used by

In today’s dynamic business environment leadership must understand the value and importance of their organizations’ culture. While it may never be formally defined, leadership must have a vision of their intended culture and a plan for creating and maintaining it. This vision will serve as the potter’s clay that determines everything from the dress code to the organizational structure. This paper examines two methods organizations can choose to create and maintain a healthy culture.

In any organization, the role of leadership effectiveness depends on either if he/she has total controls of the decision making process and supervises work done in the group called autocratic leadership style (Greenberg, p.456), if the leader has minimum supervision and allows group participation in decision making known as delegation leadership style (Greenberg, p.456) and lastly a leader who prefers half of each styles called participative leadership style. (Greenberg, p.456)

According to (Organic Workspaces, n. d) an organization’s culture refers to the observable, powerful forces in any organization, usually constituted by the employees’ shared values, beliefs, symbols, and behaviors. The organizational culture ideally influences its decisions and actions (Tharp, n. d). (Watkins, 2013) also defines organizational culture as a consistent and observable pattern of behavior in organizations. An organization’s culture channelizes individual decisions and actions at a subconscious level, and thus, can have a potent effect on an organization’s success. Organizational cultures facilitate the existence of a common ground for all stakeholders, particularly the employees and managers in addressing various issues within